DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 22-28, in the reply filed on 21 July 2025 was previously acknowledged and made final.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation (or effective cancellation) of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
In the 26 December 2025 response, claims 10-21 were amended to be readable on the elected invention of Group II. Thus, they are no longer withdrawn and are examined below.
Rejoinder will be considered when appropriate.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slit and door must be shown (and labeled) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant is unable to find support for the newly added claim limitation “the slit extends a distance that is greater than a diameter of the semiconductor wafer”. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 17 recites “further comprising” language, but it is not clear to what claimed feature the language is meant to refer. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “wherein the apparatus further comprises” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 20 recites “further comprising” language, but it is not clear to what claimed feature the language is meant to refer. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “wherein the apparatus further comprises” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 21, line 3 recites “gas”. However, “a purge gas” is previously recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the two instances mentioned were meant to refer to “the purge gas” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 21, line 3 recites “homogenous gas curtain”. However, “a gas curtain” is previously recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the two instances mentioned were meant to recite “the gas curtain, which is a homogenous gas curtain, travels” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22, line 6 recites “a semiconductor wafer”. However, “a semiconductor wafer” is previously recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the two instances mentioned were meant to refer to “the semiconductor wafer” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22, lines 7-8 and line 13 recites “the gas”. However, “a purge gas” is previously recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the two instances mentioned were meant to refer to “the purge gas” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22, lines 12-13 recites “a gas curtain”. However, “a gas curtain” is previously recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the two instances mentioned were meant to refer to “the gas curtain” and has examined accordingly.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested. Examiner also kindly requests Applicant’s assistance in double-checking any existing or future claim language for clarity in order to expedite examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16-18, 20-24 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0153807 to Balasubramanyam et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,741 to Kroeker et al. and JP Pub. No. 2003/109993 to Yaguchi et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 22: In Figs. 1-3B, Balasubramanyam et al. disclose an apparatus for protecting a semiconductor wafer from contamination substantially as claimed and comprising: a tunnel (e.g., Fig. 2A, plurality of structures) having a first portion (e.g. top portion/s surface of 120) and a second portion (e.g. bottom portion/s surface of 120) opposite the first portion, the tunnel having an opening (e.g., 120) defining a transport path for transporting the semiconductor wafer from a first side (e.g., corresponding to Fig. 1, 116) to a second side (e.g. corresponding to 100) of the tunnel, or vice versa, the opening being between the first portion and the second portion and in communication with a channel (212) via a slit (204 and 214) and the slit being laterally defined by a wall (e.g., surrounding wall portions of slit, e.g. lower lateral wall portions of 202), the channel extending from a first end (first lateral side near 206) to a second end (second and opposite lateral side) of the first portion and configured to receive a gas from at least one of the first end and the second end (via hole 206); and a cover (208) that appears to be configured to be removably fastened (i.e. by insertion) to the tunnel along the channel, wherein, during operation, a purge gas is capable of being directed through the channel to form a gas curtain (via 204) from the first portion towards the second portion such that it impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer that is transported along the transport path from the first side through the opening to the second side.
Additionally, Balasubramanyam et al. disclose an accompanying method for protecting a semiconductor wafer from contamination substantially as claimed and comprising: directing a purge gas through the channel of the apparatus of Balasubramanyam et al. to form the gas curtain; and transporting the semiconductor wafer (102) along the transport path (i.e. between 116 and 110) such that the gas curtain impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer when the gas is directed through the channel from the first portion towards the second portion to form the gas curtain. Also, see, e.g., para. 3.
Balasubramanyam et al. fail to explicitly disclose the cover is removably fastened to the tunnel along the channel.
Kroeker et al. providing an apparatus for treating a semiconductor having a tunnel with a removable lid for the purpose of providing manual access to switches associated with a controller and allowing a cleaning operation to be performed (see, e.g., Figs. 6A-C, 236 and column 6, rows 55 through column 7, row 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the cover removably fastened to the tunnel along the channel in order to providing manual access to switches associated with a controller and allowing a cleaning operation to be performed as taught by Kroeker et al.
Balasubramanyam et al. fail to disclose the channel configured to receive the purge gas from the first end and the second end, wherein the tunnel defines a first hole configured to feed the purge gas to the first end of the channel and a second hole configured to feed the gas to the second end of the channel.
Yaguchi et al. teach providing a tunnel including a channel (Figs. 1-4, 24) extending from a first end to a second end of the tunnel and configured to receive a gas from both the first end and the second end, wherein the tunnel defines a first hole (28) configured to feed the purge gas to the first end of the channel and a second hole (also 28) configured to feed the gas to the second end of the channel for the purpose of uniformly removing particles on the surface of the semiconductor wafer while the semiconductor is transferred (see, e.g. abstract and translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the channel configured to receive a gas from both the first end and the second end, wherein the tunnel defines a first hole configured to feed the purge gas to the first end of the channel and a second hole configured to feed the gas to the second end of the channel in order to uniformly remove particles on the surface of the semiconductor wafer while the semiconductor is transferred as taught by Yaguchi et al.
With respect to claim 11, modified Balasubramanyam et al. fail to disclose the first and second holes are defined in the first side. However, this is viewed as a mere rearrangement of parts wherein the courts have ruled the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). At this time, there is no evidence that the operation would be modified.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the tunnel includes a recess (unnumbered, e.g., recess/ledge supporting top horizontal portion of cover 208) on an exterior of the first portion for receiving the cover.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the channel (212) is disposed in the recess (e.g., internally located/located in with respect to the channel when viewed from a top cross-sectional view such as Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al., the wall appears to be at least substantially perpendicular to the transport path such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide it as such in modified Balasubramanyam et al.
With respect to claim 16, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al., the channel appears to extend at least substantially perpendicular to the transport path such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide it as such in modified Balasubramanyam et al.
With respect to claims 17-18, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the semiconductor wafer is transported from a first module (e.g., process chamber [100]) adjacent the first side of the tunnel, and a second module (a transfer chamber [116]) adjacent the second side of the tunnel such that when the semiconductor wafer is transported through the opening it travels from the first module to the second module. Note: In Balasubramanyam et al., [116] may be a transfer chamber or a load lock chamber (see, e.g., paras. 18-19).
With respect to claim 20, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Yaguchi et al. disclose the apparatus further comprising a door (34) to close the opening.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. the first portion is a top portion, and the second portion is a bottom portion such that when gas is directed through the channel the gas curtain, which is a homogenous gas curtain, travels from the top portion towards the bottom portion.
Additionally, with respect to claim 21, modified Balasubramanyam et al. fails to explicitly disclose the slit extends a distance that is greater than a diameter of the semiconductor wafer. However, as no specific size is claimed for the slit or the semiconductor wafer, a semiconductor wafer could be selected to meet this limitation as claimed.
With respect to claim 23, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Kroeker et al. disclose the cover is removed before or after the gas curtain is formed and the tunnel is cleaned along the channel.
With respect to claim 24, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the gas curtain impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer at an angle of 90 degrees. See, e.g., Figs. 2A and 2B. Note:
With respect to claim 27, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the semiconductor wafer is transported from a transfer chamber (116) to a process chamber (100) or a lock chamber adjacent to the tunnel.
With respect to claim 28, in modified Balasubramanyam et al., Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the gas curtain is directed away (i.e. downwards) from the process chamber or the lock chamber.
Claim(s) 15, 19, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Balasubramanyam et al. as applied to claims 10-14, 16-18, 20-24 and 27-28 above, and further in view of JP Pub. No. 3955592.
Modified Balasubramanyam et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Balasubramanyam et al. fail to explicitly disclose at least a portion of the wall is beveled opposite the process chamber or load lock chamber such that the gas curtain impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer at an angle not equal to 90 degrees (and/or counter to a direction the semiconductor wafer is being transported along and/or such that the gas curtain directs particles away from the process chamber or load lock chamber).
‘592 teaches providing a gas curtain (formed by 10) that impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer at an angle not equal to 90 degrees or counter to a direction the semiconductor wafer being transported along by providing nozzles/holes with beveled/oblique walls for the purpose of preventing outside air and/or particles from entering a processing chamber (see, e.g., translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the gas curtain of Balasubramanyam et al. impinges the surface of the semiconductor wafer at an angle not equal to 90 degrees or counter to a direction the semiconductor wafer is being transported along in order to prevent outside air and/or particles from entering a processing chamber as taught by Carpenter et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USP 5,683,516 teaches using a plurality of holes or a single elongated linear hole as gas introduction means for introducing a substrate. USP Pub. 2017/0256424 discloses a tunnel having a gas injection means that may be optimized according to a plurality of factors including injection means surface angles and associated flow angles. USP Pub. 2003/0159780 discloses a tunnel configured to receive a purge gas from a first end and a second end. USP Pub. 2010/discloses an angled gas curtain at a tunnel.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716