DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 4/28/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,305,818 to Kamikawa.
Regarding claim 1 Kamikawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a loading/unloading part (20) having a first side surface (left side in figure 3) into or from which a container accommodating a substrate is loaded or unloaded and a second side (right side of 20 in figure 3) surface opposite to the first side surface; a substrate transfer part (45 and figure 2) extending in a first direction orthogonal to the second side surface; and a plurality of batch processors (41, 42 and 43, figure 4 and col. 6 lines 48-60) adjacent to each other in a length direction of the substrate transfer part (figures 2 and 4), wherein the loading/unloading part comprises: a first transfer device (104a) and a second transfer device (23a/23b) configured to transfer the container; a first area accessible to the first transfer device and having a plurality of first storage shelves configured to store the container (see figure 4 with multiples instances of 212 and 221); a second area accessible to the second transfer device and having a plurality of second storage shelves configured to store the container (see figure 8 and 24/241); and a movable shelf (212) configured to be movable between the first area and the second area, wherein the first transfer device is incapable of accessing the second area, and wherein the second transfer device is incapable of accessing the first area (see figure 8, 104a limited to 21 whereas 23a and b are limited to area inside the housing).
Regarding claim 2 Kamikawa discloses the first area and the second area are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction, and wherein the movable shelf is movable in the horizontal direction (see figures 7 and 8, movement of 212).
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 12 Kamikawa discloses a second movable shelf (section of 104b that engages pods, see figure 8) movable between the first area or the second area and another substrate processing apparatus provided adjacent to the substrate processing apparatus (transport of pod between adjacent machines, see figure 1, transfer between instances of 103 via 102).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa in view of US 11,121,014 to de Ridder.
Regarding claim 6, Kamikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim except the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate.
De Ridder teaches a substrate processing system including the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate (10 and col. 4 lines 25-30) in order to efficiently store dummy wafers which are used as fillers during batch processing (col 1 lines 33-35 and lines 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Kamikawa to include the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate, as taught by de Ridder, in order to efficiently store dummy wafers which are used as fillers during batch processing.
Regarding claim 7 see discussion above regarding claims 3, 5, and 12.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa in view of US 6,896,513 to Bachrach.
Regarding claim 8, Kamikawa discloses the loading/unloading part includes a driver (215/217) configured to move the movable shelf between the first area and the second area (see figure 7), but does not disclose the driver includes a rodless cylinder.
Bachrach teaches a device including a driver includes a rodless cylinder for linear motion (col. 4 lines 50-25) as one of numerous alternative forms of actuators that can be used to provide linear actuation (col. 4 lines 50-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Kamikawa to include the driver includes a rodless cylinder, as taught by Bachrach, in order to provide linear actuation. Additionally, doing so merely entails replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9 see discussion above regarding claims 3, 5, and 12.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,637,707 to Perlov in view of Kamikawa.
Regarding claim 1 Perlov discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a loading/unloading part (see figure 9) having a first side surface (front of 20’ and 20’’) into or from which a container accommodating a substrate is loaded or unloaded and a second side (rear of 20’ and 20’’) surface opposite to the first side surface; a substrate transfer part (22 e.g., 22 in figure 1) extending in a first direction orthogonal to the second side surface; wherein the loading/unloading part comprises: a first transfer device (56’) and a second transfer device (56’’) configured to transfer the container; a first area accessible to the first transfer device and having a plurality of first storage shelves configured to store the container (see figure 9 and shelves 62 on 20’); a second area accessible to the second transfer device and having a plurality of second storage shelves configured to store the container (shelves 62 in area 20’’); and a movable shelf (120) configured to be movable between the first area and the second area (see figure 9), wherein the first transfer device is incapable of accessing the second area, and wherein the second transfer device is incapable of accessing the first area (see figure 9 56’ operates in area 20’ and 56’’ operates in area 20’’).
Perlov discloses processing chambers 38 but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of batch processors adjacent to each other in a length direction of the substrate transfer part.
Kamikawa teaches a system including a plurality of batch processors (41, 42 and 43, figure 4 and col. 6 lines 48-60) adjacent to each other in a length direction of the substrate transfer part (figures 2 and 4) in order provide batch processing, such as cleaning and drying to improve throughput (col. 6 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Perlov to include a plurality of batch processors adjacent to each other in a length direction of the substrate transfer part, as taught by Kamikawa, in order provide batch processing, such as cleaning and drying to improve throughput. Furthermore, doings so merely entails substituting one known processing arrangement for another to yield predictable results which is in line with the teaching of Perlov (see col. 3 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 2 Perlov discloses the first area and the second area are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction, and wherein the movable shelf is movable in the horizontal direction (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 4 Perlov discloses the plurality of first storage shelves includes at least three first storage shelves arranged side by side in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and wherein the plurality of second storage shelves includes at least three second storage shelves arranged side by side in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (see 62 in both 20’ and 20’’ in figure 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “the OH T 104a is not included in the loading and unloading part 20.” Applicant further argues “that the OHT 104a is installed outside rather than inside the loading and unloading part 20.” Examiner does not disagree that the OHT is not inside the housing but this is not required by the claim. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation the loading/unloading part can readily include an OHT or other system that brings pods to/from the processing system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights