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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 7/1/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims and the cancellation of claims 12-13 and 19-20 and the addition of new claim 21. Claims 1-11, 14-18 and 21 remain pending.
In view of the amendment to remove “module” from the claims, the examiner notes the claims no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added claim amendments that are specifically addressed hereinafter and thus these arguments are deemed moot.
As for the arguments relative to the diversified spatial arrangement is noted, but not persuasive as the applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the claimed spatial arrangement is any more than mere optimization of the arrangement. Here, all the processing apparatus as claimed as taught by TW 395 with Supplieth and taking the level of one of ordinary skill, the rearrangement of these processing apparatus relative to each other would have been recognized as mere rearrangement and the applicant’s have not proffered any unpredicted or unexpected results that would follow from using mere routine skill. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 requires “a plurality of first substrate processing apparatuses disposed on a first side of the transfer module”, “a second side of the transfer module, which is opposite to the first side” and “one of the first substrate processing apparatus is arranged . . . on the second side”; however, this requirement lacks antecedent basis in the claims as the plurality of the first processing apparatus are on the first side and thus it is unclear how they can be on first side but also on the second side which is opposite the first side.
Claim 21 includes “a plurality of second substrate processing apparatus disposed on the second side of the transfer module, which is opposite to the first side” and “the second substrate processing apparatus includes a third substrate processing apparatus . . . and fa fourth substrate processing apparatus” and finally requires “one of the third substrate processing apparatus and the fourth substrate processing apparatus on the first side”; however, this requirement lacks antecedent basis in the claims as the plurality of the third and fourth apparatus are on the second side (by virtue of the requirement that the second processing apparatus are located on the second side) and thus it is unclear how the chambers can be on first side but also on the second side which is opposite the first side.
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) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 202147395, hereinafter TW 395 taken collectively with Supplieth.
TW 395 discloses a semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising: a transfer module including a substrate transport robot for transporting a substrate (see e.g. Figure 8, F5); a plurality of first substrate processing apparatuses disposed on one side of the transfer module (see e.g. Figure 8, 58, see also Figure 7, 51); and a plurality of second substrate processing apparatuses disposed on the other side of the transfer module (see e.g. Figure 8, 4E, 4F, Figure 7, 4A), wherein the first substrate processing apparatus comprises, a chamber for providing a space where a substrate is processed; a support module disposed within the chamber and for supporting the substrate (Figure 8 and accompanying, 58 related to supporting substrate for heating, Figure 7, 51 related to heating).
TW 395 discloses heating module; however, fails to disclose the claimed laser signal generating module. However, Supplieth, also in the art of heating a substrate discloses using a laser signal generation module disposed in the chamber and for transmitting a laser signal onto the substrate to heat-treat the substrate, wherein the laser signal generation module heat-treats the substrate including a photoresist layer. Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified TW 395 to include the laser module as suggested by Supplieth to provide heating with a reasonable expectation of predictable results.
While the prior art sufficiently meets the intended use of the claims as drafted, the examiner notes that the italicized features of the claims are determined to be mere intended use of the claimed structure and therefore do not limit the structure of the apparatus. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
TW 395 discloses the second substrate processing apparatus includes a third substrate processing apparatus for performing a coating process on the substrate using a nozzle (i.e. sprayer) (see Figure 7, 4A) and a fourth substrate processing apparatus for performing a developing process on the substrate using a sprayer (See e.g. Figure 8, 4E), wherein the first substrate processing apparatus is arranged side by side on the same floor and on the same side as at least one of the third substrate processing apparatus and the fourth substrate processing apparatus (see e.g. Figure 8 and Figure 7). Additionally, while the examiner maintains the spatial arrangement of the first and third or first and fourth apparatus as explicitly taught by TW 395, the examiner notes that the arrangement of such would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as rearrangement of parts and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the heating module relative to the coating and developing module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 21: Additionally, while the examiner maintains the spatial arrangement of the first and third or first and fourth apparatus as explicitly taught by TW 395, the examiner notes that the arrangement of such, i.e. the side-by-side arrangement and location relative to each processing apparatus, would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as rearrangement of parts and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the heating module relative to the coating and developing module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Here, all the processing apparatus as claimed as taught by TW 395 and taking the level of one of ordinary skill, the rearrangement of these processing apparatus relative to each other would have been recognized as mere rearrangement and the applicant’s have not proffered any unpredicted or unexpected results that would follow from using mere routine skill. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 14-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: These claims are allowable for the reasons set forth in the Applicant’s response dated 7/1/2026. Additionally, none of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, make obvious the totality of the claims as drafted, specifically, the plurality of optical fibers as specifically claimed, a first optical fiber that connects the first laser diode and combiner and the second, third and fourth optical fiber that connects the second laser diode to the combiner wherein the third and fourth optical fibers have a different structure than the second optical fiber, and a fifth and sixth optical fiber to connect the combiner and transmitter. Here, while the structure of the optical fibers are known to control the laser signal, there is no motivation to provide the laser heating apparatus as claimed with the multiple of optical fibers as specifically claimed.
See PTO 892 for pertinent prior art.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights