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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 20160218029) in view of Tanaka (US 6395094).
Regarding claim 1. Janakiraman teaches in the drawings an apparatus (such as substrate transfer system 200 [40], 300 [44], 500 [71]) that performs a transfer of a substrate to a substrate processing chamber (transfers wafer to process chambers 201-205 [40-43], 301-303 [47] 520/530 [73]) in which a substrate processing is performed [40-43 47 73], comprising: a substrate transfer chamber (the extended housing 211 [40], which includes a hexagonal central portion w/ a magnetic circular floor/planar motor 215, fig. 2 which is all under vacuum as part of the inside of 200 [40], the area at 215 provides wafer transfer [43]; 304 allowing for transfers of wafer figs. 3a-d[45-53], similarly 504 [71-76]) including a floor portion (planar motor 115/215 [37-43] forming a bottom/floor, fig. 1, 2, on which movable carriers transport the wafers, multiple floors/stages/planar motors 310 330 [44] fig. 3c, planar motor 510 [71-76] fig. 5ab) provided with a first magnet (electro magnetic coils 120 [37], 312 [45 46], coils 512 [71 72]), and a sidewall portion (portions of the hexagonal chamber wall connected to 201-205, fig. 2, similarly 304 w/ 301-303, 504 w/530) connected to the substrate processing chamber (fig. 2, five sidewalls of the hexagonal chamber connected to a respective 201-205, both sidewalls of rectangular 304 504 connected to 301-303, 530 fig. 3, 5) and having an opening portion (opening in each side of the hexagonal wall connected to a 201-205, fig. 2, similarly the walls of 304 504 connected to their process chambers must have openings in order to transfer the wafer to/from them, as discussed [45-53 71-76], such as 309, 509) through which a loading/unloading of the substrate between the substrate transfer chamber and the substrate processing chamber is performed ([40-43], eg fig. 2, the 110 is facing directly to 201 to transfer a wafer between the hexagonal chamber and 201 via the opening between them/facing 110; also as discussed previously figs 3, 5 [45-53 71-76]);
and a substrate transfer module (said 110, fig, 2, 1) including a substrate holder (subs holding surface 112 [36] fig. 1, this is used among all systems, eg 110 in fig. 3c 5a) configured to hold the substrate (fig. 1, holding 50), and a second magnet (magnet 114 in 110 [36]) configured such that a repulsive force acts between the first magnet and the second magnet (fig. 1, the magnets clearly levitate/separate [37], meaning a repulsive force acts between), the substrate transfer module being configured to be movable inside the substrate transfer chamber (fig. 2, the 110 moves in the hexagonal chamber and extended chamber 211, also fig. 3c 5a) by magnetic levitation based on the repulsive force (fig. 1, as discussed [37]), wherein the substrate transfer module is configured to perform the loading/unloading of the substrate by directly entering the substrate transfer chamber via the opening portion ([43] 110 performs a wafer transfer by crossing from one chamber/202 to another/205 via 215, meaning it crosses the opening portion between 202/215 and directly enters the trfr chamber 215 via said opening between 202/215 before next going into 205, as seen in fig. 2; similarly fig. 3, the 110 enters into the process chamber, i.e. via 309, based on trfr process fig. 4),
or in a case in which a substrate transfer mechanism (fig. 5, trfr support 540 [73] which is fixed on an axle in 504, fig. 5ab) is fixedly provided inside the substrate transfer chamber (as discussed) to perform the loading/unloading of the substrate between the substrate transfer mechanism and the substrate processing chamber via the opening portion ([73-91] fig. 5a-6c, 540 takes wafer from 110 and inserts/takes it into/from 530 via 509, fig. 5ab), the substrate transfer module is configured to deliver the substrate to and from the substrate transfer mechanism (as disc, 110 is looped around 504, stopping at 530, trfrs 50 to 540 or back from 540 after processing [73-91] fig. 6a-c).
but does not teach wherein, in the case in which the substrate transfer mechanism is provided inside the substrate transfer chamber, the apparatus comprises a substrate delivery part provided inside the substrate transfer chamber and configured to temporarily place the substrate delivered between the substrate transfer module and the substrate transfer mechanism on the substrate delivery part. However, Tanaka teaches in the drawings the apparatus comprises a substrate delivery part (aligning unit 38 and turntable 40, det. Desc para. 5-7) provided inside the substrate transfer chamber (fig. 1a, inside the extended trfr chamber 28) and configured to temporarily place the substrate delivered between the substrate transfer module and the substrate transfer mechanism on the substrate delivery part (fig 1a, det. Desc para. 17-19, the alignment/temporary delivery mechanism has the wafer transferred between a transfer module 32 and transfer mechanism 34 set on it to check and perform an alignment). It would be obvious those skilled in the art at the time of inventio to modify Janakiraman to align the wafer to detect the flat/notch, det. Desc para. 5-7, which would allow the transfer devices to correctly hold the wafer.
Regarding claim 3. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate transfer mechanism (540 [73]) is a substrate transfer arm configured to be extensible and rotatable about a vertical axis ([73] 540 is an arm [73] and can extend vertically, and rotate about vertical shaft/axis, fig. 5ab), and wherein the opening portion is provided in each of two sidewall portions of the substrate transfer chamber (fig. 5a, openings to each of 530s on opposing sidewalls of 504) with the substrate transfer arm interposed between the two sidewall portions (fig. 5a, 540s between either long sidewall of 504) such that opening portions provided in the two sidewall portions face each other (530s on opposite sidewalls of 504s also face each other) with the substrate transfer arm interposed between the opening portions (fig. 5a, 504 between the opposing 530s and their 509s, fig. 5ab), but does not teach a plural number of the substrate delivery part are arranged along an arrangement of the opening portions and the substrate transfer arm. However, Tanaka teaches in fig. 6 a plural number of the substrate delivery part (multiple 38, 38a) are arranged along an arrangement of the opening portions and the substrate transfer arm (arranged along the edge of the openings to 26 and arm of 34, fig. 6). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to improve processing efficiency without having to wait for completion of one aligning, det. Desc para. 29-31. Per MPEP 2144.04, it has been held that differences related to duplication of parts was not patentable.
Regarding claim 4. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate delivery part includes a placement part (turntable 40) on which the substrate is placed (Tanaka, det desc para 5-6) but does not teach a substrate delivery part-side magnet configured such that a repulsive force acts between the substrate delivery part-side magnet and the first magnet, However, Janakiraman teaches in [96] the carrier 750 having base side magnets such as in base 751 and side magnet 758 757 with levitation/repulse force between them and first magnets in floors 710/720 that allow it to be rotatable, consistent with the rotation function of the turntable. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to improve and simplify control of rotation/movement, since the floor magnets can be controlled via a central/single controller 75 [97] and use already existing magnetic equipment. Regarding when the substrate is held by the substrate transfer module and when the substrate is held by the substrate transfer mechanism, the substrate delivery part is configured to be rotatable around the vertical axis inside the substrate transfer chamber by magnetic levitation based on the repulsive force to change an orientation of the substrate (regardless of when the substrate is held by 110 or 540, the aligner, as modified, is always rotatable about the z/vert axis, as discussed, via said levitation/repulsive force actuation mechanism between the magnets to change wafer alignment).
Regarding claim 7. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the substrate transfer module includes a connection mechanism configured to connect the substrate transfer module to another substrate transfer module. However, Tanaka teaches in fig. 1a a connection mechanism (the connector between transfer modules/handlers 32a and b, and also between 34a and b) configured to connect the substrate transfer module to another substrate transfer module (as discussed). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Janakiraman to be able to be capable of bending and stretching in opposite directions to each other to handle two wafers at a time, det desc para. 4, which would speed up wafer transfers/increase productivity.
Regarding claim 8. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising: an accommodation chamber (eg load lock chamber 507 [74]) connected to the substrate transfer chamber (507 connected to 504) and configured to accommodate the substrate transfer module ([74] the 560 loop on which the 110 travels also passes into 507, meaning 110 can also move into 507, as disc in [77]).
Regarding claim 9. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate transfer module is configured to transfer a component installed inside the substrate transfer chamber or the substrate processing chamber in addition to the transfer of the substrate (110 is configured to transfer multiple wafers, i.e. in addition to the transfer of a single or particular wafer, eg once the transfer/processing/return of a particular wafer is done, 110 handles other wafers/components that are installed/placed on it while in the transfer chamber or after processing in a process chamber, for its return transfer, since 110 is used repetitively for multiple processing, not limited to a particular wafer).
Regarding claim 11. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate transfer module includes a main body portion in which the second magnet is provided (base of 110 having the 114, fig. 1), and an arm portion extending laterally from the main body portion (fig. 1, arm 112 extending sideways from base, w/ end effector [73]) but does not teach it having a fork constituting the substrate holder on a tip end of the arm portion. However, Tanaka teaches in det desc para. 3 4 forks 32ab/34ab the handle wafers at the end of arms of 32, 34, fig. 1ab, 7. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to provide an alternate wafer handler to hold/transfer wafers, as can be clearly seen in the drawings, and also be able to bend and stretch in opposite directions, det desc para. 3 4.
Regarding claim 12. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the substrate transfer module performs the loading/unloading of the substrate by inserting the arm portion into the substrate processing chamber via the opening portion while the main body portion is positioned inside the substrate transfer chamber (the Tanaka based arm/fork is inserted into a chamber via its opening to transfer a wafer into it with the base being fixed in the transfer chamber, such as Tanaka fig. 1ab, hence when transferring into a process chamber, it performs similarly).
Regarding claim 13. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 12, wherein the substrate transfer chamber has an elongated rectangular shape in a plan view (fig. 2, 3, 5 all have long rectangular shapes) and is configured such that a length in a short side direction of the elongated rectangular shape is smaller than a total length of the substrate transfer module in a state of holding the substrate (we take a length of the width/short side as an arbitrary distance of the total width and its being less than a total length of 110 with wafer 50), and in the substrate transfer chamber, a space is provided in which a direction of the substrate transfer module is switched while performing a transition operation when inserting and retreating the arm into and out of the substrate processing chamber via the opening portion (considered a space in the transfer chamber where the Tanaka-modified 110 is located and is capable of where the direction of the arm is switched, eg from extended to withdrawn and vice versa eg Tanaka fig 1ab, during the insert/withdrawal of the handler/arm into a process chamber thru the opening).
Regarding claim 19. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches a substrate processing system (the entire apparatus of fig 2, 3 ,5 and each including the controller 75) comprising: the apparatus of Claim 1 (see claim 1); and a plurality of substrate processing chambers (as discussed, 201-205, 301-303 530s) connected to the substrate transfer chamber via a plural number of the opening portion formed in the sidewall portion (as disc in claim 1, each of 201-205 is connected to the hexagonal transfer chamber via its own opening on a side of the wall of the hexagonal chamber fig. 2, 301-303 each connected to 304 via respective 309s on both walls of the process and trfr chambers in order to connect a passage between them, similarly for 530 and 504 via respective 509s).
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 20160218029) in view of Tanaka (US 6395094), Berger (US 20210296150) and Tateyama (US 5970717).
Regarding claim 5. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka, teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate transfer chamber includes a ceiling surface portion (fig. 3c, both 310 and/or 330 are internal ceilings for the 1st, 2nd floors of the 304 building/chamber) but does not teach it is provided with a third magnet, wherein the apparatus comprises a processing module including a fourth magnet configured such that an attractive force acts between the fourth magnet and the third magnet, However Berger teaches in fig. 1b ceiling of trfr chamber 102 provided with a third magnet (magnet track 114 [25 29]), wherein the apparatus comprises a carrier module (carrier 110, processing aspect will be discussed later w.r.t Tateyama) including a fourth magnet configured such that an attractive force acts between the fourth magnet and the third magnet (fig. 1b carriers have magnets and interact w/ magnets of the track [21 23 29 30]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to allow the carriers to travel in multiple directions with reduced footprint [3 4-6], but does not teach the said carrier is a process module configured to process an interior of the substrate transfer chamber or the substrate. However Tateyama teaches in figs 5-8 carrier is a process module (movable arm 3 w/ wafer holder/carrier 41-43 fig. 3, 5 6 det desc para. 20-23) configured to process an interior of the substrate transfer chamber or the substrate (performs cooling gas process on wafers det desc para. 22). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to be able to cool substrates efficiently and to accurate temperatures esp after heat treatments, summary para. 1-3, desc of related art. Janakiraman further teaches wherein the processing module is configured to be movable inside the substrate transfer chamber by a magnetic attraction based on the attractive force (as prev discussed via Berger, the process module/gas carrier moves on the ceiling in the trfr chamber and is held by mag forces, preventing falling off, i.e. magnetic attraction)
Regarding claim 6. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka, Berger and Tateyama, teaches the apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the processing module is a gas ejection module configured to eject a gas (as disc in claim 5, via Tateyama) into the substrate transfer chamber (as disc, since the entire carrier/process module is in the trfr chamber) via a gas supply hole provided in a bottom surface of the processing module (eg one of the Tateyama cooling gas module types eg Fig. 7 one of the 73a is in a bottom surface of the long pipe 46 of the process module) so that a downward flow of a cleaning gas toward the substrate inside the substrate transfer chamber is formed (fig. 7 the gas flows down to G being held and moved inside the trfr chamber; nitrogen gas is used and is an inert cleaning gas capable of blowing away dusts etc; also gas type is not an apparatus structure and may be exchanged depending on intended use, MPEP 2114).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 20160218029) in view of Tanaka (US 6395094) and Yoshida (US 20050103270).
Regarding claim 14. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka, teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate transfer module includes a main body portion in which the second magnet is provided (fig. 1, the base of 110 with 114), but does not teach a column portion extending to protrude upward from an upper surface of the main body portion and having an upper surface on which a substrate holding surface serving as the substrate holder is formed. However, Yoshida teaches in fig. 1, 2 a column portion (fig. 2, the column part of 2nd trfr unit 22 [27]) extending to protrude upward from an upper surface of the main body portion (fig. 2, extends upward from top of base 36) and having an upper surface on which a substrate holding surface serving as the substrate holder is formed (fig. 2, column has upper side surface on which the holding surface arm 32 serving as substrate holding surface/holder is formed). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman in order to provide an alternate/improved transfer module which can provide transfer 2 substrates at once via 2 arms, highly flexible and can be individually controlled for both arms [29].
Regarding claim 15. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka and Yoshida teaches the apparatus of Claim 14, wherein the column portion has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the substrate (Yoshida fig. 1, showing the column to be smaller than wafer W in diameter; further this is comparing w/ a wafer which is not an apparatus structure and is an intended use, which can be replaced as desired, MPEP 2115), but does not teach wherein a sensor configured to optically detect a peripheral portion of the substrate supported by the column portion, However, Tanaka teaches in det desc para. 6 a sensor 42 configured to optically detect a peripheral portion of the substrate (wafer flat/notch edge) supported by the column portion (the wafer is the same, no matter if it is on the aligner or being held/supported by the column). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to align the wafer to detect the flat/notch, det. Desc para. 5-7, which would allow the transfer devices to correctly hold the wafer.
Regarding the sensor which is positioned outward of the column portion (the said sensor is part of the aligner which away from the wafer handlers/columns, Tanaka fig. 1, 2), is provided in a region where the substrate transfer module is movable by the first magnet provided in the floor portion (the sensor/aligner is in the center of the trfr chamber, Tanaka fig. 1, 2, the 110 is movable all around the center of the transfer chambers based on said magnet in the floors, fig. 2, 3b, 5a Janakiraman), and wherein the substrate transfer module is configured to perform an alignment of the substrate by moving to a position where the peripheral portion of the substrate held on the substrate holding surface is detectable by the sensor (the modified 110 moves and transfers the wafer to where the aligner is located/sensor and its edge is detectable for alignment, as prev discussed based on Tanaka) and rotating the main body portion around a central axis through which a center of the substrate passes (rotates/turns the turntable/a main body 40 around the center of the W, fig. 1 2, 6 Tanaka the W outline centered with 40).
Regarding claim 16. Janakiraman, in view of Tanaka and Yoshida, teaches the apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the substrate transfer chamber is configured such that the transfer of the substrate is performed under a vacuum atmosphere ([5-7 40]), a load-lock chamber (307 [47] 507 [74]) is connected to a position different from a position where the opening portion to which the substrate processing chamber is connected is formed in the sidewall portion of the substrate transfer chamber (fig. 3, 5 307 507 connected to parts of sides of 304 504 different from where the process chambers/their openings are connected to 304/504), the load-lock chamber being configured such that an internal pressure of the load-lock chamber is switchable between a normal pressure and a vacuum ([5-7] since they maintain vacuum during wafer processing/transfers, they must be initially be at normal pressure and vacuumed at start of processing and turned off when everything is done; additionally this is intended operation, MPEP 2114) and a substrate to be loaded into or unloaded from the substrate transfer chamber is temporarily placed in the load-lock chamber ([5-7 50 55 67 69 74]), the load-lock chamber includes a region in which the first magnet is provided in the floor portion to move the substrate transfer module ([74] the magnetic floor path loop goes into LL 507), and the sensor and the substrate transfer module for alignment which are arranged in the region (Tanaka Fig. 7, as one of the alternatives where the aligner/sensor are placed in the LL 8a,b, and the wafer handler/transfer module can also reach inside/be arranged in the LL to transfer the wafers to aligner), and in a period during which the internal pressure of the load-lock chamber is switched between the normal pressure and the vacuum, the alignment is performed on the substrate loaded into the load-lock chamber (this relates to intended use and does not limit the apparatus structurally, it has been held that details related to intended operation without further adding structural limitations to the apparatus did not differentiate from the prior art, MPEP 2114; furthermore, alignment may be performed under various pressure conditions in the LL as desired according to user requirements).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 20160218029) in view of Tanaka (US 6395094) and Paweletz (US 20170331359).
Regarding claim 17. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka, teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the substrate transfer module has a function of self-diagnosing a failure. However Paweletz teaches in fig. 2 [5 38] the substrate transfer module 21 has a function of self-diagnosing a failure (by self-braking via internal magnetic forces which shows/presents diagnosis of a power failure). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Janakiraman so the transport bodies/modules can be safely braked when there is power failure and an uninterruptible power supply is not absolutely necessary for carrying out the braking operation [5].
Claim(s) 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 20160218029) in view of Tanaka (US 6395094) and Kaveh (US 5905850).
Regarding claim 10. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the substrate transfer module is configured to have in a shape of a disk in which the second magnet is provided, and a upper surface of the disk serves as the substrate holder. However, Kaveh teaches in fig. 4 det desc para. 10 the substrate transfer module is configured to have in a shape of a disk (wafer transfer effector 120 has disk like rounded shape) in which the second magnet is provided (magnets eg 114 would be provided/replaced the motor 140 in the base of the disc 120 since Janakiraman uses magnets in place of a motor), and a upper surface of the disk serves as the substrate holder (det desc para. 10). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to enable the handler to more easily navigate through certain surroundings, such as spinner, capstan, freestanding support, det desc para. 10. Additionally, it has been held that differences in shape did not render the claims patentable, MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 18. Janakiraman in view of Tanaka teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: a capturing module including a camera configured to capture an image of a movement region where the first magnet is provided, and a magnet for capturing module configured such that a repulsive force acts between the capturing module and the first magnet, the capturing module being configured to be movable by magnetic levitation based on the repulsive force. However, Kaveh teaches a capturing module including a camera (camera unit 108, camera lens 110, CCD det desc para. 2 fig. 3) configured to capture an image of a movement region (located where there is movement/trfr of wafer, which in Janakiraman, would be where wafer trfr module/110 is) where the first magnet is provided (as disc, the camera is in region of wafer trfr, where 110 and the floor magnets below it that move 110), and a magnet for capturing module configured such that a repulsive force acts between the capturing module and the first magnet (it can be mounted on surface of the handling module, hence it may be on a 110 and hence has its own 114 that allows levitation/repulsion between it and floor magnets), the capturing module being configured to be movable by magnetic levitation based on the repulsive force (as discussed, it has its own 110). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Janakiraman to improve wafer transfer and positioning, abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues with respect to the previous claim 2, now amended in claim 1, that Tanaka does not teach the limitations of claim 2 because that the aligning unit 38 disclosed in Tanaka is provided at a substantially intermediate position between the transfer units 32 and 34, in an overlapping range 36 of the transfer ranges of the first and second transfer units 32 and 34. The aligning unit 38 is configured to detect the orientation flat or notch of a semiconductor wafer W to align the wafer W. In this regard, the aligning unit 38 has a turntable 40 for holding and rotating the wafer W and an optical sensor 42 for optically detecting the orientation flat or notch of the wafer W. The applicant does not explain and specifically point out how exactly Tanaka is wrongly applied to meet the limitations. Rather, the applicant summarizes Tanaka’s invention and portions of Tanaka’s disclosure related to the aligning unit 38 without analyzing and specifically explaining alleged issues between the correspondence between the limitations of claim 2 and the relevant parts of Tanaka as minutely laid out in the rejection. Simply resummarizing a prior art without specifically considering and analyzing the particular way it was used in the rejection amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention, MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.11.
Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the aligning unit 38 is not configured to temporarily place the wafer W which is delivered between the transfer units 32 and 34. This is wrong, since the applicant admitted right before that 38 has a turntable 40 for holding/placing and rotating the wafer W at a substantially intermediate position between the transfer units 32 and 34, in an overlapping range 36 of the transfer ranges of the first and second transfer units 32 and 34, which clearly meets the limitations, “configured to temporarily place the substrate delivered between the substrate transfer module and the substrate transfer mechanism on the substrate delivery part.” Thus, 38 temporarily holds/places and realigns a wafer that is transferred between transfer units 32 and 34 when the wafer is being transferred to/from a cassette and a processing chamber. The turntable 40 is exactly commensurate with applicant’s stationary placement parts 4 which are simply stationary holding pins that support/hold a wafer like a table while between transfers, exactly like Tanaka’s wafer holding table 38/40 that holds and realigns a wafer between transfers. Since comments about the dependent claims depend on the previous arguments, the responses provided above also apply to them.
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 YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 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 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718