DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on June 23, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 21, and 30 are amended; claim 10 is canceled; claim 31 is new.
The applicant contends that Iwabuchi fails to disclose the new material presently recited by claim 1 – namely, the feature of each accessory seat being “configured for alternative fixation of” some permutation of a heater, blanking plate, or chill plate. Iwabuchi discloses a load lock comprising heating and cooling plates which are explicitly “secured to the chamber,” and there is no suggestion that the apparatus is capable of “alternative fixation” (pp. 13-14).
In response, the examiner does not appreciate the distinction between a heater or chill plate, on the one hand, and a “blanking plate,” on the other. It seems the heater and chill plate, merely by virtue of their structure, inherently satisfy the function attributed to the blanking plate. In other words, a heater or chill plate may also be considered a blanking plate, i.e., “blanking” is one of the functions performed by the heater and chill plate. In view of this conclusion, limitations describing the alternative fixation of a heater and blanking plate become redundant, as the disclosure of the former already satisfies the function of the latter.
More precisely, claim 1 merely requires the relevant plate member to be “configured for alternative fixation”; the claim does not explicitly recite the act swapping or identify the means underpinning this act. Given the analysis above, Iwabuchi’s plate members are necessarily configured for fixation of a blanking plate because said plate members are already configured for fixation of heaters and chill plates. That is, a heater or chill plate is already a blanking plate; thus, a plate member configured for fixation of a heater is necessarily configured for fixation of a blanking plate. Lastly, the examiner understands the “alternative” term as a theoretical counterfactual – so long as the plate member of the prior art is theoretically capable of accommodating either of a blanking plate or a heater/chill plate, the examiner considers the limitation satisfied. The rejections are maintained.
Drawings
Acknowledged is the replacement drawing of Figure 8, received on July 8, 2026. The changes are acceptable.
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 1-4, 8, 21, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwabuchi, US 2006/0245852.
Claim 1: Iwabuchi discloses a load lock arrangement (5), comprising:
A load lock body (21, 22), having:
An upper plate member (~101) defining an upper accessory seat (Fig. 3);
An intermediate plate member spaced apart from the upper plate member and defining an intermediate accessory seat;
A lower plate member (~61) separated from the upper plate member by the intermediate plate member and defining a lower accessory seat;
An upper accessory seat blanking plate (111) fixed to the upper accessory seat [0044];
An intermediate accessory seat blanking plate (112) fixed to the intermediate accessory seat;
A lower accessory seat blanking plate (72) fixed to the lower accessory seat [0035].
To clarify the preceding designatory schema, the examiner has annotated Figure 3 of Iwabuchi:
PNG
media_image1.png
398
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: As shown by the Figure above, Iwabuchi’s upper accessory seat blanking plate (111) is fixed to the upper accessory seat, the intermediate accessory seat blanking plate (112) is fixed to the intermediate accessory seat, and the lower accessory seat blanking plate (72) is fixed to the lower accessory seat.
Claim 3: Iwabuchi provides an upper actuator seat blanking plate (~125) fixed to an upper actuator seat [0046].
Claim 4: Iwabuchi provides a lower actuator seat blanking plate (~75) fixed to a lower actuator seat [0038].
Claim 8: Iwabuchi provides an evacuation/vent source (132) connected to the load lock body for purposes of venting [0049].
Claim 21: Iwabuchi embeds the load lock arrangement (5) of claim 1 within a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
A process module (30) (Fig. 1);
A back-end transfer module (32) connected to the process module (30) and housing a back-end substrate transfer robot (31) [0029];
Wherein the load lock arrangement (5) is connected to the back-end transfer module (32) and couples the process module (30) to an equipment front-end module (2) housing a front-end substrate transfer robot (14) [0027];
Wherein the load lock body defines an upper chamber bounded by the upper plate member and the intermediate plate member (Fig. 3);
Wherein the load lock body defines a lower chamber bounded by the intermediate plate member and the lower plate member (Fig. 3);
Wherein the front-end substrate transfer robot (14) and the back-end substrate transfer robot (31) are configured to transfer substrates between the equipment front-end module (2) and the process module (30) through the upper chamber and the lower chamber defined within the load lock body.
Claim 31: Necessarily, some means exist to affix Iwabuchi’s heater/blanking plate/chill plate to the accessory seat region of the corresponding plate member. This means, regardless of its embodiment, may be taken as the claimed “fastener pattern.”
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi in view of Kurita et al., US 2005/0095088.
Claims 15-16, 18-19: Figure 3 of Iwabuchi depicts an upper chamber (102) comprising a first upper set plate (110) arranged between the upper and intermediate accessory seats, as well as a lower chamber (62) comprising a first lower set plate (70) arranged between the intermediate and lower accessory seats [0034, 0043]. The reference, however, does not disclose a second set plate in either of the upper or lower chambers. In supplementation, Kurita depicts an analogous load lock body comprising upper (902) and lower (904) chambers, whereby each chamber contains first and second set plates oriented in a stacked arrangement to bear two substrates, respectively (Fig. 9). Kurita attests that this arrangement increases throughput [0008]. As Iwabuchi shares this desideratum, it would have been obvious to provide a second set plate since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 17, 20: As shown by Figure 9 of Kurita, the first and second set plates are fixed relative to each other. Further, given that the set plates are vertically moveable, the upper set plate is proximate to an accessory seat in the first position and distal from the same seat in a second position.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Asanuma et al., US 2009/0320948. Asanuma describes a load lock arrangement (2) comprising a load lock body having upper and lower chambers divided by upper, intermediate, and lower plates, respectively (Fig. 2A).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights