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
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 22, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search or examination burden for examining both Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because the groups of claims are classified in different locations. Furthermore the method does not require all the structural features of the claims therefore the scope of the search would be different.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0064545 A1) in view of Todorov et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,297,611).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa et al. teach a transfer chamber (Paragraph 0060 – transfer chamber 500) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Paragraph 0005 – semiconductor) the transfer chamber (Paragraph 0060 – transfer chamber 500) comprising: an internal volume (Fig. 7); one or more sidewalls at least partially defining the internal volume (Fig. 7); a transfer apparatus (Paragraph 0071 – robot 511) disposed in the internal volume, the transfer apparatus comprising: one or more links (Figs. 7, 2A), and one or more substrate holders coupled to the one or more links (Fig. 2A, Fig. 7); a window comprising a transparent material (Paragraphs 0069, 0070 – transparent window 512); and one or more heat sources (Paragraph 0071 – induction heating 509) configured to direct heat into the internal volume through the window (Paragraph 0070-0072).
The difference between Ishikawa et al. and claim 1 is that one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links is not discussed. (Claim 1)
Regarding one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links (Claim 1), Todorov et al. teach one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Todorov et al. is that it allows for imparting motion to the robot linkages. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ishikawa et al. by utilizing the features of Todorov et al. because it allows for imparting motion to the robot linkages.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0262035 A1) in view of Todorov et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,297,611) and Kraus et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,558,509) and Raaijmakers (U.S. Pat. 6,108,937).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Merry et al. teach a transfer chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the transfer chamber comprising an internal volume, one or more sidewalls at least partially defining the volume, a transfer apparatus disposed in the internal volume, the transfer apparatus comprising one or more links, one or more substrate holders coupled to the one or more links; a heat station within the transfer chamber volume and a cooling station within the chamber volume. (Paragraphs 0034-0035; Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
506
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Ishikawa et al. and claim 1 is that one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links is not discussed (Claim 1) and a window comprising a transparent material and one or more heat sources configured to direct heat into the internal volume through the window is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links (Claim 1):
Todorov et al. teach one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Todorov et al. is that it allows for imparting motion to the robot linkages. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
Regarding a window comprising a transparent material and one or more heat sources configured to direct heat into the internal volume through the window (Claim 1):
Merry et al. teach a heating location as discussed above. (See Merry et al. discussed above)
Kraus et al. teach suggest heating via a transparent window and one or more heat sources to direct heat into the internal volume through the window. (Fig. 2; Column 5 lines 1-12; Column 7 lines 28-40)
It would be obvious to modify Merry et al.’s heating station with the features of Kraus et al. because it allows heating the workpiece.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kraus et al. is that it allows for heating the workpiece. (Column 5 lines 1-12; Column 7 lines 28-40)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising one or more cooling stations disposed in the internal volume, each of the one or more cooling stations comprising:
a support frame; a cooling substrate supported by the support frame; and one or more lift devices configured to raise and lower the cooling substrate relative to the support frame is not discussed. (Claim 2)
Regarding claim 2:
Merry et al. teach further comprising one or more cooling stations disposed in the internal volume. (See Merry et al. discussed above)
Raaijmakers teach that a cooling station can comprise a support frame (chamber wall 54 interpreted as a support frame as it supports the cooling member); a cooling substrate (cooling member 64) supported by the support frame(chamber walls 54) ; and one or more lift devices (Actuator 68) configured to raise and lower the cooling substrate relative to the support frame. (Figs. 4A, 4B)
PNG
media_image2.png
460
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to modify Merry et al.’s cooling station with the features of Raaijmakers al. because it allows cooling the workpiece.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Raajimakers et al. is that it allows for cooling the workpiece. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the support frame comprises one or more cooling channels.
Regarding claim 3, Raaijmakers teaches a support frame (chamber wall 54). Raaijmakers teaches that chamber walls can be cooled by forced fluid via liquid coolant through the walls. (implying cooling channels) (Column 4 lines 13-16 - Forced fluid (e.g., forced air and/or circulated liquid coolant) actively cool the walls 18, 19 by convection, aiding to keep the walls 18,19 than the susceptor 12 or wafer 14 housed within the chamber 10.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the transfer apparatus further comprises a rotatable base, and the window and the one or more cooling stations are aligned radially between the rotatable base and the one or more sidewalls.
Regarding claim 4:
Merry et al. teach in Fig. 3 a robot with a rotatable base that can place the substrate on the heating or cooling stations which are aligned radially between the rotatable base and the one or more sidewalls. (See Merry et al. Fig. 3)
Kraus et al. suggest a window above a heating station as discussed above. (See Kraus et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Todorov et al. is that it allows for imparting motion to the robot linkages. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kraus et al. is that it allows for heating the workpiece. (Column 5 lines 1-12; Column 7 lines 28-40)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Raajimakers et al. is that it allows for cooling the workpiece. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Merry et al. by utilizing the features of Todorov et al. and Kraus et al. and Raaijmakers because it allows for moving the robot so that the wafer can be heated or cooled.
Claim(s) 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. in view of Todorov et al. and Kraus et al. and Raaijmakers as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Prasad et al. (U.S. 2022/0028712 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cooling substrate comprises silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 5, Kraus et al. teach a cooling substrate that can be a ceramic. (Column 6 lines 40-45) Prasda et al. teach the cooling substrate can be made of silicon carbide. (Paragraph 0039)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the transparent material of the window comprises quartz.
Regarding claim 6, Kraus et al. teach the transparent material of the window comprises quartz. (Column 5 lines 8-12)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Prada et al. is that it allows for control of the temperature. (Column 6 lines 40-45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Prada et al. because it allows for control of the temperature.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. in view of Todorov et al. and Kraus et al. and Raaijmakers as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Kroetz et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0273826 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more substrate holders comprise a body and a plurality of substrate supports inserted at least partially into the body and comprising silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 7, Kroetz et al. teach wherein the one or more substrate holders comprise a body and a plurality of substrate supports inserted at least partially into the body and comprising silicon carbide. (Fig. 1, 2A – body 102, supports 108; Paragraph 0036 – silicon carbide)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein each of the plurality of substrate supports comprises: an inner segment; and one or more fins extending outwardly relative to the inner segment, wherein each of the inner segment and the one or more fins comprises the silicon carbide (SiC).
Regarding claim 8, Kroetz et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of substrate supports comprises: an inner segment; and one or more fins extending outwardly relative to the inner segment, wherein each of the inner segment and the one or more fins comprises the silicon carbide (SiC). (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0036 – silicon carbide)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the body has a first thermal conductivity that is lesser than a second thermal conductivity of the cooling substrate.
Regarding claim 11:
Kroetz et al. teach the body has a first thermal conductivity. (i.e. stainless steel) (Paragraph 0030)
Kraus et al. teach a cooling substrate that can be a ceramic. (Column 6 lines 40-45) Prasda et al. teach the cooling substrate can be made of silicon carbide. (Paragraph 0039)
The combination of references therefore suggest the body has a first thermal conductivity that is lesser than a second thermal conductivity of the cooling substrate.
The motivation for utilizing Kroetz et al. is that it allows for using substrate supports that can readily be replaced when worn. (Paragraph 0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Kroetz et al. because it allows for using substrate supports that can readily be replaced when worn.
Claim(s) 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. in view of Todorov et al. and Kraus et al. and Raaijmakers and further in view of Kroetz et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11 above, and further in view of Mayusumi et al. (EP 1189264 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the body of the one or more substrate holders comprises: a plurality of arms defining a support face, the plurality of arms having an arm thickness, and the plurality of arms comprising quartz (SiO₂).
Regarding claim 9:
Kroetz et al. teach herein the body of the one or more substrate holders comprises: a plurality of arms defining a support face, the plurality of arms having an arm thickness and made of ceramic (i.e. covers quartz). (Figs. 1, 2A, Paragraph 0030)
Mayusumi et al. teach that the substrate holder and arm should be of quartz. (Paragraph 0045)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cooling substrate has a substrate thickness that is larger than the arm thickness.
Regarding claim 10, Kroetz et al. teach an arm thickness in Fig. 2A. (See Fig. 2A) Raaijmakers teach wherein the thickness of the cooling substrate. (Fig. 4A)
The combination of these references suggest wherein the cooling substrate has a substrate thickness that is larger than the arm thickness.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Mayusumi et al. is that it allows for providing transfer components that are heat resistant and provide cleanliness. (Paragraph 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Mayusumi et al. because it allows for providing transfer components that are heat resistant and provide cleanliness.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0064545 A1) in view of Todorov et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,297,611) and Peng et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,177,146) and Merry et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0262035 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Ishikawa et al. teach a system applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, the system comprising a transfer chamber (Paragraph 0060 – transfer chamber 500) comprising: an internal volume (Fig. 7); one or more sidewalls at least partially defining the internal volume (Fig. 7); a transfer apparatus (Paragraph 0071 – robot 511) disposed in the internal volume, the transfer apparatus comprising: one or more links (Figs. 7, 2A), and one or more substrate holders coupled to the one or more links (Fig. 2A, Fig. 7); a window comprising a transparent material (Paragraphs 0069, 0070 – transparent window 512); and one or more heat sources (Paragraph 0071 – induction heating 509) configured to direct heat into the internal volume through the window (Paragraph 0070-0072), a deposition chamber interfacing with the transfer chamber (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0028, 0029).
Ishikawa et al. teaches the steps of:
moving the substrate holder to align the substrate holder with one or more fields of heating of the one or more heat sources (Paragraph 0040, 0039-0041, 0071 – moving the substrate through the transfer chamber aligns the substrate holder (i.e. carrier) with the inductive heating elements at least for a moment in time);
powering the one or more heat sources to heat at least a portion of the substrate holder for a heating period to a target heating temperature (Paragraph 0071 – powering the induction heating sources to heat the substrates and holder (i.e. carrier) for a period of time when traveling through the transfer chamber)
after the heating of the substrate holder to the target heating temperature, moving the substrate holder into a processing volume of the deposition chamber (Paragraph 0039-0041, Claim 18 – moving the substrates and substrate holder (i.e. carrier) into a processing volume for deposition. The target temperature being at a temperature close to the deposition temperature);
engaging a substrate in the deposition chamber with the substrate holder; and moving the substrate out of the processing volume while the substrate is supported on the substrate holder (Paragraph 0039-0041 – after processing the robot assembly picks up the carrier plate and substrates to move to another chamber)
The difference between Ishikawa et al. and claim 20 is that one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links is not discussed (Claim 20), one or more thermal sensors configured to detect a thermal condition is not discussed (Claim 20), a controller comprising instructions that execute the process (Claim 20).
Regarding one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links (Claim 1), Todorov et al. teach one or more motors configured to pivot the one or more links. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Todorov et al. is that it allows for imparting motion to the robot linkages. (Column 3 lines 38-67; Column 4 lines 1-13, 31-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
Regarding the one or more thermal sensors configured to detect a thermal condition (Claim 20), Peng et al. teach utilizing thermal sensors to monitor temperatures of a substrate and carrier to detect thermal condition. (Column 4 lines 4-24)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Peng et al. is that it allows for detecting and monitoring temperature of the substrate and carrier. (Column 4 lines 2-24)
Regarding a controller comprising instructions that execute the process (Claim 20):
Merry et al. suggest that processes of an apparatus may use a controller to control the processes and operations performed therein. (Paragraph 0021 - [0021] A controller 130 may be employed to control operation of the processing tool 100. For example, controller 130 may control substrate transfers to, from and/or within the processing tool 100, operation of one or more of the processing chambers 106a, 106b, 108a, 108b, 114, 116, operation of load locks 118a, 118b, etc. Controller 130 may be an appropriately programmed microprocessor or microcontroller, hardware circuitry, a combination thereof, etc. The controller 130 may contain computer program code for performing any of the methods described herein.)
Ishikawa et al. already described above teach the processes/operations. Therefore it would be obvious to employ a controller in Ishikawa et al. as suggested by Merry et al. because Merry et al. recognize that processes and operations can be controlled by a controller.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Merry et al. is that it allows for controlling the processes and operations of the processing tool. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ishikawa et al. by utilizing the features of Todorov et al. and Peng et al. and Merry et al. because it allows controlling the motion of the robot and detecting temperatures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
March 13, 2026