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
Claims 12 and 19-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 1, 2026
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“perform processing”. A suggested revision is “perform a processing”.
“perform first chemical processing”. A suggested revision is “perform a first chemical processing”.
“perform second chemical processing”. A suggested revision is “perform a second chemical processing”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“perform coating process”. A suggested revision is “perform a coating process”.
“perform developing process”. A suggested revision is “perform a developing process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first chemical liquid processing part”, “second chemical liquid processing part”, “heating processing part”, “substrate transferring part”, in claim 1; “process block”, “first carrying block”, “second carrying block”, in claims 7-8; “ first processing modules” in claim 14, “ second processing modules” in claims 16-17, and “heating modules” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20150116674 A1 to Hwang et al (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a chemical liquid processing apparatus configured to perform processing on substrates, wherein the chemical liquid processing apparatus includes: a first chemical liquid processing part (200a) configured to supply a first chemical liquid to the substrates and perform first chemical processing on the substrates; a second chemical liquid processing part ( 200b including negative development module DEV -) configured to be stacked with the first chemical liquid processing part and to supply a second chemical liquid to the substrates and perform second chemical processing on the substrates; a heating processing part (220) located opposite the first chemical liquid processing part and the second chemical liquid processing part and configured to perform a heating treatment operation on the substrates before and after the first chemical processing on the substrates or the second chemical processing on the substrates; a substrate transferring part (210) located between the first and second chemical liquid processing parts and the heating processing part, wherein the substrate transferring part is configured to have: at least two first robots (240 on top row in Fig. 3, 240 on bottom row in Fig. 3), at least one second robot (310b, 310a) and at least one third robot (250), all of which are arranged in parallel layers, the at least two first robots (240, 240 in 200b) are configured to transfer the substrates between the first chemical liquid processing part and the heating processing part (220 in 200 b) and the at least one third robot (250) is configured to transfer the substrates between the second chemical liquid processing part (200b) and the heating processing part (220 in 200a); and at least one pair of first buffer units (320, 420) located between two adjacent first robots (in vertical direction between top row and bottom row in Fig. 3) and configured for loading and unloading the substrates therein and therefrom via the at least one second robot (310b). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 33-69, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 2, Hwang teaches the first chemical liquid processing part (200a) is configured to perform coating process on the substrates and the second chemical liquid processing part (200b) is configured to perform developing process on the substrates. (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 33-69, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 3, Hwang teaches the first chemical liquid processing part (200a) is located below the second chemical liquid processing part (200b). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 33-69, and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 7, Hwang teaches a process block (20) in which the chemical liquid processing apparatus is disposed; a first carrying block (30-1) configured to carry the substrates which are accommodated in a cassette and are to be processed in the process block to the process block or carry the substrates processed in the process block to the cassette; a second carrying block (30-2) configured to carry the substrates processed in the process block or the substrates to be processed in the process block; and an interface block (50) configured to perform interfacing between the second carrying block and an external apparatus. (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 8, Hwang teaches the process block further comprises:
a pair of second buffer units (320, 420) , one of the second buffer units configured to be corresponding to the first carrying block and one of the first robots (240 top row) , and the other of the second buffer units (320 bottom row) configured to be corresponding to another of the first robots (240 last row) and the second carrying block; a pair of third buffer units, one of the third buffer units (420 first row) configured to be corresponding to the first carrying block (30-1) and the second robot, and the other of the third buffer units (420 first row)configured to be corresponding to the second robot and the second carrying block (30-2); and at least a pair of fourth buffer units (420 third row), one of the fourth buffer units configured to be corresponding to the second carrying block (30-2) and the third robot (240 third row) , and the other of the fourth buffer units (420 third row) configured to be corresponding to the third robot and the first carrying block ( 30-1). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Claim 8 recites an intended use clause (i. e. corresponding). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hwang is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang teaches the fourth buffer units (420 third row) include at least one fourth buffer unit configured to be corresponding to the second carrying block (30-2) and the third robot and one or more fourth buffer units (420 third row) configured to be corresponding to the third robot (240 third row) and the first carrying block (30-1). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Claim 10 recites an intended use clause (i. e. corresponding). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hwang is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang teaches the second robot (310a) is arranged below the at least two first robots (240,240). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 13, Hwang teaches two second robots (310a-b) are arranged at both sides of one pair of first buffer units (top and bottom). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 15, Hwang teaches the substrate transferring part (210) has a plurality of first robots, and one pair of first buffer units (B/F, WCP of 320, 420) is located (in a vertical direction) between every two adjacent first robots (240). (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 16, Hwang teaches the second chemical liquid processing part ( 200b, including negative development module DEV -) includes a plurality of second processing modules (PEB, H/B, etc.) , the plurality of second processing modules are arranged into a plurality of columns, and every column has one or more layers (PEB layer) . (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 17, Hwang teaches the substrate transferring part (210) has a plurality of third robots (240) and every third robot is corresponding to one layer (row of 220) of the second processing modules. (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150116674 A1 to Hwang et al (hereinafter Hwang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20060219171 A1 to Sasaki et al (hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang teaches the chemical liquid processing apparatus further comprises fan filter units respectively located above the at least two first robots, the at least one second robot and the at least one third robot.
Sasaki is directed to a substrate processing apparatus including a transfer chamber (200).
Sasaki teaches the chemical liquid processing apparatus further comprises fan filter units (232A-b) above the transfer chamber (200). (See Sasaki, Abstract, paragraphs 31, 39, 41-43, 47-51, 53, 55-57, 72-73, 76-77, 79-80, 85, 88-92, 96, 97, 103, 105-107, 110, 114-117, 119-120-121, 124-126, 134-136, and 143.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chemical liquid processing apparatus further comprises fan filter units respectively located above the at least two first robots, the at least one second robot and the at least one third robot, because Sasaki teaches this would enable the transfer chamber to have ventilation. (See Sasaki, Abstract, paragraphs 31, 39, 41-43, 47-51, 53, 55-57, 72-73, 76-77, 79-80, 85, 88-92, 96, 97, 103, 105-107, 110, 114-117, 119-120-121, 124-126, 134-136, and 143.)
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150116674 A1 to Hwang et al (hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210242052 A1 to Komiyaji et al (hereinafter Komiyaji).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang does not explicitly teach the at least one of the pair of first buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending.
Komiyaji is directed to a substrate processing apparatus including a transfer chamber (200).
Komiyaji teaches at least one of the pair of first buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending). (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the pair of first buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending, because Komiyaji teaches this structure would remove the need for the robot to have the lifting function which would improve robot reliability. (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
Regarding claim 6, Hwang teaches the two first buffer units are arranged to be stacked and the first buffer unit located above is fixed.
Hwang does not explicitly teaches the other first buffer unit located below is configured to be capable of ascending and descending.
Komiyaji teaches at least one of the pair of first buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending). (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the other first buffer unit located below is configured to be capable of ascending and descending, because Komiyaji teaches this structure would remove the need for the robot to have the lifting function which would improve robot reliability. (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
Regarding claim 9, Hwang does not explicitly teach the pair of third buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending.
Komiyaji teaches at least one of the pair of first buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending). (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pair of third buffer units is configured to be capable of ascending and descending, because Komiyaji teaches this structure would remove the need for the robot to have the lifting function which would improve robot reliability. (See Komiyaji , Abstract, paragraphs 108-109, 113-114 and Figs. 5-10.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150116674 A1 to Hwang et al (hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20120145074 A1 to Fukutomi et al (hereinafter Fukutomi).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang does not explicitly teach the first chemical liquid processing part includes a plurality of first processing modules, the plurality of first processing modules are arranged into a plurality of columns, and every column has one or more layers.
Fukutomi teaches the first chemical liquid processing part includes a plurality of first processing modules (Ba), the plurality of first processing modules are arranged into a plurality of columns (column starting with BARC1, BARC1 on left and right) , and every column has one or more layers( layers starting with BARC1, RESIST1, BARC2 ). (See Fukutomi, Abstract, paragraphs 69, 78-79, 92, 94, 101, 122-123, and 152-153 and Figs. 1-6, 8A-8B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first chemical liquid processing part includes a plurality of first processing modules, the plurality of first processing modules are arranged into a plurality of columns, and every column has one or more layers, because Fukutomi teaches this structure would is simplified and allows apparatus to be manufactured, maintained, and repaired easily. (See Fukutomi, Abstract, paragraphs 69, 78-79, 92, 94, 101, 122-123, and 152-153 and Figs. 1-6, 8A-8B.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150116674 A1 to Hwang et al (hereinafter Hwang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR-10-20040005268 to Yoon Seong Hwan and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040005149 A1 to Sugimoto et al (hereinafter Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang teaches the heating processing part (220) has a plurality of heating modules (PEB, PEB), the plurality of heating modules are arranged into a plurality of columns and every column has a plurality of layers. (See Hwang, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 18, 30, 35-36, 40, 42, 45, 54, and 56 and Figs. 1-4.)
Hwang does not explicitly teach the plurality of heating modules in every column is configured in a wafer cassette form.
Yoon teaches transfer of substrates in cassette form.
Yoon teaches the cassette is transferred to a shelf with heat.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of heating modules in every column is configured in a wafer cassette form, because Fukutomi teaches this structure would enable the substrate and reduce potential for defects due to contamination. (See Yoon, Abstract, and Figs. 7-7.)
Hwang does not explicitly teach the interval between the heating modules is adjustable.
Sugimoto teaches transfer of substrates in cassette form.
Sugimoto teaches the interval between the heating modules is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interval between the heating modules is adjustable, because Sugimoto teaches this structure would enable the substrate to have the desired distance to the heater. (See Sugimoto, Abstract, paragraph 260, and Fig.11.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20210134626 to Ogura et al, Assignee: Screen Semiconductor Solutions Co., Ltd. and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160111820 to Wood et al, Assignee: Lam Research Corporation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights