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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1,7,9-11,13,16-17,19-20,22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moura (US 11,476,139).
Re claims 1,7,9,10, Moura teaches a substrate processing system (100, 100A, 200, 300, 400, 500, 800, 900, 1200, 1300) comprising: a plurality of modules (120,116,etc.) including a processing chamber 120 in which a substrate S is held and processing is performed on the substrate; a transfer chamber 118 to which the plurality of modules are connected; a substrate transfer device 1500 provided in the transfer chamber, for transferring the substrate to the plurality of modules and taking out the substrate from the plurality of modules; and a controller (199, etc.), wherein the substrate transfer device includes a first transfer unit 1500, a second transfer unit 1500 and a third transfer unit 1500, each of which places thereon the substrate and is linearly movable and swivelable independently and freely over a surface of the transfer chamber, and the controller controls the substrate transfer device such that a substrate replacement operation is performed from one module to another module among the plurality of modules by moving the first transfer unit, the second transfer and the third transfer unit.
Moura teaches openable/closable gate valves (not numbered, column 8 lines 66-67) provided between the transfer chamber and each of the plurality of modules.
Moura repeatedly states that there is independent & concurrent moving / control of the multiple transfer devices, and Moura does not limit the configurations & locations of substrates within modules nor the movements / order of movements of the substrates and the associated controls whether called main or otherwise (column 44, lines 55-67). Changes in sequence, rearrangement & duplication of parts are obvious and not patentable (MPEP 2144; Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further, the claimed limitations are obvious to try (KSR) as there are only a finite number of possibilities for the necessary transfer unit movement in relation to the opening / closing of the gate valves, such as occurring simultaneously or offset, & there is a reasonable expectation of success in making them occur simultaneously as claimed, as noted above they are obvious modifications as shown by existing case law (changes in order/sequence, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Moura as claimed in order to balance varied process times & types with varied substrate process system arrangement layouts to improve efficiency in timing and/or movements while limiting unnecessary time of openings in the chambers that might increase undesired particle / atmosphere transfer.
Re claim 11, Moura teaches said one module may be a load-lock chamber 116 and said another module may be a processing chamber 120.
Re claim 13, Moura teaches each of the first transfer unit 1500 and the second transfer unit 1500 includes a substrate holder 1520 for holding the substrate, and a base 1510 that has a magnet therein and moves the substrate holder, and the substrate transfer device further comprises (1700, etc.; see figures 12A, 14A, 15A-C,16,20,21,27-29,32B,32C,etc.) a planar motor having a main body constituting a bottom wall of the transfer chamber, a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the main body, and a linear driver that supplies power to the electromagnetic coils, magnetically levitates the base, and linearly drives the base.
Re claims 16,17,19, Moura teaches a substrate transfer method for performing a substrate replacement operation from one module to another module among a plurality of modules in a substrate processing system (100, 100A, 200, 300, 400, 500, 800, 900, 1200, 1300), the substrate processing system comprising the plurality of modules (120,116,etc.) including a processing chamber 120 in which a substrate S is held and processing is performed on the substrate, a transfer chamber 118 to which the plurality of modules are connected, and a substrate transfer device provided in the transfer chamber for transferring the substrate to the plurality of modules and taking out the substrate from the plurality of modules, wherein the substrate transfer device includes a first transfer unit 1500, a second transfer unit 1500 and a third transfer device 1500, each of which places thereon the substrate and is linearly movable and swivelable independently and freely over a surface of the transfer chamber. Moura teaches openable/closable gate valves (not numbered, column 8 lines 66-67) provided between the transfer chamber and each of the plurality of modules.
Moura teaches openable/closable gate valves (not numbered, column 8 lines 66-67) provided between the transfer chamber and each of the plurality of modules.
Moura repeatedly states that there is independent & concurrent in parallel moving / control of the multiple transfer devices, and Moura does not limit the configurations & locations of substrates within modules nor the movements of the substrates and the associated controls whether called main or otherwise (column 44, lines 55-67). Changes in sequence, rearrangement & duplication of parts are obvious and not patentable (MPEP 2144; Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further, the claimed limitations are obvious to try (KSR) as there are only a finite number of possibilities for the necessary transfer unit movement in relation to the opening / closing of the gate valves, such as occurring simultaneously or offset, & there is a reasonable expectation of success in making them occur simultaneously as claimed & as noted above, as they are obvious modifications as shown by existing case law (changes in order/sequence, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Moura as claimed in order to balance varied process times & types with varied substrate process system arrangement layouts to improve efficiency in timing and/or movements while limiting unnecessary time of openings in the chambers that might increase undesired particle / atmosphere transfer.
Re claim 20, Moura teaches said one module may be a load-lock chamber 116 and said another module may be a processing chamber 120.
Re claim 22, Moura teaches each of the first transfer unit 1500, the second transfer unit 1500, and third transfer unit 1500 includes a substrate holder 1520 for holding the substrate, and a base 1510 that has a magnet therein and moves the substrate holder, and the substrate transfer device further comprises (1700, etc.; see figures 12A, 14A, 15A-C,16,20,21,27-29,32B,32C,etc.) a planar motor having a main body constituting a bottom wall of the transfer chamber, a plurality of electromagnetic coils arranged in the main body, and a linear driver that supplies power to the electromagnetic coils, magnetically levitates the base, and linearly drives the base.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Moura does not teach simultaneous movement of the transfer unit with opening & closing of the gate valves. Applicant does not argue that Moura teaches gate valves that open & close to allow movement and transfer of substrates moved on the transfer units as previously rejected, only that it is now simultaneous as currently written. The prior rejections show that changes in sequence, order etc. are known from existing case law to be obvious modifications. The claimed limitations are obvious to try (under KSR) as there are only a finite number of possibilities for the necessary transfer unit movement in relation to the opening / closing of the gate valves, such as occurring simultaneously or offset, & there is a reasonable expectation of success in making them occur simultaneously as claimed, as noted above they are obvious modifications as shown by existing case law (changes in order/sequence, etc.).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakue teaches gate vales G1-G6 with similar transfer progressions (figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652