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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of claims 1 - 20 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21- 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Imamura (US PUB 2020/0006096 A1, Embodiment of Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 10, Imamura teaches, A conveyance apparatus configured to convey a substrate in order to irradiate the substrate with line-shaped laser light,
the conveyance apparatus (2) comprising:
a first substrate levitation unit (60) disposed below the substrate,
the first substrate levitation unit being configured to levitate the substrate [0111],
and being disposed at a part of the substrate extending from a central part of the substrate to one end thereof in a plan view (fig. 18);
a second substrate levitation unit (67) disposed below the substrate,
the second substrate levitation unit being configured to levitate the substrate ([0177]),
and being disposed at another part of the substrate extending from the central part of the substrate to the other end thereof in the plan view (fig. 19 – shows multiple substrate levitation units);
a holding mechanism (62_1) disposed below the central part of the substrate,
the holding mechanism being configured to hold the substrate by absorbing the substrate ([0053]);
and a moving mechanism (63) configured to move the holding mechanism along a gap between the first and second substrate levitation units in order to move the substrate with respect to an irradiation place of the laser light (Fig. 32-34 – shows moving mechanism (63) moving holding mechanism (62_1) with substrate between levitation units).
Regarding claim 20, Imamura teaches, A conveyance method for conveying a substrate in order to irradiate the substrate with line-shaped laser light,
the conveyance method comprising the steps of:
(A) levitating a part of the substrate (66) extending from a central part of the substrate to one end thereof in a plan view by using a first substrate levitation unit (60) disposed below the substrate ([0111]),
and levitating another part of the substrate extending from the central part of the substrate to the other end thereof in the plan view by using a second substrate levitation unit (67) disposed below the substrate ([0117]);
(B) holding the substrate by absorbing the substrate by using a holding mechanism (62_1, 62_4) disposed below the central part of the substrate; and
(C) moving the holding mechanism along a gap (60e) between the first and second substrate levitation units in order to move the substrate with respect to an irradiation place of the laser light (Fig. 32-34 – shows holding mechanism (62_1) moving substrate between levitation units).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (US PUB 2020/0006096 A1, embodiment of Fig. 11) in view of Tanaka (US patent 6,160,827).
Regarding claim 1 Imamura teaches, A conveyance apparatus configured to convey a substrate in order to irradiate the substrate with line-shaped laser light,
the conveyance apparatus (1) comprising:
a substrate levitation unit (10) configured to levitate the substrate over its top surface;
a holding mechanism (12) configured to hold the substrate;
Imamura fails to teach,
a moving mechanism configured to move the holding mechanism in a direction inclined from a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light (601) in a plan view so as to change an irradiation place of the laser light in the substrate
However, Tanaka teaches,
a moving mechanism (1007) configured to move the holding mechanism in a direction inclined from a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light (601) in a plan view so as to change an irradiation place of the laser light in the substrate (Col. 11 – Line 20-25 – substrate is moved in an inclined direction).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate. As disclosed by Tanaka, doing so would ensure that the periodic repetition of highs and lows of irradiation energy density observed in the longitudinal direction do not fully overlap, allowing for more uniform laser annealing.
Regarding claim 2 Imamura teaches,
the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the holding mechanism includes a plurality of absorption cells arranged along a conveyance direction [0049] -Vacuum absorption mechanism,
and the holding mechanism holds the substrate by having the plurality of absorption cells (152) absorb a bottom surface of the substrate [0049],
and a valve is provided for each of the absorption cells (143).
Regarding claim 3 Imamura teaches,
the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the absorption cell of the holding mechanism is made of a metal material ([0063] – base and cells made of metal),
and an absorption groove (154) is formed on a top surface of the absorption cells (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4 Tanaka teaches,
the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein an angle formed by the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light and the conveyance direction is larger than 0° and not larger than 5° in a plan view (Col 6 – lines 20-35 – describes how the angle between laser and conveyance direction is between 0.6o and 16.7o which falls within the given range)
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 5 Tanaka teaches,
wherein the substrate is rectangular (902), and in a plan view, the conveyance direction is inclined from four edges of the substrate (fig. 9).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches,
wherein an angle between the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light and an edge of the substrate is larger than 0° and not larger than 5° in a plan view. (Col 6 – lines 20-35 – describes how the angle between laser and conveyance direction is between 0.6o and 16.7o which falls within the given range)
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 11 Imamura teaches,
A conveyance method for conveying a substrate in order to irradiate the substrate with line-shaped laser light, the conveyance method comprising the steps of:
(a) levitating, by a levitation unit, the substrate over its top surface (10);
(b) holding, by a holding mechanism (12), the substrate;
Tanaka teaches,
(c) moving the holding mechanism in a direction inclined from a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light in a plan view so as to change an irradiation place of the laser light in the substrate (fig. 9),
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12 Imamura teaches,
the conveyance method according to claim 11,
wherein the holding mechanism includes a plurality of absorption cells (152) arranged along a conveyance direction (Fig. 10),
and the holding mechanism holds the substrate by having the plurality of absorption cells absorb a bottom surface of the substrate (Fig. 10),
and a valve is provided for each of the absorption cells (143).
Regarding claim 13 Imamura teaches,
the conveyance method according to claim 11,
wherein the absorption cell of the holding mechanism is made of a metal material ([0063]),
and an absorption groove (154) is formed on a top surface (153a) of the absorption cells.
Regarding claim 14 Tanaka teaches,
wherein an angle formed by the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light and the conveyance direction is larger than 0° and not larger than 5° in a plan view (Col 6 – lines 20-35 – describes how the angle between laser and conveyance direction is between 0.6o and 16.7o which falls within the given range)
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15 Imamura teaches,
wherein the substrate (902) is rectangular (fig.9),
and in a plan view, the conveyance direction is inclined from four edges of the substrate (fig. 9 – substrate (902) being conveyed in an inclined direction).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 16 Imamura teaches,
The conveyance method according to claim 11,
wherein an angle between the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light and an edge of the substrate is larger than 0° and not larger than 5° in a plan view (Col 6 – lines 20-35 – describes how the angle between laser and conveyance direction is between 0.6o and 16.7o which falls within the given range).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura’s conveyance apparatus and method to include the angled conveyance of a rectangular substrate for the reasons disclosed above.
Claims 7,8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (US PUB 2020/0006096 A1, embodiment of Fig. 11) in view of Tanaka (US patent 6,160,827) and further in view of Imamura (US PUB 2020/0006096 A1, Embodiment of Fig. 18)
Regarding claim 7, Neither Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 11 or Tanaka teach,
The conveyance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a rotation mechanism configured to rotate the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit.
However, Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 18 teaches,
The conveyance apparatus further comprising a rotation mechanism (68) configured to rotate the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit (60).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Imamura’s conveyance apparatus, and Tanaka’s laser annealing device to include both the rotation mechanism and substrate rotation taught by the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Imamura. As disclosed by Imamura, A rotation/alignment mechanism allows for the correction of deviations in position and rotation angle, allowing for accurate control of the irradiation place of the laser light.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches,
The irradiation of a substrate with the laser light by conveying the substrate in a state in which an edge of the substrate is inclined from the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light (fig. 9 – substrate (902) being conveyed in an inclined direction)
Neither Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 11 or Tanaka teaches
That the edge of the substrate is made parallel to the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light by rotating the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit
Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 18 teaches,
That the edge of the substrate is made parallel to the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light by rotating the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit ([0115] – Alignment mechanism (69) adjusts the position of the rotation angle of the processed substrate to parallel after conveyance operation).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Imamura’s conveyance apparatus, and Tanaka’s laser annealing device to include both the rotation mechanism and substrate rotation taught by the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Imamura for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 17, Neither Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 11 or Tanaka teaches,
wherein the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit is rotated before being irradiated with the laser light
However, Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 18 teaches,
wherein the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit is rotated before being irradiated with the laser light ([0117]).
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Imamura’s conveyance apparatus, and Tanaka’s laser annealing device to include both the rotation mechanism and substrate rotation taught by the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Imamura for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches,
The irradiation of the substrate with the laser light by conveying the substrate in a state in which an edge of the substrate is inclined from the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light (fig. 9 – substrate (902) being conveyed in an inclined direction)
Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 11 and Tanaka fail to teach,
the edge of the substrate is made parallel to the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light by rotating the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit.
However, Imamura in the embodiment of fig. 18 teaches,
the edge of the substrate is made parallel to the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the line-shaped laser light by rotating the substrate disposed over the substrate levitation unit ([0015] [0117] – Alignment mechanism (69) adjusts the position of the rotation angle of the processed substrate to parallel after conveyance operation)
Imamura and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Imamura’s conveyance apparatus, and Tanaka’s laser annealing device to include both the rotation mechanism and substrate rotation taught by the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Imamura for the reasons disclosed above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (US PUB 2020/0006096 A1, embodiment of Fig.11) in view of Tanaka (US patent 6,160,827) and further in view of Yoneda (US PUB 2002/0001888 A1)
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Neither Imamura or Tanaka teach,
A slit mechanism to adjust the irradiation place of the laser light in the longitudinal direction.
However, Yoneda teaches,
A slit mechanism (60/65) configured to adjust the irradiation place of the laser light in the longitudinal direction [0011] – Fig. 6).
Imamura, Tanaka and Yoneda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imamura and Tanaka’s laser annealing conveyance apparatus to include the slit mechanism taught by Yoneda. As disclosed by the applicant, the use of a slit mechanism allows for more precise and versatile irradiation of substrates, the slit mechanism allows the irradiated area to be freely changed to desired parameters rather than a fixed dispersion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicants’ disclosure.
Lee (US PUB 2017/0117306 A1) – discloses a laser annealing apparatus where the substrate is conveyed in an inclined direction
Goto (US PUB 2020/0227259 A1) – discloses a laser annealing apparatus with a slit mechanism for controlling laser light size and intensity
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JUAN S MOSCOSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652