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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species A, claims 1-8 and 10-17, in the reply filed on 3 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
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: claim 1 delivery device which has been interpreted as a hand and equivalents thereof as set forth, e.g., Fig. 1 and paras. 41, 45, 69, etc., in the specification; claim 10 device detaching the substrate delivery jig which has been interpreted as a vacuum process apparatus (i.e. a chamber) and equivalents thereto as set forth e.g., Figs. 1, 8A-B, 17 and para. 182 of the specification; claim 11 a device reversing the substrate to which the delivery jig is attached which has been interpreted as a pillar fixed on a support, a rotation mechanism fixed to the pillar and a rotation portion fixed to a rotating shaft of the rotation mechanism and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in Fig. 5A and paras. 85-93 of the specification.
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.
Alternative Claim Interpretations
Examiner has found the pending claims to include a substantial number of recitations drawn to intended use. Examiner has provided parallel rejections that address the intended uses, both implicitly as generically claimed with anticipation rejections and explicitly as generically claimed using obviousness rejections, assuming, arguendo, that the claim recitations drawn to intended uses of the claimed apparatus amount to more than an intended use that is fairly and properly addressed by the anticipation rejections set forth below. Examiner does not concede the same, rather has provided the parallel rejections to expedite examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0040856 to Ishikawa et al.
At the outset, importantly, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Claims 1-7 and 12-17 contain an abundance of recitations merely reciting intended use, wherein as claimed the prior art apparatus is considered capable of the broadly recited intended uses.
Regarding claim 1: Ishikawa et al. disclose a manufacturing equipment capable of manufacturing a display device, comprising a manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a pixel circuit and a manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a light-emitting device,
wherein the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a light emitting device comprises: a first load lock chamber (e.g., 133 or 135),
a first cluster (“D”, “treatment device”),
and a second cluster (“E”, “treatment device”),
wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the first cluster through a first gate valve (gate valve closest to “D”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the second cluster through a second gate valve (gate valve closest to “E”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context),
wherein the pressure in the first load lock chamber is capable of being controlled to be a reduced pressure or an atmosphere therein is capable of being controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the pressure in the first cluster is capable of being controlled to be reduced pressure (see, e.g., 42), wherein an atmosphere in the second cluster is capable of being controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere (see, e.g., 42),
wherein the first cluster comprises a first delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “D”) and a plurality of apparatus (“treatment chambers” 152) capable of processing a substrate, wherein the second cluster comprises a second delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “E”) and a plurality of apparatus (“treatment chambers” 152) capable of processing the substrate;
wherein the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit comprises a second load lock chamber (113), wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the second load lock chamber through a transfer chamber (103),
wherein the manufacturing equipment is configured to form (i.e. capable of forming) the light emitting device comprising an organic compound over a pixel electrode formed over a substrate in the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit.
Further regarding claim 1: Ishikawa et al. do not explicitly teach the first cluster including a plurality of film forming apparatus and an etching apparatus; and the second cluster comprises a plurality of apparatuses performing a lithography step. Nevertheless, as noted above, 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. In the instant case, no specific structural features are explicitly or functionally claimed in association with any of the apparatuses for forming a film, apparatus for etching or apparatus for performing a lithography step.
With respect to claim 2-6, see above regarding intended use, wherein Ishikawa et al. disclose the plurality of film formation apparatus capable of performing the processes as broadly claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Ishikawa et al. teach in the first cluster, the substrate attached to a substrate delivery jig (920) is subjected to treatment (see, e.g., Fig. 9A and para. 56).
With respect to claim 12, Ishikawa et al. further disclose the apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit comprises a third cluster (“A”, “treatment device”) and a fourth cluster (“B”, “treatment device”), wherein the second load lock chamber is connected to the third cluster through a third gate valve (gate valve closest to “A”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the second load lock chamber is connected to the fourth cluster through a fourth gate valve (gate valve closest to “B”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the pressure in the second load lock chamber is capable of being controlled to be reduced pressure or normal pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the third cluster is capable of being controlled to reduced pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the pressure in the fourth cluster is capable of being controlled to be normal pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the third cluster comprises a third delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “A”) and a plurality of apparatuses (“treatment chambers” 152), and wherein the fourth cluster comprises a fourth delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “B”), and a plurality of apparatuses (“treatment chambers” 152). Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 13-14, see above regarding intended use, wherein Ishikawa et al. disclose the plurality of film formation apparatus capable of performing the processes as broadly claimed.
With respect to claim 15, Ishikawa et al. disclose the first load lock chamber (133 or 135) is connected to the second load lock chamber (113) through a fifth gate valve (gate valve between 103 and 113, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context) and the transfer chamber (103).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, which are drawn to features dedicated to an intended use of the apparatus (including article worked upon, apparatus contents). Again, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
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) 1-7 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0040856 to Ishikawa et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0006400 to Clark et al.
Regarding claim 1: Ishikawa et al. disclose a manufacturing equipment capable of manufacturing a display device, comprising a manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a pixel circuit and a manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a light-emitting device,
wherein the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing a light emitting device comprises: a first load lock chamber (e.g., 133 or 135),
a first cluster (“D”, “treatment device”),
and a second cluster (“E”, “treatment device”),
wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the first cluster through a first gate valve (gate valve closest to “D”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the second cluster through a second gate valve (gate valve closest to “E”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context),
wherein the pressure in the first load lock chamber is capable of being controlled to be a reduced pressure or an atmosphere therein is capable of being controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the pressure in the first cluster is capable of being controlled to be reduced pressure (see, e.g., 42), wherein an atmosphere in the second cluster is capable of being controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere (see, e.g., 42),
wherein the first cluster comprises a first delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “D”) and a plurality of apparatus (“treatment chambers” 152) capable of processing a substrate, wherein the second cluster comprises a second delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “E”) and a plurality of apparatus (“treatment chambers” 152) capable of processing the substrate;
wherein the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit comprises a second load lock chamber (113), wherein the first load lock chamber is connected to the second load lock chamber through a transfer chamber (103),
wherein the manufacturing equipment is configured to form (i.e. capable of forming) the light emitting device comprising an organic compound over a pixel electrode formed over a substrate in the manufacturing apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit.
Ishikawa et al. disclose an overall layout of the manufacturing equipment substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, Ishikawa et al. do not explicitly teach the first cluster including a plurality of film forming apparatus and an etching apparatus; and the second cluster comprises a plurality of apparatuses performing a lithography step. Nevertheless, as noted above, 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.
In the instant case, no specific structural features are explicitly or functionally claimed in association with any of the apparatuses for forming a film, apparatus for etching or apparatus for performing a lithography step, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any of the treatment chambers for performing the processes of film formation, etching and a lithography step as desired and as generically claimed.
Additionally, and alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark et al. explicitly teaches providing manufacturing equipment (e.g., a common platform) with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching and lithography) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE. Additionally, Clark et al. teach providing the equipment with a variety of non-limiting processes modules. See, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-3, 10A-10B and paras. 86-115, 195.
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 manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa et al. with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching and lithography) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE as taught by Clark et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose the plurality of film formation apparatus is capable of performing one or more processes selected from evaporation, sputtering, CVD and ALD; and the etching apparatus is capable of performing dry etching (see, e.g., paras. 86-115, 195). Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose a cluster may comprise an apparatus capable of vacuum baking (see, e.g., paras. 86-115, 195). Regarding attachment to the first cluster, Clark et al. also teaches that arrangement of the equipment can be based on a desired processing sequence/method/intended use (see, e.g., paras. 91-92 and 113).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose the plurality of apparatus capable of performing the lithography step may comprise an apparatus capable of application, light-exposure, development and baking (see, e.g., paras. 96-97).
With respect to claim 5, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose the plurality of apparatus capable of performing the lithography step comprise an apparatus capable of application and nano-imprint (see, e.g., paras. 96-97).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose an etching apparatus capable of processing (i.e. capable of processing) an organic island into an island shape. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Ishikawa et al., Ishikawa et al. teach in the first cluster, the substrate attached to a substrate delivery jig (920) is subjected to treatment (see, e.g., Fig. 9A and para. 56).
With respect to claim 12, in modified Ishikawa et al., Ishikawa et al. disclose the apparatus capable of manufacturing the pixel circuit comprises a third cluster (“A”, “treatment device”) and a fourth cluster (“B”, “treatment device”), wherein the second load lock chamber is connected to the third cluster through a third gate valve (gate valve closest to “A”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the second load lock chamber is connected to the fourth cluster through a fourth gate valve (gate valve closest to “B”, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context), wherein the pressure in the second load lock chamber is capable of being controlled to be reduced pressure or normal pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the third cluster is capable of being controlled to reduced pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the pressure in the fourth cluster is capable of being controlled to be normal pressure (see, e.g., para. 42), wherein the third cluster comprises a third delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “A”) and a plurality of apparatuses (“treatment chambers” 152), and wherein the fourth cluster comprises a fourth delivery device (“transfer arm” 152 in “B”), and a plurality of apparatuses (“treatment chambers” 152).
Ishikawa et al. disclose an overall layout of the manufacturing equipment substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, Ishikawa et al. do not explicitly teach the third cluster including a plurality of apparatus capable of film formation, an apparatus capable of etching, and an apparatus capable of plasma treatment; and the fourth cluster comprises a plurality of apparatuses capable of performing a lithography step and capable of performing polishing. Nevertheless, as noted above, 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.
In the instant case, no specific structural features are explicitly or functionally associated with any of the apparatus for forming a film, apparatus for etching, apparatus for plasma treatment, apparatus for performing a lithography step or apparatus for performing polishing, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any of the treatment chamber for performing the processes of film formation, etching and a lithography step as desired and as generically claimed.
Additionally and alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark et al. explicitly teaches providing manufacturing equipment (e.g., a common platform) with any number of apparatus for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, plasma treatment, lithography and polishing) for the purpose of providing a high volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment (see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-3 and paras. 86-115, 195). Additionally, Clark et al. teach arranging the apparatus attached to various clusters according a desire process sequence.
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 manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa et al. with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, plasma treatment, lithography and polishing) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment as taught by Clark et al.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose the plurality of film formation apparatus is capable of performing one or more processes selected from sputtering, CVD and ALD; and the etching apparatus is capable of performing dry etching; and the polishing apparatus is a CMP apparatus (see, e.g., paras. 86-115, 195). Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Ishikawa et al., Clark et al. disclose the plurality of apparatus capable of performing the lithography step may comprise an apparatus capable of application, light-exposure, development and baking (see, e.g., paras. 96-97).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Ishikawa et al., Ishikawa et al. disclose the first load lock chamber (133 or 135) is connected to the second load lock chamber (113) through a fifth gate valve (gate valve between 103 and 113, not numbered, also see gate valves illustrated in 351-357 in Fig. 3 for context) and the transfer chamber (103).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, which are drawn to features dedicated to an intended use of the apparatus (including article worked upon, apparatus contents). Again, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) as applied to claims 1-7 and 12-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0131792 to Kwak et al.
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) disclose the equipment substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) fail to disclose the substrate delivery jig comprises a first jig and a second jig, and wherein the substrate is held between the first jig and the second jig.
Kwak et al. teach providing a substrate delivery jig (100) that comprises a first jig (Fig. 1, 160) and a second jig (101), and wherein a substrate (150) is held between the first jig and the second jig for the purpose of selectively exposing a substate to a processing condition with high fidelity (see, e.g., paras. 25-27).
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 substrate delivery jig in Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) comprises a first and a second jig, and wherein the substrate is held between the first jig and the second jig in order to selectively expose a substate to a processing condition with high fidelity as taught by Kwak et al.
With respect to claim 10, Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) fail to explicitly disclose the first cluster comprises a device detaching the substrate delivery jig. However, Ishikawa et al. does teach that up to seven chambers can be attached thereto the central chamber of the first cluster (see, e.g., para. 23). Further, Kwak et al. teach providing a chamber (Fig. 5, 530) for attaching and/or detaching a substrate and substrate delivery jig before and/or after processing in a cluster tool such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide the same attached to the first cluster of Ishikawa et al. in order to attach and/or detach a substrate and substrate delivery jig before and/or after processing (see, e.g., para. 48-49).
With respect to claim 11, Ishikawa et al. (or modified Ishikawa et al.) fail to explicitly disclose the first cluster comprises a device reversing the substrate to which the substrate to which the substrate delivery jig is attached. However, Ishikawa et al. does teach that up to seven chambers can be attached thereto the central chamber of the first cluster (see, e.g., para. 23). Further, Kwak et al. teach providing a chamber (Fig. 5, 530) including a device (e.g., Fig. 5B, 531) reversing/rotating (via 6-D movement, wherein the device is considered an equivalent to the disclosed device) the substrate to which the substrate delivery jig may be attached (see, e.g., para. 38) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide the same attached to the first cluster of Ishikawa et al. in order to attach and/or detach a substrate and substrate delivery jig before and/or after processing and/or align by reversing/rotating the same as need for processing.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 6,017,820 discloses embodiments wherein a plurality of cluster tools are connected using varying combinations of load locks and transfer chambers. US Patent Pubs. No. 2015/0047969 and 2022/0197128 disclose devices for reversing wafers. US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0422592 discloses a similar apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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