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 .
Applicants’ response of 2/12/26 has been considered and entered in the record. The rejections of record are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments and arguments. The following new rejection is made. Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueki et al (US 2021/0276123) in view of Mou et al CN 206747799.
With respect to Claim 1, Ueki et al discloses a substrate processing apparatus configured to process a substrate by radiating laser light to the substrate, the substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1 and 3) comprising: a substrate holder (Figure 3, 10) configured to hold the substrate (Figure 3, 100) such that a surface of the substrate faces upward; a laser radiation lens (Figure 3, 27) configured to radiate the laser light along a downward direction toward the surface of the substrate (Figure 3, 100) held by the substrate holder (Figure 3, 10); a laser oscillator (Figure 3, 22) configured to emit the laser light; a mirror (Figure 3, 24, paragraph 44) configured to change, above the substrate holder, a direction of the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator into a horizontal direction, and an optical system (Figure 3, 25) configured to adjust an output of the laser light incident from the mirror, and guide the laser light to the laser radiation lens. See Figures 1 and 3 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 35-45.
Ueki differs from the Claims at hand in that Ueki et al does not disclose that the laser oscillator is configured to emit the laser light “along an upward direction opposite to the downward direction” or “along the upward direction”.
Mou et al also pertains to a laser apparatus which comprises lens and mirrors, and discloses the laser apparatus is set on the ground, and emits the laser light in an upward direction, where it is controlled by the lens and mirrors. See Figure 1, 1 and corresponding text, especially page 3, 1-20
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to emit the laser light in an upward direction in the device of Ueki, for its known benefit of providing support on the ground for the laser light source and ease of controlling the laser light as disclosed by Mou et al. The known placement of a known component would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
With respect to Claims 10 and 13-16, Ueki et al and Mou et al differ from the Claims at hand in that Ueki et al and Mou et al do not disclose the relative positioning of the components, do not disclose boxes to accommodate the elements and do not disclose the use of multiple frames required by the Claims at hand.
With respect to Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, the use of multiple chambers to apply various process steps to semiconductor substrates is well known in the art, and would have been an obvious modification to a practitioner in the art. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact.
With respect to Claims 13-15, the use of a connection frame ( the use of multiple frames) would be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)) Moreover, the rearrangement of parts (the rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Furthermore, Ueki et al disclose a transfer device. See Figure 3 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 16, the method would be obvious to the elements as discussed with respect to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
May 24, 2026
AGG
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights