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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 8, 11
Radiation source (i.e. source for radiating) which has been interpreted as sources of electromagnetic waves, and equivalents thereto, as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 33.
Claim 7
Intermediate transfer module (i.e. module for transferring) has been interpreted as a chamber and wafer handling robot (as set forth, e.g., in paras. 4 and 43)
Claim 18
Second treatment unit (i.e. module for treating) which has been interpreted as a radiation source comprising a source of electromagnetic waves, e.g., at para. 33
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Treatment unit (claim 1), transfer module (claim 1), and second treatment unit (claims 8, 11) have not been interpreted under the statute because treatment unit includes a radiation source and a first process window for performing the recited function; transfer module which includes a wafer handling robot and second process window (chamber portion) to perform the recited function; and second treatment unit (claims 8 and 11) includes a radiation source to perform the recited function. However, see below with respect to claim 20 which appears to attempt to alter the interpretations above of treatment unit and transfer module in a manner that does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure and is also unclear.
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.
Claims 13 and 20 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.
Claims 13 and 20 require “the second treatment unit is disposed inside of the intermediated transfer module” and “the transfer module includes at least portions of the treatment unit, the at least portions of the treatment unit disposed directly above the wafer handling robot within the transfer module”. However, Examiner is unable to find disclosure of a treatment unit (or portions thereof) disposed inside the transfer module or the intermediate transfer module. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written. Note: the disclosure only seems to mention the atmospheric module is disclosed may have a treatment unit inside.
Further still claim 13, depends from claim 8, which states that a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source is disposed over the loadlock module. Examiner is unable to locate disclosure of the second treatment unit is over the load lock module and inside of the intermediate transfer module.
The claims has been examined as written and/or based on interpretations provided below.
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 13 and 20 is 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.
As detailed above, claims 13 and 20 include limitations that do not appear to be addressed in the original disclosure. It is not clear how limitation drawn to the location of the second treatment unit in claim 13 or the hybrid treatment unit/transfer module in claim 20 are meant to be interpreted. Additionally, with respect to claim 20, it remains unclear what “at least portions” of the transfer module is meant refer to and how it is meant to be interpreted in light of Applicant’s disclosure. See above for claim interpretation. Applicants should not take Examiner’s interpretation made in order to expedite examination as an indication that original support exists.
Further still claim 13, depends from claim 8, which states that a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source is disposed over the loadlock module. It is unclear how how the second treatment unit is over the load lock module and inside of the intermediate transfer module.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13, depends from claim 8, which states that a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source is disposed over the loadlock module. It is unclear how the second treatment unit is disposed over the load lock module and inside of the intermediate transfer module. The two locations appear to be mutually exclusive, such that it appears claim 13 does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Clarification and/or correction is requested. In order to expedite examination, in claim 13 either location is considered sufficient to meet the location limitations of the claim.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0134821 to Thakur et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0113188 to Pool.
Regarding claim 1: in at least Figs. 2-4 and 8-11, see especially Fig. 9, Thakur et al. disclose a semiconductor processing system for treating a wafer substantially as claimed, the system comprising: a reactor (e.g., Figs. 2-4 and 15, 201-204) configured to deposit (i.e. capable of depositing) a film in a wafer; a transfer module (multiple structures, including at least 110 and 113); a treatment unit comprising: a first process window (Fig. 9, 705) on a side of the treatment unit disposed directly over a second process window (not specifically numbered, opening in 110a in Figs, 8-9) of the transfer module; and a radiation source (e.g., Fig. 9, 711) disposed vertically above the first process window, wherein the radiation source is configured to emit electromagnetic waves (e.g., UV) in a downward direction towards the first process window to be capable of treating the wafer before or after deposition of the film; and the transfer module comprising: the second process window on a side of the transfer module disposed directly under the first processing window of the treatment unit, wherein the second process window is aligned with the first process window (e.g., at least a substantially vertical line capable of passing therethrough); and a wafer handling robot (113) is capable of being disposed vertically under the second process window in an orientation that is capable of aligning with the wafer handling robot with the downward direction of the electromagnetic wafers emitted from the radiation sources Also, see, e.g., paras. 61-67.
With respect to claim limitations drawn to intended use (e.g., before or after deposition), Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
However, Thakur et al. fail to disclose an intermediate transfer module connected to a transfer module, and more specifically the transfer module connected between the reactor and the intermediate transfer module and the intermediate transfer module connected between the transfer module and a loadlock module.
Pool discloses a semiconductor processing system provided with an intermediate transfer module (e.g., Fig. 2, 202 chamber and robot 260) connected to a transfer module (210), and more specifically the transfer module connected between the reactor and the intermediate transfer module wherein the intermediate transfer module and the intermediate transfer module connected between a load lock (204 and 206) module the transfer chamber for the purpose of enabling maximum efficiency of wafer handling as the semiconductor processing system transfer wafer between various processing stages (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 1, 7-8 and 19-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided an intermediate transfer module in between a load lock module and the transfer module in Thakur et al. in order to enabling maximum efficiency of wafer handling as the semiconductor processing system transfer wafer between various processing stages as taught by Pool.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the wafer handling robot is configured to hold the wafer in a process (e.g. UV treatment) underneath the second process window. See, e.g., Fig. 9
With respect to claim 4, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the second process window is covered with or formed of an optically transparent material for allowing magnetic wafers to pass therethrough – the second window is covered with the first window which is formed of an optically transparent material for allowing electromagnetic waves to pass through. See, e.g., para. 48.
With respect to claim 6, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Additionally, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the reactor may be itself be a device capable of CVD (see, e.g., para. 36).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Thakur et al., the system may further comprise: a loadlock module (LL)(106A and 106B), and an atmospheric module (ATM)(104), wherein the loadlock module is disposed between the intermediate transfer module and the atmospheric module; and wherein the wafer handling robot is configured to transfer the wafer between the transfer module and the load lock module (even if not directly/fully). See, e.g., Figs. 2-4 and 8-11.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the transfer module is capable of being under vacuum. See, e.g., para. 33.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the treatment unit is configured to treat one wafer at a time using the wafer handling robot situated thereunder. See, e.g., Figs. 8-9.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the treatment unit may be a plurality of treatment units configured to treat a plurality of wafers at a time. See, e.g., Figs. 2 and 4.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the system may further comprise a second treatment unit (e.g., at least two in Figs. 2 and 4) disposed vertically over the transfer module.
With respect to claim 19, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose the wafer handling robot is configured to hold the wafer underneath the second process window during treatment of the wafer (see, e.g., Fig. 9). Whether treatment happens before or after deposition of a/the film is considered intended use, wherein, as detailed above, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 20, in modified Thakur et al., Thakur et al. disclose at least portions of the treatment unit (first process window and radiation source) are disposed directly above the wafer handling robot (including blade assembly 113A) within the transfer module (see, e.g., para. 9).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 18-20 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 6,752,900 to Yi et al.
Modified Thakur et al. disclose the semiconductor processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Thakur et al. fail to disclose the radiation permeable material comprises fused silica.
Yi et al. disclose a window comprising a radiation permeable material that is fused silica for the purpose of providing a material that transmits UV light down to approximately 150 nm.
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 radiation permeable material of fused silica in modified Thakur et al. in order to provide a material that transmits UV light down to approximately 150 nm as taught by Yi et al.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 18-20 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0049313 to Kumar et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, modified Thakur et al. disclose the semiconductor processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, although Thakur et al. do disclose additional treatment units attached to or provided with respect to the load lock module (see, e.g., para. 67) and the atmospheric module (see, e.g., 214C and 214D in Fig. 3) and the atmospheric module exposed to atmospheric pressure, Thakur et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source vertically over the load lock module and/or a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source vertically over the intermediate transfer module.
On a first account, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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), wherein the claim limitations of claim 8 and 11 are directed to providing a second treatment unit with a second radiation source at a specific unit location but for performing the same function with respect to the loadlock module and/or the intermediate transfer module. Also, notably, Thakur et al. teach that a treatment unit may be provided above a chamber or module in the cluster tool other than those explicitly disclosed or illustrated (which would include, e.g., the loadlock module of the cluster tool or an intermediate transfer module) such that an orientation is known and obvious (see, e.g., para. 96). Also, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Nevertheless, to further emphasize obviousness, Kumar et al. explicitly disclose a semiconductor processing system for treating a wafer, the system comprising: a reactor (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3A, 137-139 and 337-339) configured to deposit (i.e. capable of depositing) a film in a wafer; a treatment unit (380) for treating a wafer before or after deposition of the film; a transfer module (309); a load lock module (307); and an atmospheric module (302), wherein a treatment unit may be provided with respect to the transfer module, load lock module, and/or the atmospheric transfer module and may be provided such that it is isolated from the wafer within the transfer module, load lock module, and/or the atmospheric transfer module for the purpose of outgassing the wafer prior to processing. See, e.g., para. 40.
Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In consideration of the combined teachings of Thakur et al. and Kumar et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a second treatment unit comprising a second radiation source vertically over the load lock module and/or the intermediate transfer module of modified Thakur et al. in order to provide a similar function, degassing/outgassing a wafer, prior to processing as taught by the combined teachings of Thakur et al. and Kumar et al.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Thakur et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic and in possession of the combined teachings of Thakur et al. and Kumar et al., to provide a second treatment unit over the second wafer handling robot of the intermediate transfer module for reasons detailed above. See, e.g., esp. Figs. 9 and 11 of Thakur et al., Figs. 3A-D of Kumar et al. and Fig. 2 of Pool. Also, again, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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).
With respect to claim 13, in modified Thakur et al., Kumar et al. teach providing a treatment unit disposed inside of a transfer module (see, e.g., Fig. 3D.), such that one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense, and logic would have also found it obvious to similarly provide one inside of the intermediate transfer module as well. Again, the courts have ruled Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that 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).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thakur et al. as applied to claims 8 and 11-13 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0307782 to Weaver et al.
Modfied Thakur discloses the semiconductor processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, while Pool does disclose that the second wafer handling robot may have various configurations (see, e.g., para. 25), modified Thakur et al. fails to disclose the second wafer handling robot comprise a rotating table to hold a plurality of wafers including the wafer.
In Figs. 1-4, Weaver et al. disclose a buffer chamber (i.e. an intermediate transfer module having a chamber and a wafer handling robot) as part of a semiconductor processing system wherein the wafer handling robot comprises a rotating table (1110) configured to hold a plurality of wafers including the wafer. Weaver et al. further disclose providing a treatment unit (1130) including a radiation source above the buffer chamber for enabling heating of wafers therein for a predetermined time to a predetermined temperature such that wafers may be preheated rapidly and efficiently while moving from the buffer chamber to a processing chamber (see, e.g., paras. 2-6 and 44).
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 second wafer handling robot comprise a rotating table to hold a plurality of wafers including the wafer in modified Thakur et al. in order to enable heating of wafers therein for a predetermined time to a predetermined temperature such that wafers may be preheated rapidly and efficiently while moving from the buffer chamber to a processing chamber (reactor) as taught by Weaver et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 18-21 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.
Drawing rejections related to claim 10 have been withdrawn as the issue is now moot. If necessary, the drawings related to the previously claimed feature will be addressed as needed in future.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent and U.S. Patent Pubs. “6767491"|"20070196011" disclose cluster tool systems with radiation treatment units positioned throughout for use while transferring a substrate through the tool. US Patent No. 6,379,095 discloses a wafer transfer robot in a transfer module. USP 6,034,000 and 2008/0171435 disclose semiconductor processing systems with configurations having intermediate transfer chambers.
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
Prosecution Insights