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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “whereini” of Claim 24 should be “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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:
-a. The “mechanism of rotating” in claim 1, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-b. The “alignment mechanism” and “mechanism of attaching” in claim 24, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-c. The “mechanism of reversing”, “mechanism of mounting” and “mechanism of taking out” in claim 25, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-d. The “alignment mechanism” and “rotation mechanism” in claim 26, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-e. The “alignment mechanism” and “mechanism of attaching” in claim 37, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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.
(2) Following limitations are considered being an intended use of an apparatus, thus when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement, see the MPEP citations below.
-a. “light-emitting device” of Claims 1 and 25 (note the LED is manufactured by semiconductor processes, such as depositing, etching, or etc., thus when a prior art teaches a semiconductor processing equipment, the equipment is considered being capable of manufacturing the LED, further note, the LED is a product obtained by the processing equipment, thus making the LED or other display by the same processing equipment is mere different use of the equipment).
-b. “deposition”, “etching”, “ashing”, “lithography”, “cleaning”, “baking” and other recited processes, across the claim list (note the terms are mere identifications, thus when a prior art teaches an apparatus capable of at least one of them, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement),
Additional notes,
First, the “deposition”, “etching and “ashing”, each is determined by what processing material is provided into the processing apparatus, in other words, even in the same processing apparatus, feeding depositing gas performs deposition process, feeding etching gas performs etching process, and feeding ashing gas perform ashing process.
Second, the “ashing” is a type of an etching process, see also [0057] of US 20190006238 teaching “The ashing step may be made subsequently within the same chamber as one for the dry etching step”, thus when an etching is taught, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement.
Third, the “cleaning” includes baking, see [0021] of US 20180230624 teaching “If desired, the block 102 may include additional preparation steps. For example, the block 102 may include pre-baking the substrate to further clean the surface”, thus when a cleaning is taught, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement.
Fourth, the “etching” includes dry etching or wet etching, thus, when an etching is taught, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement.
Fifth, the “wet cleaning” is also named as cleaning, thus, when either one is taught, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement.
Sixth, the “application apparatus, light-exposure apparatus, developing apparatus, baking apparatus and nanoimprint apparatus” are for processing the lithography, thus when a lithography is taught, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement.
-c. The “manufacture a light-emitting device on a silicon wafer” of Claims 23 and 36 (note the “silicon wafer” is a product to be processed by the processing equipment, processing the silicon wafer or other type of substates, such as glass, by the same processing equipment is mere different use of the equipment, thus when a prior art teaches a substrate, it is sufficient to meet the claim requirement).
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that 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); and 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)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17, 26-27, 30 and 37 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “wherein the thirteenth cluster is connected to the third cluster through the third loadlock chamber, wherein the thirteenth cluster is connected to the fourth cluster through the twelfth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is connected to the sixth cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is connected to the seventh cluster through the thirteenth loadlock chamber” of Claim 17 is not clear.
Claim 17 is dependent from Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the “wherein the third cluster is connected to the fourth cluster through the third loadlock chamber, wherein the fourth cluster is connected to the fifth cluster through the fourth loadlock chamber”.
When the 13th and 14th clusters are constructed as recited in the claim 17, the 3rd and 4th clusters of Claim 1 cannot be connected to each other, as recited in the claim 1, thus it is not clear, when claim 17 is obtained, how the structural configuration of claim 1 is maintained without breaking the connection. Claim 17 is devoid of adequate structure to complete the claimed structure.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of indirect connection by setting up the connection like;
PNG
media_image1.png
44
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(2) The “alignment mechanism” of Claim 26 is not clear.
As discussed in the claim interpretation above, the “alignment mechanism” invokes 35USC112(f) or pre-AIA 35USC112, sixth paragraph.
Based on the Figs. 17 and 24-28 and further corresponding paragraphs in the specification, the features related with the “substrate transfer device” of Claim 25 appears to correspond to the “alignment mechanism”, thus it is not clear what structural difference between the “substrate transfer device” of Claim 25 and “alignment mechanism” of Claim 26 is required.
Further, the “camera” of Claim 26 is also a part of the “alignment mechanism”, thus it is also not clear what structural difference between them is required.
(3) The “substrate rotation mechanism” of Claim 26 is not clear.
Claim 25 recites the “mechanism of reversing a substrate”. Does the “substrate rotation mechanism” is different from the “substrate rotation mechanism”?
If so, it is not clear what structural difference between them is required.
If they are the same, why they are differently named?
(4) Claim 30 raises the same issue as the item (1) above.
(5) The “an alignment mechanism and a mask jig” of Claim 37 is not clear.
Claim 37 is dependent from Claim 25.
First, the “alignment mechanism” raises the same issue as the item (1) above.
Second, the “mask jig” is the same as the “mask jig” of Claim 25 or not?
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Meulen et al. (US 20080219812, hereafter ‘812) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20020132396, hereafter ‘396) and Donoso et al. (US 20050102064, hereafter ‘064).
Regarding to Claim 1,
‘812 teaches process modules, for use in semiconductor manufacturing processes (abstract, note the process module is capable of manufacturing the LED, see the claim interpretation above, the claimed “A equipment of a light-emitting device”);
‘812 further teaches one or more transfer robots 104, one or more process modules 108, one or more buffer modules 110 (Fig. 1, [0046], note the components of Fig. 1 can be interpreted to have two groups of clusters, each cluster can be defined by grouping at least one process module 108 and one transfer robot 104, thus Fig. 1 shows the two clusters are connected each other through the buffer module 110, in other words, ‘812 clearly teaches the recited “first and second clusters and the first cluster connected to second clusters through the first loadlock chamber”);
‘812 is merely silent about the “third to eleventh clusters and each group of two clusters connected through a loadlock”.
However, Fig. 1 of ‘812 clearly shows the label “other modules” in the right side of Fig. 1.
‘812 further teaches the components of the system 100 may be changed, varied, and configured in numerous ways to accommodate different semiconductor processing schemes and customized to adapt to a unique function or group of functions ([0055]), and the embodiments depicted above may be further expanded to incorporate additional processing modules and transfer robot modules ([0071]).
Emphasized again, ‘812 clearly acknowledges that such variations and modifications by adding more clusters as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art are intended to fall within the scope of this disclosure.
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added more clusters and buffer modules (each cluster defined by at least one process modules and one transfer robot, and the two clusters are connected by a buffer module), into the system 100 of Fig. 1 of ‘812, in other words, having three or more clusters, for instance, see Fig. 4 of US 20180040856, hereafter ‘856, filed in the IDS or the first illustration reproduced from ‘856 below, thus to have the recited number of the clusters and buffer modules, for the purpose of providing semiconductor processing schemes that is customized to adapt to a unique function or group of functions, and/or since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
PNG
media_image2.png
231
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, ‘812 and the modification of ‘812 clearly read into the following recited:
(“comprising: a first cluster to an eleventh cluster and a first loadlock chamber to a tenth loadlock chamber, wherein the first cluster is connected to the second cluster through the first loadlock chamber, wherein the second cluster is connected to the third cluster through the second loadlock chamber, wherein the third cluster is connected to the fourth cluster through the third loadlock chamber, wherein the fourth cluster is connected to the fifth cluster through the fourth loadlock chamber, wherein the fifth cluster is connected to the sixth cluster through the fifth loadlock chamber, wherein the sixth cluster is connected to the seventh cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber, wherein the seventh cluster is connected to the eighth cluster through the seventh loadlock chamber, wherein the eighth cluster is connected to the ninth cluster through the eighth loadlock chamber, wherein the ninth cluster is connected to the tenth cluster through the ninth loadlock chamber, wherein the tenth cluster is connected to the eleventh cluster through the tenth loadlock chamber”);
‘812 (and also including the modification of ‘812) further teaches:
Each sub-chamber module may be individually controlled, to accommodate different processes running in different vacuum sub-chamber modules ([0050], note it is commonly well-known that the “vacuum” is obtained by the vacuum pump”, the claimed “wherein each of the first cluster, the third cluster, the fourth cluster, the sixth cluster, the seventh cluster, the ninth cluster and the eleventh cluster is independently connected to a vacuum pump to reduce each pressure”);
a process module 108 includes at least one tool for processing a wafer 102, such as tools for epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, etching, plasma processing, lithography, plating, cleaning, spin coating, and so forth ([0049], note the process module of each cluster is capable of performing the at least one processes above, the claimed “wherein each of the first cluster, the fourth cluster and the seventh cluster independently comprises a first carrying device and a first plurality of deposition apparatuses, wherein each of the third cluster, the sixth cluster and the ninth cluster independently comprises a second carrying device, an etching apparatus and an ashing apparatus, wherein each of the second cluster, the fifth cluster and the eighth cluster independently comprises a third carrying device and a plurality of apparatuses to perform lithography, wherein the tenth cluster comprises a fourth carrying device and an etching apparatus, wherein the eleventh cluster comprises a fifth carrying device and a second plurality of deposition apparatuses”);
Each cluster of ‘812 is assigned to perform the least one of the processes including deposition, etching, ashing and lithograph, thus each cluster is connected to corresponding gas sources, and further each transfer robot of ‘812 has a substrate holding portion while transferring the substrate, therefore, ‘812 teaches the claimed “wherein each of atmospheres in the second cluster, the fifth cluster, the eighth cluster and the tenth cluster is independently connected to an gas atmosphere”, and “wherein the first carrying device comprises a substrate fixing portion”.
‘812 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: (1A) wherein each of atmospheres in the second cluster, the fifth cluster, the eighth cluster and the tenth cluster is independently connected to an inert gas atmosphere,
(1B) wherein the first carrying device comprises a substrate fixing portion, and wherein the first carrying device has a mechanism of rotating the substrate fixing portion to reverse a substrate.
In regards to the limitation of 1A:
‘396 is analogous art in the field of a substrate processing apparatus ([0134], Fig. 10). ‘396 teaches A vacuum evacuation pump and an inert gas introduction system are arranged in each of the chambers ([0134]) and After pulling an initial high vacuum state in all of the chambers at first, a purge state (normal pressure) is made by using an inert gas, nitrogen here ([0137]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured each cluster of ‘812 so to have an inert gas introduction system, for the purpose of controlling pressure inside of each chamber. Further it is also well-known that the inert gas is used to control a temperature of the chamber and/or to remove residual gases by purging process.
In regards to the limitation of 1B:
‘064 is analogous art in the field of a substrate processing tool (abstract). ‘064 teaches the second end 127 of the arm 115 may be arranged to rotate the end effector 129 (e.g., about a horizontal axis), as indicated by arrow 133 so that the end effector 129 and the substrate 131 held thereby may be rotated by 180° or "flipped" (Fig. 2, [0028]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each transfer robot of ‘812, so to have a rotating mechanism to flip the substrate, for the purpose of providing additional capability for processing a back side of the substrate, depending on a desired application.
Regarding to Claim 15,
The teaching of adding more clusters to the system 100 of Fig. 1 of ‘812 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, thus adding additional clusters to the system 100 of ‘812, so to have twelfth cluster and an eleventh buffer module is an obvious matter (the claimed “further comprising a twelfth cluster and an eleventh loadlock chamber”);
The above claim 1 rejection shows the arrangement of the equipment is a linear shape, thus, ‘812 is silent about the claimed “wherein the twelfth cluster is connected to the first cluster through the eleventh loadlock chamber”.
However, when the linear shaped arrangement is changed to a circular shaped arrangement, the lastly added cluster and buffer module of ‘812 can be connected to the original first cluster of ‘812, for instance, see Fig. 7 of ‘856 or the second illustration reproduced from ‘856 below (along a clockwise direction from the label 702 to the label 701, it can be named the first cluster to the twelfth cluster).
PNG
media_image3.png
1032
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The teaching of the “inert gas atmosphere” was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, thus connecting the additional cluster to an inert gas introduction system is an obvious matter (the claimed “wherein an atmosphere in the twelfth cluster is connected to an inert gas atmosphere”);
‘812 teaches a process module 108 includes at least one tool for processing a wafer 102, such as tools for epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, etching, plasma processing, lithography, plating, cleaning, spin coating, and so forth ([0049], the claimed “and wherein the twelfth cluster comprises a cleaning apparatus and a baking apparatus”).
Regarding to Claim 16,
‘812 further teaches the system 100 may include a number of load locks at different locations, such as at the front of the system, back of the system, middle of the system, and the like ([0052]);
Thus, when each of the load locks 112 of ‘812 is respectively connected to the label 701 and the label 708 of the circularly arranged system 100, see the second illustration above, one can be interpreted as a load chamber connected to the twelfth cluster, and the other one can be interpreted as unload chamber connected to the eleventh cluster, the claimed “wherein the twelfth cluster comprises a load chamber, and wherein the eleventh cluster comprises an unload chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 17,
The teaching of adding more clusters to the system 100 of Fig. 1 of ‘812 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, thus adding additional clusters to the system 100 of ‘812 in any position of the arrangement, so to have twelfth cluster and an eleventh buffer module, is an obvious matter. Further, the additional clusters and loadlocks can positioned as recited, for the purpose of providing semiconductor processing schemes that is customized to adapt to a unique function or group of functions, thus the arrangement of the 1st cluster to 11th cluster, 13th cluster and 14th cluster can be numbered as shown in below:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(the claimed “further comprising a thirteenth cluster, a fourteenth cluster, a twelfth loadlock chamber and a thirteenth loadlock chamber, wherein the thirteenth cluster is connected to the third cluster through the third loadlock chamber, wherein the thirteenth cluster is connected to the fourth cluster through the twelfth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is connected to the sixth cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is connected to the seventh cluster through the thirteenth loadlock chamber”);
The teaching of the “inert gas atmosphere” was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, thus connecting the additional cluster to an inert gas introduction system is an obvious matter (the claimed “wherein each of atmospheres in the thirteenth cluster and the fourteenth cluster is independently connected to an inert gas atmosphere”);
‘812 teaches a process module 108 includes at least one tool for processing a wafer 102, such as tools for epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, etching, plasma processing, lithography, plating, cleaning, spin coating, and so forth ([0049], the claimed “and wherein each of the thirteenth cluster and the fourteenth cluster independently comprises a cleaning apparatus and a baking apparatus”).
Regarding to Claims 18-22,
‘812 teaches a process module 108 includes at least one tool for processing a wafer 102, such as tools for epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, etching, plasma processing, lithography, plating, cleaning, spin coating, and so forth ([0049], note when a process is selected for each module, adopting corresponding apparatus for the selected process is an obvious matter, for the purpose of providing semiconductor processing schemes that is customized to adapt to a unique function or group of functions, the claimed “wherein each of the first cluster, the fourth cluster and the seventh cluster independently comprises one or more of an evaporation apparatus, a sputtering apparatus, a chemical vapor deposition apparatus and an atomic layer deposition apparatus” of Claim 18, “wherein each of the third cluster, the sixth cluster and the ninth cluster comprises a dry etching apparatus” of Claim 19, “wherein the tenth cluster comprises a wet etching apparatus” of Claim 20, “wherein each of the second cluster, the fifth cluster and the eighth cluster independently comprises an application apparatus, a light-exposure apparatus, a developing apparatus and a baking apparatus in the plurality of apparatuses to perform lithography” of Claim 21, and “wherein each of the second cluster, the fifth cluster and the eighth cluster independently further comprises an application apparatus and a nanoimprint apparatus in the plurality of apparatuses to perform lithography” of Claim 22).
Regarding to Claim 23,
‘812 teaches a variety of other objects may be handled within the system 100 including a production wafer, a test wafer, a cleaning wafer, a calibration wafer, or the like, as well as other substrates (such as for reticles, magnetic heads, flat panels, and the like) ([0047], note silicon wafer is commonly well-known substrate for the semiconductor processing, the claimed “wherein the manufacturing equipment is configured to manufacture a light-emitting device on a silicon wafer”).
Regarding to Claim 24
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘812, ‘396 and ‘064, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Huh et al. (US 20140179041, hereafter ‘041).
Regarding to Claim 24,
‘812 teaches a process module 108 includes at least one tool for processing a wafer 102, such as tools for epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, etching, plasma processing, lithography, plating, cleaning, spin coating, and so forth ([0049]).
‘812, ‘396 and ‘064 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 24: whereini each of the first plurality of deposition apparatuses comprises an alignment mechanism and a mask jig, and wherein the alignment mechanism has a mechanism of attaching a substrate to the mask jig.
‘041 is analogous art in the field of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘041 teaches After being loaded between a previously mounted mask and a substrate holder, the first substrate 410 is aligned (e.g., precisely aligned) by using a mark of the first substrate 410 and an open mark of the mask by using an aligning instrument to which a vision unit is coupled, and then the first substrate 410 and the mask are adhered to each other ([0143]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the physical vapor deposition apparatus of ‘812 would have an alignment mechanism and a mask jig, for the purpose of providing precisely alignment of the wafer and the mask, thus obtaining precise patterning on the wafer, as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 28-29, 31-36 are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718