DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026, has been entered.
The applicant contends:
(1) The claim 1 limitations prompting the outstanding 112(a) rejections are, in fact, supported by the original disclosure. The limitation at issue, “a sensor controller…to determine whether…the substrate on an arm…is not in the right place,” is underwritten by paragraph [0044] which stipulates that the capacitive sensor may detect “variation of output.” Further, paragraph [0047] asserts: “If a substrate is not in the right place, it will result in a variation of output.”
(2) Although Hosek discloses capacitive sensors, the reference does teach a sensor comprising a target object disposed on the rotation arm of the substrate transfer robot, as claim 1 now requires (p. 7). Further, Hosek’s sensors are deployed to detect substrate position, not an arm or a target object situated on an arm (p. 8).
In response,
(1) The examiner disagrees, as paragraph [0044] clearly establishes that displacement of the rotation arms generates the “variation of the output.” There is no mention that substrate displacement induces output variation as it pertains to this particular embodiment. Conversely, the examiner agrees that paragraph [0047] indicates as much, but this description is directed to a completely different embodiment that has been removed from consideration via election by original presentation. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
The examiner notes that the elected embodiment is directed to Figure 4, where the capacitive sensor (53) is disposed on the chamber floor, opposed to a target object (51) affixed to the underside of the rotation arm (23c). Throughout the description of this embodiment, there is no suggestion of the sensor’s capacity to determine if the substrate is “in a right place.”
(2) The examiner disagrees, observing that the “target object” of a capacitive sensor is not a permanent or stable feature but, instead, is merely anything which perturbs its electrostatic field. Recall, Hosek is conscripted to modify Freeman, whereby the latter already establishes the wrist joint of the transfer robot as the target object. When incorporated within this context, the capacitive sensor will be oriented in relation to the wrist joint, whereby movements of the wrist, relative to some baseline setting, will change the detected capacitance. It is in this way that the capacitive sensor of the prior art, as situated in relation to the target object already established by Freeman, “generates an output based on a position of the target object relative to the capacitive sensor.”
Restriction
Claim 11 has been amended and is now directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. That is, originally submitted claims 2-4 clearly directed the invention to the embodiment depicted by Figure 4, where the first sensor is constituted by at least a target object (51) disposed on a rotation arm (23) and an opposing capacitive sensor (53) disposed on the bottom of the reaction chamber. Figures 6 and 7 depict a second, mutually exclusive embodiment in which the first sensor is constituted instead by capacitive sensors 55a and 55b, but none of the claims submitted in the original claim set were explicitly directed to this second embodiment. As such, the original claim set was constructively directed to the species of Figure 4 rather than the species of Figures 6-7. The language of claim 11 is directed to the non-elected embodiment of Figure 7, as demonstrated by the diction of paragraph [0047].
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 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 at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. The final paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to recite a sensor controller which determines whether the “substrate on an arm of the plurality of arms is not in a right place.” The examiner cannot locate support for this statement within the original disclosure. Possibly, the contested limitation is referring to the non-elected embodiment of Figures 6-7, in which two sensors (55a, 55b) determine the placement status of a substrate disposed on a susceptor [0047]. Yet determining the placement status of a substrate disposed on a susceptor is not commensurate with the contested limitation stipulating that said substrate is “on an arm” of the transfer robot. The claim is further indefinite for appearing to combine the mutually exclusive embodiments of Figures 4 and 6, respectively. For these reasons, claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of new matter. Regardless, to advance prosecution, the claim will be examined as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-8, 10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki, US 2020/0286719, in view of Freeman et al., US 2003/0014157, Hosek, US 2004/0167743, and Fujii, US 2011/0125325.
Claims 1, 10, 15: Nishiwaki discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A plurality of reaction chambers (Fig. 1);
A plurality of susceptors (10, 12, 14, 16) disposed within the reaction chambers and configured to support a substrate [0018];
A substrate transfer robot (20), including:
A rotation arm having a plurality of arms (20B-E) configured to transfer the substrate between the reaction chambers [0017];
A rotation shaft (20A) connected to the plurality of arms;
A motor (61) configured to rotate the rotation shaft [0028];
A motor controller (33) configured to drive the motor [0024, 0028];
A first sensor (40) with a portion disposed on at least one of the plurality of arms [0020].
Nishiwaki’s first sensor, however, determines temperature rather than either substrate or arm position. Even so, because alignment of the robot arm is critical to ensuring accurate substrate placement, it is common to use sensors for determining the position of a transfer robot’s arm at key points during the transfer path. For example, Freeman employs a sensing mechanism comprising an emitter (116) situated on a top wall of the transfer chamber (102) which sends a signal to a target object (330) affixed to the arm of the transfer robot, where a sensor controller (120) receives the resulting measurement to determine the arm’s actual position versus the expected position and initiate the necessary corrections [0043-44]. It would have been obvious to integrate this sensing mechanism within Nishiwaki’s apparatus to increase the accuracy of substrate placement during transfer operations.
Claim 1 has been amended to require the sensor to be of a “capacitive” type, and for it to be disposed “on a bottom of the reaction chamber.” Addressing the latter deficiency is Fujii, who proposes affixing a sensor (2) to either the top or bottom of a chamber in order to determine the position of a transfer robot arm ([0004]; Fig. 2). Given this demonstration of equivalency between top and bottom sensing positions, it would have been obvious to situate Nishiawaki’s sensor on the chamber bottom since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Regarding the former omission, Freeman avails a proximity sensor but does not specify that it is capacitive [0036]. Hosek, though, deploys an array of sensors (197, 198) within a substrate transfer chamber directed to the determination of a transfer robot’s position, whereby said sensors may be capacitive in nature ([0043]; Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to integrate capacitive sensors within Nishiwaki’s processing chamber, since substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, by virtue of its operating principle, the integrated capacitive sensor will inherently generate an electrostatic field and then determine subsequent fluctuations of capacitance within the field by virtue of its internal oscillator. In this way, the sensor of the composite prior art apparatus is both “configured to generate an electrostatic field” and “configured to generate an output based on a position of the target object relative to the capacitive sensor.”
Claims 2, 16: A first distance between the target object and the capacitive plate of the capacitive sensor may arbitrarily be deemed “normal output.”
Claim 3: Freeman’s target object (330) is rectangular with chamfered edges rather than “conical” [0043]. Even so, a mere change in the configuration of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 2144.04, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966).
Claims 4, 17: Necessarily, movement of the target object in relation to the capacitive plate of the sensor will change the capacitance of the circuit, whereby the target object constitutes the other plate forming the de facto capacitor. Of course, the sensor’s explicit purpose is to measure this variance of capacitive.
Claim 5: Nishiwaki affixes the center plate (20A) of the rotation shaft to a rotation arm (20E) (Fig. 4). Although Figure 4 appears to depict something like screws at the interface, the reference is silent regarding the means of coupling. Regardless, the examiner takes Official Notice that using screws to fasten two structures is a known technique within the art, and it would have been obvious to affix Nishiwaki’s center plate and rotation arm by availing these means.
Claim 6: As shown by Figure 4 of Freeman, the wrist (330) of the substrate transfer robot constitutes the target object. And, as shown by Figure 3, the wrist is coupled to the arm portion (312) via bushings (318), which the examiner understands to be commensurate to the claimed screws [0038]. In this way, Freeman suggests locating the target object “distally from the plurality of screws,” in the language of claim 6.
Claim 7: Hosek’s sensors are coupled to a controller (170) which regulates the apparatus in response to the data generated by the capacitive sensors [0049].
Claims 8, 13, 18: In response to the position data generated by the sensors, the prior art corrects the orientation of the substrate transfer robot, which necessarily entails regulating the output of the motor. As can be readily conceived by one of ordinary skill, given an outcome of adequate substrate or robot alignment, the robot would be maintained in a stationary position for at least an interval of time, i.e., the motor for rotating the rotation shaft would stop.
Claim 14: Given a contingency in which the arms are not properly positioned, the sensor controller will necessarily detect abnormal variance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Freeman, Hosek, and Fujii, and in further view of Kemmel et al., US 4,479,077.
Nishiwaki is silent regarding the matter of a photoelectric sensor. Remedying the omission is Kemmel, who discloses a photoelectric sensor, i.e., a diode, which detects the phase angle of a motor (Abstract). It would have been obvious to incorporate these mechanisms within Nishiwaki’s system in order to determine the phase angle of a motor, as using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Agarwal et al., US 2018/0171473. Agarwal discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plurality of susceptors (140) constituting a reaction chamber, a substrate transfer robot (220) having a plurality of rotation arms (226) configured to transfer substrates between the susceptors, and a rotation shaft about which the arms rotate ([0033]; Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights