The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 3-6 and 18-20 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.
In claims 3 and 4, the recitations “the end effector” and “the arm segment” lack clear antecedent basis, as each of two arms has been recited as having an arm segment and an end effector. As such, it is unclear if the recitations in claims 3 and 4 are intended to refer to both arms or one or the other of the arms.
In claim 18, last four lines, it is not clear what is meant by the recitation “a folded configuration in which the arm segments and the end effectors of each of the first arm and the second arm are coaxial with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments and the end effectors overlap one another” (note: this also applies to the similar recitation in claim 5). Is this intended to mean that the arm segment of the first arm is coaxial with the arm segment of the second arm and the end effector of the first arm is coaxial with the end effector of the second arm, or that the arm segment of the first arm is coaxial with the end effector of the first arm and the arm segment of the second arm is coaxial with the end effector of the second arm, or that the arm segment of the first arm, the end effector of the first arm, the arm segment of the second arm and the end effector of the second are all coaxial? Further, it appears as if there may be missing punctuation, as it is unclear where clauses are intended to begin/end.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and (8 and 9) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15/1, 16 and 17, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,908,714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims sought to be patented is merely broader than that of the patented claims (i.e., they are merely broader), with the exception of the recitation “a first load lock and a second load lock arranged between … a vacuum transfer module (VTM)” in pending claim 1 replacing the recitation “a plurality of load locks disposed between … a substrate transfer module” in patented claim 1. However, since the pending and patented claims are directed to an atmosphere-to-vacuum (ATV) transfer module, the second side of the ATV module opposite the atmosphere side would obviously be the vacuum side. Therefore, the substrate transfer module of the patented claim would be under vacuum and as such would be a VTM as set forth in the pending claim.
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, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwabuchi (US 7,624,772).
Iwabuchi discloses an atmosphere-to-vacuum (ATV) transfer module 2 for a substrate processing tool 1, the ATV transfer module comprising: a first side 11 configured to interface with at least one loading station 16; a second side, opposite the first side, configured to interface with at least a first load lock 21 and a second load lock 22 arranged between the ATV transfer module and a vacuum transfer module 3 (VTM); a transfer robot assembly 14/15 arranged within the ATV transfer module, wherein the transfer robot assembly is configured to transfer substrates between (i) the at least one loading station and (ii) the first load lock and the second load lock; and a lateral rail 13 and at least one vertical rail (not separately identified but readily apparent in Fig. 2; note also col. 6:20-24) mounted on the lateral rail, wherein the transfer robot assembly is mounted on the at least one vertical rail and is configured to raise and lower in a vertical direction on the at least one vertical rail, and wherein the at least one vertical rail is configured to slide in a horizontal direction on the lateral rail (Fig. 1 and col. 6:15-19).
Re claim 14, the ATV transfer module is considered to be “an equipment front end module (EFEM)”, absent any specific limitations of the term, insofar as it is a module situated at an end of processing equipment at which articles to be processed are loaded into/unloaded from the equipment.
Re claim 15, the second load lock is arranged above the first load lock (Fig. 2).
Re claim 17, Iwabuchi discloses a substrate processing tool including the ATV transfer module of claim 1 and further comprising the VTM.
Claim 18 (as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth above) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami (US 7,351,291).
Murakami discloses in Fig. 12 an atmosphere-to-vacuum (ATV) transfer module 140 for a substrate processing tool, the ATV transfer module comprising: a first side configured to interface with at least one loading station 146; a second side, opposite the first side, configured to interface with at least a first load lock 103A and a second load lock 103B arranged between the ATV transfer module and a vacuum transfer module 102 (VTM); a transfer robot assembly 152 arranged within the ATV transfer module, wherein the transfer robot assembly is configured to transfer substrates between (i) the at least one loading station and (ii) the first load lock and the second load lock; and a lateral rail 154, wherein the transfer robot assembly is mounted on the lateral rail and is configured to slide in a horizontal direction on the lateral rail to provide access to the first load lock and the second load lock, wherein the transfer robot assembly includes a first arm 162 and a second arm 164, wherein each of the first arm and the second arm includes (at least) an arm segment (not separately identified but Fig. 12 shows each arm to include two arm segments) and an end effector 163, 165, and wherein the transfer robot assembly has a folded configuration in which the arm segments and the end effectors of each of the first arm and the second arm are coaxial with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments and the end effectors overlap one another, as indefinitely claimed. Note in Fig. 12 arm 164 is in a partially folded configuration while arm 162 is in an extended configuration and partially overlaps arm 164, and that the end effectors are positioned over the arm segments. Col. 13:40-46 discloses that the arms are provided at different height levels and are independently extendible/contractible. Thus, if arms 162 and 164 were both in a fully folded configuration, the arm segments and the end effectors of each of the first arm and the second arm would be coaxial, with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments and the end effectors overlapping one another, at least to some extent, and therefore the claim limitations would be met, at least to the extent they are understood.
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.
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 1-3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Bonora et al (US 7,066,707).
As noted above with respect to claim 18, Murakami discloses the limitations of claim 1 except for at least one vertical rail mounted on the lateral rail, wherein the transfer robot assembly is mounted on the at least one vertical rail and is configured to raise and lower in a vertical direction on the at least one vertical rail, and wherein the at least one vertical rail is configured to slide in a horizontal direction on the lateral rail.
However, it is noted that wafers W in cassettes 148 at each of the loading stations 146 are vertically spaced, and as such, either the robot arms 162, 164 or the cassettes would have to be configured for vertical movement relative to the other in order for the arms to reach each of the wafers in the cassettes.
Bonora teaches an EFEM for a substrate processing tool, wherein a transfer robot assembly 400 is configured to move wafers between an atmospheric loading station one on side thereof and a vacuum processing area on the opposite side (e.g., Fig. 15), the EFEM including a lateral rail 310, 312 and at least one vertical rail 386 mounted on the lateral rail (e.g., Figs. 8, 18-22; also note alternate embodiments in Figs. 25 and 32), wherein the transfer robot assembly is mounted on the at least one vertical rail and is configured to raise and lower in a vertical direction on the at least one vertical rail, and wherein the at least one vertical rail is configured to slide in a horizontal direction on the lateral rail.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Murakami with at least one vertical rail mounted on the lateral rail, wherein the transfer robot assembly was mounted on the at least one vertical rail and was configured to raise and lower in a vertical direction on the at least one vertical rail, and wherein the at least one vertical rail was configured to slide in a horizontal direction on the lateral rail, as shown by Bonora, as this would simply be one of a finite number of art recognized means of providing the above-noted requisite vertical movement of Murakami’s transfer robot assembly, thereby enabling it to reach all of the vertically spaced wafers in the cassettes.
Re claim 2, Murakami shows that the transfer robot assembly includes two arms, wherein each of the arms includes an arm segment and an end effector, as noted above with respect to claim 18. Bonora also discloses these features (Figs. 18-22).
Re claim 3, Murakami shows that a length of at least end effector 165 is greater than a length of at least one arm segment of arm 164. Also note Bonora shows that end effectors 402, 404 have a greater length than arm segments 406, 408, respectively (Fig. 19).
Re claim 14, both references show an ATV transfer module to be an equipment front end module (EFEM).
Re claim 17, Murakami as modified discloses a substrate processing tool including the ATV transfer module of claim 1 and further comprising the VTM.
Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Bonora et al, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Blank (US 9,299,598).
Note: claim 18 is included here as alternative rejection to that set forth above in par. 8 in the event applicant is able to show that Murakami does not anticipate that claim, and/or amends the claim to overcome the 112 rejection in a manner that precludes such a rejection.
Murakami as modified does not show that the length of the end effector is twice the length of the arm segment.
Blank shows a two-arm robotic arm assembly for use in a semiconductor substrate wafer handling environment, wherein each arm 110 includes an end effector 114 and an arm segment 112 (Figs. 1B, 1D; note that while the figures show both end effectors connected to a single arm segment, col. 7:62-67 discloses that there may be two separate arms, each comprising an arm segment and an effector), and wherein a length of the end effector is approximately twice a length of the arm segment (Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Murakami such that the length of the end effector was twice the length of the arm segment, as shown by Blank, to provide a compact folded state while allowing a sufficient range of motion.
Re claim 5, as noted above with respect to the similar limitation in claim 18, Murakami is seen as disclosing that “when the transfer robot assembly is in a folded configuration, the arm segments and the end effectors are coaxial with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments”.
Nevertheless, to any extent Murakami may not disclose this feature and the substantially similar recitation in claim 18 (and/or the claim(s) is/are amended to overcome such a rejection), Blank shows that when the transfer robot assembly is in a folded configuration, the arm segments and the end effectors are coaxial with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments (Figs. 2, 4B-C, 5C, 6A-B).
As such, to any extent the limitations may not be fairly disclosed by Murakami per se, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Murakami such that when the transfer robot assembly was in a folded configuration, the arm segments and the end effectors were coaxial with the end effectors positioned over the arm segments (and the substantially similar recitation of claim 18), as shown by Blank, as this would further enhance the compactness of the folded configuration.
Re claim 6, Blank further discloses that the transfer robot assembly includes an integrated substrate aligner 108 (col. 6:65 to col. 7:21) and wherein, when in the folded configuration, the end effector is positioned over the integrated substrate aligner (Figs. 1A-D, 2, 4B-C, 6A-B). The inclusion of this feature in the apparatus of Murakami as modified would have been an obvious expediency to ensure proper alignment and orientation of the wafer during handling thereof.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Bonora et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferrara (US 7,246,985).
Murakami as modified does not show that at least one of the first load lock and the second load lock extends through the second side into an interior volume of the ATV transfer module, wherein at least approximately 30%, at least approximately 50%, or at least approximately 70% of the at least one of the first load lock and the second load lock is located within the interior volume of the ATV transfer module.
Ferrara shows an atmosphere-to-vacuum (ATV) transfer module 118 for a substrate processing tool 110, the ATV transfer module comprising: a first side configured to interface with at least one loading station 140-143; a transfer robot assembly 146 or 148 arranged within the ATV transfer module, wherein the transfer robot assembly is configured to transfer substrates 112 between the at least one loading station and at least one load lock 116/117 arranged between the ATV transfer module and a vacuum transfer module (VTM) 120; and a second side, opposite the first side, configured to interface with the at least one load lock, wherein the transfer robot assembly is arranged adjacent to the second side, and wherein the at least one load lock extends through the second side into an interior volume of the ATV transfer module (Figs. 1-4, 6 and 7), and wherein at least approximately 70% of the load lock is located within the interior volume of the ATV transfer module (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Murakami by extending at least one of the first load lock and the second load lock through the second side into an interior volume of the ATV transfer module, wherein at least approximately 30%, at least approximately 50%, or at least approximately 70% of the at least one of the first load lock and the second load lock was located within the interior volume of the ATV transfer module, as shown by Ferrara, to reduce the footprint size of the overall system architecture.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi in view of Genov et al (US 6,142,722).
Iwabuchi does not show that the at least one loading station includes a first loading station and a second loading station arranged above the first loading station.
Genov shows a similar front end module of a substrate processing system, wherein a plurality of horizontally spaced loading stations 81-84 on one of the module can each include a first loading station and a second loading station arranged above the first loading station (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Iwabuchi by providing the at least one loading station with first and second stations arranged vertically one above the other, as taught by Genov, to increase the capacity of the loading station without enlarging its footprint, especially since the robot assembly of Iwabuchi already has vertical movement capability in order to access the vertically arranged load locks.
Claims 7-9 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.
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
3/12/26