DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18657842 application filed May 8, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on November 17, 2025. Claims 13-32 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-12 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group III, claims 13-20 in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 13-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houng et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200294834), hereinafter “Houng”, in view of Choi et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20240379386), hereinafter “Choi”, and Ito et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220347814), hereinafter “Ito”:--Claims 13, 14, 16, 21, 22: Houng teaches a method of processing a substrate by using a cluster tool, comprising- loading the substrate into a FOUP ([0012]);- docking the FOUP to a load port 112, wherein a load lock transfer robot arm 115 picks up the substrate and moves it to an equipment front end module (EFEM) 110 ([0014], Fig. 1);- opening the load lock door, then transferring the substrate to a load lock chamber 120 by using the load lock transfer robot arm 115 ([0016]);- opening a door to a transfer chamber 130, then transferring the substrate to the transfer chamber 130 by using a transfer robot 135 ([0020]);- opening a door to process chamber 140A, then transferring the substrate to the process chamber 140A by using a transfer robot 135 ([0021-0022]), wherein chamber 140A is configured to perform a chemical mechanical polishing process on the substrate ([0023]), wherein a cleaning module 170 is disposed in chamber 140A ([0025], Fig. 11) that ejects carbon dioxide to clean the chamber while the substrate is not in the chamber ([0027-0031]);- opening a door to process chamber 140B, then transferring the substrate to the transfer chamber 140B by using a transfer robot 135 ([0021-0022]), wherein chamber 140B is configured to perform a same or different process as chamber 140A ([0024, 0032]). Houng is silent about the details of the chemical mechanical polishing process that is performed in process chamber 140A Choi, also directed to a method of processing in a cluster tool, comprising- loading the substrate into a FOUP- attaching the FOUP to a load port LP ([0031])- transferring the substrate from the load port LP to a cluster module CM by using a main transfer robot R1, wherein the cluster module CM comprise a plurality of substrate processing devices SC and wherein the main transfer robot R1 transfers the substrate between each of the plurality of substrate processing devices SC ([0029, 0069], Fig. 1) Choi further teaches that the plurality of substrate processing devices SC may include a polishing chamber (Fig. 15, 17), wherein the substrate is held by a rotating polishing head and is polished by a rotating polishing pad while a slurry is supplied to the polishing pad ([0064-0065]). Choi further teaches that the substrate may be processed in a polishing chamber, then is transferred by the transfer robot R1 to a cleaning device ([0070]), then is transferred by the transfer robot R1 to load port LP ([0070]), then is unloaded from the load port to the outside ([0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the polishing chamber taught by Choi as the process chamber 140A in the invention of Houng because Houng is silent about the details of the polishing chamber and Choi teaches that such polishing chamber would be effective. Houng and Choi fail to teach the claimed feature of supplying an inert gas to the chamber 140A. Ito, also directed to chemical mechanical polishing process a substrate, teaches that it is important to control the temperature of a polishing pad during polishing to control a polishing rate ([0003-0004), wherein the control the temperature comprises injecting a fluid ([0015, 0030]), such as nitrogen or argon ([0071-0072]) toward the polishing pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to inject a cooling medium, such as nitrogen or argon, in the process chamber 140A while performing the polishing because Ito teaches that such injection would advantageously control the polishing rate.--Claim 15: Since Houng teaches that chamber 140B is configured to perform a same or different process as chamber 140A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to set up the chamber 140B to perform a chemical mechanical polishing process.--Claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32: Houng further teaches that the cluster tool further comprises process chamber 140C and 140D that are configured to perform suitable manufacturing processes, such as a cleaning processes, on the substrate ([0023]). Choi teaches that the cluster tool comprises a substrate cleaning device configured to clean the substrate by loading the substrate on a chuck then spraying a fluid, such as nitrogen, toward the substrate by using a nozzle (abstract, [0005-0006, 0041, 0071]), wherein the substrate is transferred to the substrate cleaning device after being processed in a process chamber then is transferred back to a load port after being cleaned (Fig. 16, [0069-0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to return a substrate to the load lock chamber then transfer to a cleaning chamber, such as chamber 140C or the cleaning device taught by Choi, to be cleaned. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to transfer the substrate to another cleaning chamber for further cleaning, since it is well established that “(a) person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton’). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. It is noted that claim 17 does not indicate that the second transfer chamber is different than the transfer chamber.- Claims 23, 24: Ito further teaches that to include a pump to prevent over-pressurize the chamber due to the injection of the fluid and maintain the pressure in the polishing chamber at a predetermined value ([0024, 0121-0123], claim 14). Although Ito is silent about the predetermined value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to supply the fluid at about atmospheric pressure to simplify manufacturing and reduce cost.--Claim 31: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to arrange the location of the process chambers such as the two polishing chamber are symmetrically arranged about the transfer chamber since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713