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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the temperature control means, heat lamp, cooled substrate support, substrate alignment system, & optical sensors must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 21 appears to be stating what is already claimed in claim 21.
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.
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 1-6,10-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa (US 2018/02690088) in view of Tepman (EP1107288) and Holtkamp (US 8,398,355).
Re claim 1, Nozawa teaches a substrate processing system (figure 1,12,13) comprising: a transfer vacuum chamber 40 for handling a substrate [under vacuum conditions], the transfer vacuum chamber being in communication with at least two substrate modules (30,50-56) connected to the transfer vacuum chamber by a respective connection slot (not numbered, associated with 57’s, figure 5), the at least two substrate modules (30,50-56) being capable of receiving at least one substrate, wherein at least one of the at least two substrate modules is a substrate processing module (50-56); and at least two load lock chambers (30,31,32,24) in vacuum communication with the transfer vacuum chamber; wherein the transfer vacuum chamber comprises at least two transfer robots (42,44) disposed within the transfer vacuum chamber configured to transfer a substrate between the at least two load lock chambers and the at least one substrate processing module [under vacuum conditions], [wherein the at least two transfer robots are each capable of translation along or rotation about at least five independent axes,] and the at least two transfer robots are each configured to dispose and retrieve a substrate from at least one common substrate module [0040,0071] of the at least two substrate modules.
Nozawa doesn’t not explicitly mention vacuum, though wafer processing, use of load locks, and the type of processing [0084] would be generally understood that vacuum as claimed is being used. However, Tepman teaches a known similar system (figures 1,3,4A,24,25) with a transfer chamber (302, with slot connections see figure 25), process chambers (322-326), load locks 314,316 that pump from atmospheric pressure in the EFEM 205 down to vacuum of the transfer chamber 302 ([0003,0044]) allowing cleaner conditions and reduction of contaminants.
Nozawa doesn’t mention the robots having 5 degrees of freedom (independent axes). Holtkamp teaches (column 33, lines 2-14; column 14, lines 37-41) also teaches it is known for wafer processing system to have wafer transfer robots up to 6 degrees of freedom (independent axes) with any desired independence to allow greater versatility of movements and transfer, processing & layouts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa in view of Tepman & Holtkamp as claimed in order to allow cleaner conditions and reduction of contaminants on the wafers & to allow greater versatility of movements, processing progressions & system layouts.
Re claim 2, Nozawa teaches the at least two load lock chambers are connected to an Equipment Front End Module (EFEM) 10 configured to allow substrates to be loaded into and unloaded from the substrate processing system.
Re claim 3, Nozawa teaches (figures 1,5,12,13) the transfer vacuum chamber comprises a plurality of facets, each of the facets comprising at least one connection slot (not numbered, associated with 57’s, figure 5), wherein each of the at least two substrate modules and the at least two load lock chambers are connected to the transfer vacuum chamber at one of the facets by a respective one of the connection slots.
Re claim 4, Nozawa teaches (figures 1,5,12,13) each of the at least two load lock chambers are connected to the transfer vacuum chamber at a common load lock facet.
Re claim 5, Nozawa teaches at least two load lock chambers 30,31 are connected to the transfer vacuum chamber at the load lock facet, but does not mention three. However, duplication of parts is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filling to have modified Nozawa as claimed in order to allow greater throughput and backup redundancy.
Re claim 6, Nozawa teaches (figures 1,5,12,13) the transfer vacuum chamber comprises two of the facets (generally located at 50,56) adjacent to the load lock facet (generally located at 30), wherein each of the two facets are inclined toward the load lock facet.
Re claims 10-12, Nozawa teaches, mentions throughout that the substrates are heated in the processing, but does not mention the load locks with heating / cooling temperature control means. However, Tepman teaches ([0055]) at least one of the at least two load lock chambers comprises a temperature control means that is configured to heat (comprising a heat lamp) or cool (comprising a cooled substrate support) a substrate within the at least one load lock chamber in order remove contaminants and appropriately prepare substrates for transfer to the next location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa in view of Tepman as claimed in order to remove contaminants and appropriately prepare substrates for transfer to the next location.
Re claim 13, Nozawa teaches the at least one common substrate module comprises a substrate processing module.
Re claim 14, Nozawa does not mention the at least one common substrate module comprises a multi-substrate buffer station. However, Holtkamp teaches (column 16, lines 53+) that a wafer handling chamber 18 can have any type substrate modules attached including buffers. Also note that duplication of parts is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa as claimed in order to allow buffering to any degree needed for both robots to handle higher throughput of the substrates and varied processing / times.
Re claim 15, Nozawa teaches the at least one common substrate module comprises at least two of the common substrate modules.
Re claim 16, Nozawa teaches the at least two substrate modules comprise at least numerous of the substrate processing modules, but does not specifically mention nine. However, duplication of parts is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa as claimed in order to allow greater processing capabilities & system versatility / abilities.
Re claim 17, Nozawa teaches the substrate processing system comprises at least one substrate alignment system 16,18,80,81,70.
Re claim 18, Nozawa teaches the at least one substrate alignment system comprises a plurality of substrate alignment systems, wherein each substrate alignment system is associated with a respective connection slot ([0087], set alignment sensors 80,81 and associated center-based alignment system for each of 1st & 2nd LLS & associated slots & gates valves) for faster processing. Further if applicant meant a different interpretation of substrate alignment system, etc., duplication of parts is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa as claimed in order to allow greater processing speeds, capabilities & system versatility / abilities.
Re claim 19, Nozawa teaches the at least one substrate alignment system comprises at least two optical sensors 80,81 that are configured to detect a translational or rotational misalignment of a substrate.
Re claim 20, Nozawa (see figures) teaches the substrate processing system comprises [three] of the load lock chambers, each of the load lock chambers having a respective internal surface, the transfer vacuum chamber comprises a plurality of facets, each of the facets comprising at least one connection slot, each of the [three] load lock chambers being connected to the transfer vacuum chamber adjacent to one another at a common load lock facet and the transfer vacuum chamber has a maximum internal width at the widest point of the transfer vacuum chamber, wherein the maximum distance between internal surfaces of the load lock chambers furthest apart from one another is less than 110% of the maximum internal width of the transfer vacuum chamber (apparent from figures).
Nozawa teaches at least two load lock chambers 30,31 are connected to the transfer vacuum chamber at the load lock facet, but does not mention three. However, duplication of parts as well as changes in size, proportion & shape are known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); n re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filling to have modified Nozawa as claimed in order to allow greater throughput and backup redundancy and to minimize / maximize profile to fit the available space and needs of given processes and situational needs.
Re claims 21-27, Nozawa, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1 and repeated here (and its dependents as applicable, particularly the rejection of claims 10-12 for the temperature control means of claim 23), appears to teach both the claimed substrate processing system and its inherent method of use. At most, any differences would lay in a change in sequence which is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). And this would also still seem to be inherent to the intended operation of Nozawa in view of Tepman and Holtkamp as discussed in the apparatus rejections above for operation with different processing types and recipes and their associated progression steps, (which is again already broadly encompassed and taught in Nozawa [paragraphs 41-43,80,82,84,85,97,98] with its various processing types, combinations and reprogrammable progression recipes). So at least for sake of completeness, and to address the broadest possible interpretation of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have further modified Nozawa as claimed in order to meet the necessary steps / sequence of a given desired processing type and the desired recipe to accomplish the desired processing of substrates for a given situation.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa (US 2018/02690088) in view of Tepman (EP1107288), Holtkamp (US 8,398,355) and Vincent (US 10,159,169).
Re claims 7-9, Nozawa does not mention one or three of the facets comprising an adjustable connection slot. Vincent provides a general teaching for an adjustable connection slot (figures 1-4) between two chambers (103,105) to accommodate differences in sizes, shape, etc. between the connected chambers to avoid leaks & contamination (column 2, line 62- column 3, line 32) with sealing flanges and other mounting members and aligned apertures (102A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Nozawa in view of Vincent as claimed in order to have adjustable connections to handle any differences between the between the connected chambers to avoid leaks & contamination and allow easier replacement and maintenance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakata (figure 1) teaches 3 load lock modules 30 connected to vacuum transfer chamber 21, EFEM 10, process chambers 24.
Dammura (figure 1) teaches auto wafer centering alignment sensors 10a,10b corresponding to gate valve slots 9 between each process chamber 2 and substrate handling chamber 4 with two transfer robots 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652