DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group III, claims 23-36 in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that The groups of inventions I-III as indicated in the previous Action above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I-III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. In this case the inventions I-III is/are distinctive from one another because they do not share the same corresponding assembly features such as group I requires particular features of "a plurality of processing stations, at least some of the plurality of processing stations organized in a diamond-shaped arrangement in at least some of the plurality of multi-station modules" does not require by other of Groups II/III. Group II requires a plurality of processing stations located within each of the plurality of multi-station modules which is not required by Group I/III. And group III requires "a hybrid-arrangement of a plurality of processing stations, at least some of the hybrid-arrangement of the plurality of processing stations organized in a diamond-shaped arrangement. Thus, applicant argument that Groups I-III should be examined together has been carefully noted but not found to be persuasive because of the reason provided from record (see OA dated 6/23/26). Applicants' Remarks re the Office's Restriction have been carefully reviewed but have not found to be persuasive. Because A single search for the three (3) inventions would not be made by a single search. And moreover, if the (3) inventions were searched concurrently the search would be burdensome. Further, Applicant contends that, the Group I-III as indicated in the previous action do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, the species lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: In accordance with the guidance set forth in MPEP section 1850, it has been determined a posteriori, i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration, that the features common to all the claims, i.e., the features of independent generic claims 1 and 14 and 23 do not constitute “special technical features” since they do not make a “contribution” over the prior art in light of at least US 2011-0232569 to Olgado (see discussed in ¶¶¶ [0031-0034, 0095] claim 4 and Figs. 1 and 6, and/or US2020008307 to Gould (see discussed in ¶¶ [0030-0031] and Figs. 2A, 2D, respectively. Specifically note that either of Olgado / Gould teaches (the common technique features as noted in applicant’ “Remarks” page 2, ¶ [0003] respectively. Thus, the restriction between the invention Groups I-III is proper. Applicants are not entitled to examination of multiple independent inventions in one application. Moreover, examination of the independent inventions herein would present a serious burden to the Office in as much as the searches are not coextensive and the art is quite prolific. Therefore, the Restriction mailed on or about 6/23/26 is now made Final.
Claims 1-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I-II (claims 1-22), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/17/26. Applicants are required to cancel all non- elected claims or take other appropriate action.
An OA on the merits of claims 23-36 as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 23-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear as to whether the recites of “in a diamond-shaped arrangement” (claim 23, line 5) includes a square shape. As the above applied to claims 23-36, respectively. Thus, the inventions according to claims 23-36 are unclear.
“a plurality of additional processing-stations” (claim 23, lines 16-17) should be more specific since it is unclear as to exactly how many of the of the “additional processing-stations” are provided thereto?
Similar to claim 23 occurrence in claim 24 wherein, the phrase” further comprising at least one additional processing-station” should be more specific for clarity of the processing tool structure wise. For this reason, the invention of claim 24 is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgado (20110232569) in view of Applicant admitted prior art (APA), (see Fig. 1 and discussed in ¶¶ [0023-0028] of Applicant ‘specification).
Olgado discloses the claimed semiconductor-processing tool of the present invention, comprising:
a plurality of multi-station modules104, 106, 108, 110 (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hybrid-arrangement of a plurality of processing stations 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 , at least some of the hybrid- arrangement of the plurality of processing stations organized in a diamond-shaped 136, 138 arrangement in at least some of the plurality of multi-station modules, and a remaining portion of the hybrid- arrangement of the plurality of processing stations organized in a square-shaped arrangement 134, 140 in a remaining portion of the plurality of the plurality of multi-station modules not containing the processing stations organized in the diamond-shaped arrangement (see above Fig. 1).
The Olgado is in silent regarding to “a vacuum-transfer module coupled to each of the multi-station modules, the vacuum-transfer module having one or more vacuum-transfer robots 105A-B to transfer substrates to and from at least one of the plurality of processing stations 101A-D; and a plurality of additional processing-stations 107, 113 located in the vacuum-transfer module”.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The APA discloses such features above including “a vacuum-transfer module 105 coupled to each of the multi-station modules 101A-D, the vacuum-transfer module having one or more vacuum-transfer robots 105A-B to transfer substrates to and from at least one of the plurality of processing stations 103’s; and a plurality of additional processing-stations 107, 113 located in the vacuum-transfer module (see Fig. 1 of the APA and the discussed in ¶¶ [0023-0028], respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the APA teaching as mentioned above onto the invention of Olgado in order to form the semiconductor-processing tool having the above configurations requirement by utilizing the known and available concepts. The motivation for the combination can be found in either reference since both are in same endeavor field of invention.
Further, if argues that the Olgado does not teach “the hybrid- arrangement of the plurality of processing stations organized in a square-shaped arrangement 101A-D in a remaining portion of the plurality of the plurality of multi-station modules not containing the processing stations organized in the diamond-shaped arrangement”. Noting that the APA discloses the above (see Fig. 1 of the APA in conjunction with the discussion in ¶¶ [0023-0028] of Applicant’ specification). Accordingly, claim 23 would have been obvious over Olgado in view of APA. Therefore, claim 23 is not inventive when departing from Olgado /APA as modified above and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claim 24, refer to Fig. 1 of APA references 107/113 for the teaching of additional processing-stations 107, 113 located in the vacuum-transfer module.
As applied to claim 25 refer to Fig. 1 of the Olgado, 118 includes FI robot 120 and discussion in ¶ [0034] and/or APA, 117 representing the claimed EFEM of the claimed semiconductor processing tool..
As applied to claims 26-28 is/are met by the Olgado. Applicant refers to service chamber 124 of the Olgado for limitation of claims above.
Limitations of claims 27-28 are also met by the Olgado (see Fig. 1 and discussion in ¶ [0033].
As applied to claims 29-34 appears to meet by the Olgado because the service chamber 124 provide various known functions including substrate orientation, inspection heating and cooling, degassing , or the like which satisfied the processing cited in above claims.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgado (20110232569) in view of Applicant admitted prior art (APA) and further in view of Gould et al (US20200083071).
The modified Olgado/APA as applied and relied upon above do not teach specific limitations of claim 35-36. However, the Gould et al discloses such additional features of claims 35-36 (see paragraph [0031] and figure 2A: each of load locks (208) may correspond to two load locks (208) in the vertically stacked configuration, and a height of an equipment front end module (EFEM, 204) may be increased to allow a robot (216) to be raised and lowered to different levels within the EFEM (204) to access multiple levels of loading stations (220) and the load locks (208)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Gould teaching as mentioned above onto the modified Olgado/APA for various known benefits includes that as discussed above. Therefore, claims 35-36 do not involve an inventive feature when departed from combination teaching as noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights