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
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 06/08/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1, 15-24, 26-27, 30, 37 from the non-final office action, mailed on 06/08/2026, by amending claims 1, 15, 17, 24-26, 28, 30, 37, and adding new claims 38-40, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/08/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it fails to comply content requirement for an Information Disclosure Statement. Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication, and where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not known, the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time ) when the document was available as a publication, see MPEP 609.004(a).
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature “indirectly connected” of claims 1, 15, 17, 25, 28, 30, see also details of 112 rejections below, for must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior 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 “alignment mechanism” in claims 24, 26, 27, 38, 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 related term 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 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 1 and 15-40 are rejected 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.
(1) The new limitation “directly or indirectly” for connection between the clusters across the claim list is a new matter.
The applicants’ disclosures do not provide detailed structural configurations for how the “indirectly connected” between the clusters is constructed in the applicants’ apparatus.
The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree between the “directly” and “indirectly”, thus the feature is a new matter.
(2) The “wherein an atmosphere in the twelfth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to an inert gas atmosphere” of Claim 15 has a new matter.
The applicants’ disclosures do not provide detailed structural configurations for how the “indirectly connected” to the inert gas atmosphere is constructed within the applicants’ apparatus.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 15-40 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) Continued from 112 1st above,
The new limitation “directly or indirectly” connection between the clusters across the claim list is also not clear, because the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is respectfully requested the applicants to provide detailed structural configuration for the “indirect connection” for each cluster.
(2) Continued from 112 1st above,
The “wherein an atmosphere in the twelfth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to an inert gas atmosphere” of Claim 15 also not clear, because the applicants’ disclosures do not provide detailed structural configurations for how the “indirectly connected” to the inert gas atmosphere is constructed within the applicants’ apparatus, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is respectfully requested the applicants to provide detailed structural configuration for the “indirect connection” to the inert gas atmosphere.
(3) Similarly, the “wherein the thirteenth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to the third cluster through the third loadlock chamber, wherein the thirteenth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to the fourth cluster through the twelfth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to the sixth cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber, wherein the fourteenth cluster is directly or indirectly 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 directly or indirectly connected to the fourth cluster through the third loadlock chamber” and “wherein the sixth cluster is directly or indirectly connected to the seventh cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber”.
In case when the claim 1 has “directly connected” for the 3rd and 6th clusters,
How each of the 13th and 14th clusters can be directly connected to each of 3rd and 6th clusters? They are already directly connected to 4th and 7th clusters.
In case of “indirectly connected” as recited in claim 1,
It is also not clear, because the term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for the “indirection connection”. The applicants’ disclosures fail to provide how the indirect connection is constructed.
(4) The “alignment mechanism” and “the alignment mechanism is configured to adjust a position of the substrate by using the camera in order to mount the substrate on the mask jig” 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, thus it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the applicants’ specifications, see the paragraphs [0253-0259] of the published instant application and Figs. 24-26;
Specifically, the paragraph [0253] states:
“The carrying device 72a includes a substrate rotating mechanism 98 that rotates the substrate fixing portion 96. A circuit and the like are provided on the surface of the substrate 60 in advance, and the substrate 60 is attached closely to the mask jig 61 so as to avoid deposition in an unnecessary area. Thus, when the substrate 60 is mounted on the mask jig 61, a pattern provided in advance in the substrate 60 is aligned in the θ-direction with the opening portion in the mask jig 61 with use of the substrate rotation mechanism 98 (see FIG. 24B). Note that a camera 86 used for the alignment can be provided in the stage 83a (see FIG. 26B)”, and
The paragraph [0259] further states “the stage 83a is provided with the camera 86 in addition to the pusher pins 85. The camera 86 is provided at a position overlapping with the opening portion of the mask jig 61. Thus, an alignment operation can be performed while the opening portion of the mask jig 61 and the pattern provided in the substrate 60 are viewed with the camera 86”.
Consequently, based on the disclosures above, the applicants’ “alignment mechanism” appear to have at least the stage 83a, carrying devices 72a, and camera 86.
Claim 26 is dependent from Claim 25.
The claim 25 already defines the stage and the carrying device as the “substrate transfer device” and Claim 26 also defines the camera as the “substrate transfer device”.
Thus, it is not clear what structural difference for the “alignment mechanism” of Claim 26 is required to make the “alignment mechanism” of Claim 26 to be differentiated from the stage, carrying devices and camera.
(5) The “the sixth carrying device is configured to rotate a substrate in an operation of carrying the substrate” of Claim 26 is not clear.
Claim 26 is dependent from Claim 25.
Claim 25 already recites the “the sixth carrying device is configured to reverse a substrate to be mounted”. The “reverse” is functional result of the “rotating”.
Thus, it is not clear what structural difference is required between “reverse substrate” of Claim 25 and “rotate the substrate” of Claim 26.
If the applicants argue they are different, the claim must clearly recite the difference.
(6) The secondly recited “in an operation of carrying the substrate” of Claim 25 and the “in an operation of carrying the substrate” of Claim 26 are not clear, because they raises antecedent basis issue from the firstly recited “in an operation of carrying the substrate”.
They will be examined as inclusive of “in the operation of carrying the substrate”.
(7) Claim 30 raises the same issue as the item (3) above.
(8) The “wherein each of the first plurality of deposition apparatuses comprises an alignment mechanism and a mask jig” of Claim 37 is not clear.
Claim 37 is dependent from Claim 25.
Claim 25 recites “a mask jig”. The “a mask jig” of Claim 37 is an additional mask jig, which different from claim 25, or the same mask jig?
Further as discussed in the item (4) above, the stage and the carrying device of the claim 25 are considered being an alignment mechanism. Does the “an alignment mechanism” of Claim 37 is an additional alignment mechanism, which different from claim 25, or the same different from claim 25, or the same alignment mechanism?
(9) The “alignment mechanism” of Claim 38 is not clear, due to the same reason as discussed in the item (4) and (6) above.
(10) The “under a normal pressure” of Claims 39-40 is not clear, because the term “normal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 26 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.
(1) The “the sixth carrying device is configured to rotate a substrate in an operation of carrying the substrate” of Claim 26 fails to further limit the claim 25.
Claim 26 is dependent from Claim 25.
Claim 25 already recites the “the sixth carrying device is configured to reverse a substrate to be mounted”. The “reverse” is functional result of the “rotating”, in other words, the “rotate” of the claim 26 is broader than the “reverse” of Claim 25. Thus, the claim 26 fails to further limit the claim 25.
Emphasized again, if the applicants argue they are different, the claim must clearly recite the difference.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 15-23 and 39 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 directly and indirectly 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 the 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_image1.png
231
827
media_image1.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 directly and indirectly connected to the second cluster through the first loadlock chamber, wherein the second cluster is directly and indirectly 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 directly and indirectly connected to the fifth cluster through the fourth loadlock chamber, wherein the fifth cluster is directly and indirectly connected to the sixth cluster through the fifth loadlock chamber, wherein the sixth cluster is directly and indirectly connected to the seventh cluster through the sixth loadlock chamber, wherein the seventh cluster is directly and indirectly connected to the eighth cluster through the seventh loadlock chamber, wherein the eighth cluster is directly and indirectly connected to the ninth cluster through the eighth loadlock chamber, wherein the ninth cluster is is configured to reverse an up/down positioning of a substrate by rotating the substrate fixing portion while carrying the substrate. connected to the tenth cluster through the ninth loadlock chamber, wherein the tenth cluster is directly and indirectly connected to the eleventh cluster through the tenth loadlock chamber, wherein the first cluster, the second cluster, the third cluster, the fourth cluster, the fifth cluster, the sixth cluster, the seventh cluster, the eighth cluster, the ninth cluster and the tenth cluster are connected in this order”);
‘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 is configured to reverse an up/down positioning of a substrate by rotating the substrate fixing portion while carrying the 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 directly and indirectly 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_image2.png
1032
793
media_image2.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_image3.png
44
696
media_image3.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 39,
‘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”, therefore, the pump is capable of setting a pressure under a normal pressure, the claimed “wherein each of atmospheres in the second cluster, the fifth cluster, the eighth cluster and the tenth cluster is independently configured to perform processing that is performed under a normal pressure”);
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: wherein each of the first plurality of deposition apparatuses comprises an alignment mechanism and a mask jig, and wherein the alignment mechanism is configured to attach a substrate to the mask jig in each of the first plurality of deposition apparatuses.
‘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
If all the 112 rejections for the claim 25 are resolved,
Claims 25, 28-29, 31-36 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive.
In regards to the 112(f) interpretation, the applicants argue that In view of the requirements set forth in view of MPEP §2181(I)(A), the Office Action fails to properly establish that the claimed recitations elicit invocation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), see page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains the recited “alignment mechanism” uses the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function “alignment”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, therefore, it clearly invokes 112(f).
In regards to the “intended use” interpretation, the applicants argue that such a broadly generalized interpretation may not always flow from a particular prior art reference and is not universally applicable to every claimed feature. Accordingly, any prior art reference cited against the claims must require individual consideration of the subject matter disclosed, see page 12.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains the intended use interpretation, because the claimed limitation under the intended interpretation merely recite an identification or function, not the structural difference.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
In regards to the 112 rejections, the applicants requested reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection in view of the amendments to these claims, which are believed to address the Examiner's concerns intended use” interpretation, the applicants argue that such a broadly generalized interpretation may not always flow from a particular prior art reference and is not universally applicable to every claimed feature. Accordingly, any prior art reference cited against the claims must require individual consideration of the subject matter disclosed, see page 12.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains the rejections, because the amendment raises the new matter and indefiniteness issues, as discussed in the rejection above.
In regards to the 103 rejections, the applicants argue that Although the Office Action asserts that FIG. 2 of Donoso depicts a substrate-handling robot 113, the Office Action fails to articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that the combination of features recited in claim 1 are obvious. The Office Action's rationale for "providing additional capability for processing a back side of the substrate, depending on a desired application" is neither taught nor suggested by Donoso, nor do van der Meulen and Yamazaki demonstrate a need to provide for an additional capability for processing a back side of a substrate, see page 13.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains the Office Action clearly articulates reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that the combination of features recited in claim 1 are obvious.
First, processing backside of a substrate, such as depositing, etching or cleaning, or even particle blowing on the backside, is well-known features in the field of semiconductor processing area, for instance, see US 8309446.
Therefore, providing an additional capability of the backside processing into existing chamber module does not require a separate backside processing chamber module, which requires a higher production, therefore, it clearly provides well-known motivation to combine the knowledges.
Second, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law, see MPEP 2144.I.
As discussed in the “First” above, the processing backside of a substrate is well-known features in the field of semiconductor processing area. Therefore, for the purpose of providing capability of backside processing is an obvious matter to an ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to the 103 rejections, the applicants argue that the Office Action fails to establish a particular order of process modules 108 that satisfy the requirement recited in claim 1. Although a deposition apparatus, the etching apparatus, the ashing apparatus, the apparatuses to perform lithography and so on could be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, any of van der Meulen's process modules cannot necessarily be properly interpreted as arbitrary devices. In particular, the BRI standard and the combination with each recited purpose have to satisfy the order of clusters recited in claim 1, see page 13.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains ‘812 clearly teaches the order, because the applicants merely recite identification or naming for each cluster, without further reciting sufficient structural difference among the clusters.
As discussed in the claim interpretation above, deposition and etching can be performed within the same apparatus, therefore, merely reciting functional naming, such as deposition apparatus or etching apparatus does not add a patentable difference from an apparatus of a prior art performing deposition or etching process.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. Therefore, the patentability of the claimed apparatus must be evaluated by the structural difference, not by mere naming difference. It is respectfully requested to add a limitation related with clear structural difference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights