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 .
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 15-25,27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao (JP2021025102A) in view of Philipp (US 10,584,001) and Hoffmeister (US 7,988,398).
Re claims 15,29, Masao teaches an apparatus VM and inherent method of use for transporting a (wafer) substrate Sw (Sw1,Sw2) to/from a substrate processing chamber Pc1-3 in which substrate processing is performed, the apparatus comprising: a substrate transport chamber (Tc,Ac,Mc,61,62,33 outside of Pc1-3) connected to the substrate processing chamber, and including a movement surface (not numbered, see figures, [0024]) that includes at least one bottom surface and at least one side surface to which first magnets are provided, respectively; and at least one substrate transport module Ca (Ca1,Ca2) accommodated in the substrate transport chamber to hold the substrate, including a second magnet to which a magnetic force that is at least one of a repulsive force or an attractive force acting between the first magnet and the second magnet is applied, and configured to be movable along the movement surface 61,62 in a state of floating from the movement surface using the magnetic force (figures, [0024]). Masao states the movement is by known means of magnetic levitation with contactless power supply, which infers first and second magnets as claimed as the examiner has only encountered that type. However, to avoid any ambiguity, Philipp teaches (figure 2) movement of substrate transport modules 10,110 with second magnets 111 via magnetic levitation with contactless power supply with magnets 111,121 to move substrates 50 in a controllable manner with bottom and sidewalls with first magnets 121, as well as moving along surfaces in vertical and/or horizontal state. Masao does not use the term “wafer” but wafer is a common term and is generally not limited to being round. For clarity it is noted that Hofmeister (abstract, figures) is in the same classification as Masao (H01L21/677 relates to handling of semiconductor substrate wafers) and shows magnetic levitation transport of semiconductor substrates and flat panels, which are understood to include wafers or any other type of substrates (column 5, 2nd paragraph, substrates 148), are already understood in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Masao as claimed for greater versatility of uses and in order to move wafer substrates or any other type through the system in a controllable manner.
Re claim 16, Masao teaches an angle adjusting mechanism Ac provided in the substrate transport chamber to switch an angle of the bottom surface between a first angle and a second angle which is closer to a vertical state than the first angle.
Re claim 17, Masao teaches (figures 1,4) the substrate transport chamber includes: an opening (Po,33) through which carry-in/out of the substrate to/from the substrate processing chamber (32, PC1-3) is performed; and a transport passage 33,61,62 including the side surface.
Re claim 18, Masao teaches the first angle is horizontal, and the second angle is an angle at which an inclination with respect to a horizontal direction is in a range of 45 to 90 degrees.
Re claim 19, Masao teaches the substrate transport chamber is configured such that the carry-in/out of the substrate to/from the substrate processing chamber is performed using the substrate transport module that moves along the bottom surface at the [first] angle, and wherein the angle adjusting mechanism is provided in a region between the transport passage and the opening. Masao appears to move into/out of the process chamber in a more vertical / second angle rather than the less vertical / first angle. However, reversal of parts and changes in shape are obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) ). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Masao as claimed in order to be installed in varied shaped available spaces and handle varied shaped / orientated processing types and devices.
Re claim 20, Masao teaches the substrate transport chamber is configured to transport the substrate under a vacuum atmosphere, wherein a load-lock chamber (Lc1,Lc2,[0024]) in which the substrate that is carried-in to or carried-out from the substrate transport chamber is temporarily arranged, is configured to be capable of switching an internal pressure of the load-lock chamber between a normal pressure and a vacuum and is connected to a position different from a position of the opening of the substrate transport chamber, and wherein the substrate transport chamber is configured such that the substrate is delivered to or from the load lock chamber using the substrate transport module that moves along the bottom surface at the first angle, and the angle adjusting mechanism Ac of the substrate transport chamber is provided in a region between the load-lock chamber and the transport passage 33,61,62.
Re claims 21,27, Masao teaches (see figures 1-4) the at least one side surface includes a plurality of side surfaces and the at least one bottom surface includes a plurality of bottom surfaces, wherein, in the transport passage, the plurality of side surfaces are disposed to face each other, and wherein the angle adjusting mechanism switches angles of the plurality of bottom surfaces to be connected respectively to the plurality of side surfaces in the transport passage.
Re claim 22, Masao teaches (see figures 1-4) the at least one substrate transport module includes a plurality of substrate transport modules, and wherein the plurality of side surfaces of the transport passage are disposed with a gap (see figures, not numbered) therebetween through which the plurality of substrate transport modules moving along the plurality of side surfaces, respectively, pass by each other.
Re claims 23,24, Masao teaches (see figures 1-4) between the plurality of side surfaces, a partition member (31, various unnumbered in figures 1-4) is provided to partition a space through which the substrate transport modules move along the plurality of side surfaces, respectively.
Re claim 25, Masao teaches (see figures 1-4) the substrate transport chamber further includes (Ac 1a or Ac 1b) at least one vertical surface that is capable of being switched between a third angle, at which the vertical surface is connected to the side surface, and a fourth angle, which is different from the third angle, and wherein the substrate transport chamber is configured such that the carry-in/out of the substrate to/from the substrate processing chamber is performed using the substrate transport module that moves along the vertical surface at the fourth angle.
Re claim 28, Masao teaches (see figures 1-4) system for processing a substrate, the system comprising: an apparatus for transporting the substrate of Claim 15; and a plurality of substrate processing chambers Pc1-3 connected to the substrate transport chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frangen (abstract, paragraph 54,figures 3-8), Baechle (abstract, figure 1), Scollay (abstract, cover), Janakiraman ‘141 (abstract, figures 2-3) & Janakiraman ‘279 (abstract, figure 7C) teach it is known for linear magnetic conveyance of wafer/ substrate/ transport modules with magnets in bottom and side walls.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Masao and Philipp do not mention “wafer” and Masao just mentions substrates. As noted above, Masao was classified in H01L21/677 which is for handling of semiconductor wafer/ substrates. The instant application publication also shows it was classified in H01L21/677 too. Wafer and substrate are used interchangeably through many of the cited references of record above and applicant’s own current claims (wafer and substrate transport and substrate processing are in the same lines throughout). Wafers are not always round either (as shown in the Cambridge Dictionary for example). The examiner believes the claim language is broader than argued in the applicant’s remarks. For clarity of the record, the examiner now cites Hofmeister, which has a common classification as Masao, in the rejections above which shows substrates and wafers are understood to be equivalent or at minimum obvious to use in essentially the same processes and transports.
Applicant similarly argues that Philipp does not mention wafers and has complex coil arrays, etc. and the references are nonanalogous art & it would be hindsight reasoning to combine the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all the references deal with magnetic conveyance and handling of objects and have the same or similar patent classifications (Philipp is classified in linear magnetic conveying as well).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Again the references are all involved in magnetic conveyance and handling of objects, have the same or similar patent classifications, and are thus of common relevance to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined them as shown in the rejections above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights