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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/02/2026 has been entered.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 1-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2012/0285621) in view of Caveney (US 9,862,554) and Janakiraman et al. (“Janakiraman”)(US 2004/0007176).
Tan (fig. 4) teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 15) a first processing chamber defining a first processing region and a first transfer region having a first slit valve (fig. 4 showing vertical chamber 400 including an upper 497 and lower 498 processing chambers; para. 30-31 teaching that first chamber 497 includes a slit valve opening 455 for transfer of a substrate), the first processing chamber comprising:
a first substrate support (408) comprising a first pedestal that is vertically translatable between the first processing region and the first transfer region (para. 19, 31 teaching that lift pins of pedestal are raised and lowered, i.e., vertically translatable so that “top pedestal 408” may receive substrate); and
a first gas delivery assembly disposed above and in alignment with the first substrate support (para. 35, 39 teaching gas supply panel configured to supply gases via apertures in upper lid assembly);
a first transfer chamber coupled with the first processing chamber via the first slit valve (para. 42-43 teaching a transfer robot for transporting robots between the upper and lower processing chambers thus a transfer chamber coupled to both chambers—similar to that shown in fig. 5--is inherent fig. 5);
a first transfer robot disposed within the first transfer chamber (Id.);
a second processing chamber defining a second processing region and a second transfer region having a second slit valve (fig. 4 showing second/lower chamber 498 with silt valve near 456; para. 43, 52-53 teaching that system may include multiple identical or different processing chambers as detailed above, wherein said processing chambers can be regarded as either horizontally or vertically aligned),
wherein the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are fluidly isolated from one another and are at least substantially aligned along a first vertical axis (Id. with fig. 4 showing that a lower partition near 406 fluidly separates vertically aligned upper chamber near 497 from a lower chamber near 498), the second processing chamber comprising:
a second substrate support comprising a second pedestal that is vertically translatable between the second processing region and the second transfer region (fig. 4 showing second support including pedestal 405; para. 45 teaching that substrate may be raised or lowered by raising pedestal or by using lift pins to better control temperature during substrate processing); and
a second gas delivery assembly disposed above and in alignment with the second substrate support (para. 47 teaching a fluid element 419 configured above second pedestal to regulate temperature in second processing chamber);
(re: claim 4) wherein: the first substrate support and the second substrate support are operable both independently and concurrently with one another (para. 42, 47 teaching transport between chambers and also that “two substrates are simultaneously processed” thus Examiner regards substrate supports as capable of being operable as claimed);
(re: certain elements of claim 12) wherein: the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are operable independently of one another (para. 47 teaching that processing in chambers can be performed alternately or in combination);
(re: certain elements of claims 13, 15) a gas panel; and
one or both of a gas manifold and a gas splitter that control a flow of gas from the gas panel to the first gas delivery assembly and the second gas delivery assembly (fig. 4 showing gas splitter near 427, 428; para. 33-35 teaching gas panel related manifold for delivering gas to respective processing chambers);
(re: certain elements of claim 16) wherein: the at least one transfer chamber comprises a first transfer chamber that is at least substantially aligned with the first processing chamber along the first horizontal axis and
a second transfer chamber that is at least substantially aligned with the second processing chamber along the second horizontal axis; and
the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber are at least substantially aligned along an additional vertical axis (Cf. 4 and 5);
(re: certain elements of claim 18) a third processing chamber defining a third processing region and a third transfer region; a fourth processing chamber defining a fourth processing region and a fourth transfer region, wherein: the third processing chamber and the fourth processing chamber are at least substantially aligned along an additional vertical axis that is offset from and parallel to the vertical axis; and each of the third processing chamber and the fourth processing chamber are coupled with the at least one transfer chamber (fig. 5; para. 52-53 teaching that system may include multiple identical or different processing chambers as detailed above);
(re: certain elements of claim 20) wherein: the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are positioned on a same side of the at least one transfer chamber as the third processing chamber and the fourth processing chamber (fig. 5).
Tan as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 8) a second transfer chamber coupled with the second processing chamber via the second slit valve; and
a second transfer robot disposed within the second transfer chamber, wherein the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber are at least substantially aligned along a second vertical axis;
(re: claim 2) wherein: the first transfer robot comprises a first motor assembly and a first end effector assembly;
the second transfer robot comprises a second motor assembly and a second end effector assembly;
the first motor assembly and the second motor assembly are inverted relative to one another and are each positioned on an outer-facing side of a respective one of the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber; and
the first end effector assembly and the second end effector assembly are oriented in a same direction.
(re: claim 3) wherein: the first transfer robot comprises a first motor assembly and a first end effector assembly;
the second transfer robot comprises a second motor assembly and a second end effector assembly; the first motor assembly and the second motor assembly are oriented in a same direction, and are each positioned on a lower end of a respective one of the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber; and
the first end effector assembly and the second end effector assembly are oriented in a same direction;
(re: claim 6 and certain elements of claims 10, 15) a first load lock that is at least substantially aligned with the first processing chamber along a first horizontal axis; and
a second load lock that is at least substantially aligned with the second processing chamber along a second horizontal axis;
(re: claim 7 and certain elements of claims 10, 15) a factory interface coupled with each of the first load lock and the second load lock;
(re: claim 9) wherein: the at least one transfer robot comprises a single transfer robot that accesses both the first transfer region and the second transfer region;
(re: claim 11) wherein: an upper load lock of the first load lock and the second load lock comprises an elevator that is coupled with the factory interface;
(re: claim 17) wherein: the first load lock and the second load lock are aligned along an additional vertical axis;
Further, under an alternative interpretation, Tan may be interpreted as not teaching a vertically translatable first pedestal (claim 1)
Here, it is noted that Tan as cited above already teaches it is known to either use a movable pedestal or pins as equivalents to control the temperature of a wafer during processing and that multiple transfer robots can be used and is merely silent on their configuration.
Janakiraman teaches that it is well-known in the substrate processing arts to configure a processing system with multiple vertically stacked processing chambers as well as single or multiple robots to allow flexibility in loading and transfer at different times (fig. 1 near 33 and para. 28) and to configure the two processing chambers in the same fashion, e.g., movable pedestals and gas elements, to “obtain process uniformity” (para. 29-30).
Caveney further teaches that it is well-known to configure multiple robots as claimed to allow greater throughput to multiple processing chambers (fig. 41-42 showing vertically aligned transfer robots 4004, 40006, wherein each robot can be regarded as within a respective transfer chamber; col. 19, ln. 59-col. 20, ln. 25 teaching that vertical stacking and configuration of process modules and transfer robots “offer significant benefits in equipment footprint and throughput”; fig. 29 showing separate drives and controllers for respective transfer robots; fig. 36A showing that end effectors can be oriented in same direction) and that multiple load locks horizontally aligned with processing chambers can also be used to increase loading throughput (fig. 41 showing vertically aligned load locks near 4004, 4008 coupled to interface 40002; fig. 83, 84 showing elevator coupled to load locks to assist with loading; col. 19, ln. 52+ teaching that respective transfer robots can access either one of load locks/transfer regions).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., load locks, transfer robots, translatable pedestal) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Tan for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, Janakiraman and Caveney (“Tan et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Tan et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 14) wherein: the first processing chamber and second processing chamber share a same gas source, a same vacuum source, a same RF power source, and a same AC power source;
(re: claim 19) wherein: the at least one transfer chamber comprises a first transfer chamber that is at least substantially aligned with the first processing chamber and the third processing chamber along the first horizontal axis and
a second transfer chamber that is at least substantially aligned with the second processing chamber and the fourth processing chamber along the second horizontal axis.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the respective chambers may not be regarded as “fluidly isolated” (re: claim 5).
The claimed features, however, relating to fluidly isolating chambers; sources of gas, power or RF and configuration of the transfer chambers can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Tan et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Tan as cited above expressly teaches that a translatable pedestal is an equivalent to raisable pins that allows better temperature control over the wafer surface during processing (supra). Further, Examiner does not regard the placement of a first movable pedestal as incapable of being integrated into the upper chamber as it involves a simple mechanical interface well within the skill set of one with ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Janakiraman expressly teaches that it is well-known to stack multiple vertical processing chambers that are configured in a similar fashion and to use multiple transport robots to allow flexibility/uniformity in processing. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. The Official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights