DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on May 22, 2026, has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended; claim 24 is new.
The applicant contends:
(1) Boitnott, the primary reference, avails a cylindrical sleeve (106) which moves vertically to couple with the port (111) of a reaction chamber (91), thereby sealing the wafer (78) within a processing environment. Critically, the vertical position of the wafer does not change during substrate processing, as shown by Figure 2A. As such, because these sleeves do not carry wafers, they cannot satisfy the claim 1 limitation of “bases configured to carry wafers” (p. 12).
(2) Boitnott’s transfer mechanism (84) is disposed in an anteroom chamber (86), whereas the carrier mechanism (90) is disposed within the transfer chamber (88). Conversely, claim 1 requires both the carrier and transfer mechanisms to be “arranged in the transfer chamber” (p. 13).
In response,
(1) Boitnott’s wafers are necessarily supported by some structural feature, whereby this feature may be taken as one component of the claimed “base.” Of course, Boitnott discloses a separate feature, the cylindrical sleeves (111-114), which ascend and descend to selectively seal the bottom openings (111-114). Collectively, these two features – the feature bearing the wafer and the feature sealing the bottom opening – constitute Applicant’s claimed “base.” The language of claim 1 does not foreclose an embodiment in which the base comprises discrete sub-components directed to different functions. (The examiner observes that claim 24 better embodies the spirit of Applicant’s argument, whereby new art has been cited to address this content.)
(2) The examiner does not recognize the significance of this distinction, since there is no structural barrier dividing spaces 86 and 88. As rendered by Figure 2A, spaces 86 and 88 compose the same undifferentiated volume, as evidenced by the transfer mechanism’s unconstrained movement therebetween. Although Figure 2B appears to show a circular division between the aforementioned spaces, this is merely an artifact of perspective: the purported division is simply the delineation of the low-profile housing which cabins the metal sleeves. The volume of space above this housing, decisively, is continuous.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – mechanism, in this case – 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 limitations are:
The “carrier mechanism” of claim 1;
The “transfer mechanism” of claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The carrier mechanism (21) will be interpreted as a plurality of finger pieces (211-214) in accordance with paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification.
The transfer mechanism (22) will be interpreted as a finger member (221) and a plurality of swing rods in accordance with paragraph [0054].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boitnott et al., US 5,863,170.
Claim 1: Boitnott discloses a processing chamber (70), comprising:
A transfer chamber (86) (Figs. 2);
A plurality of reaction chambers (91-94) located above the transfer chamber and connected thereto via bottom openings (111-114) (4, 35-55);
A plurality of bases (106-109) configured to:
Carry wafers (78) (Fig. 2A);
Be in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of reaction chambers (Fig. 2B);
Ascend and descend between the reaction chambers and the transfer chamber to seal or open the bottom openings (4, 56-67);
A carrier mechanism (90), including a plurality of finger pieces, arranged in the transfer chamber and configured to carry and transfer a plurality of wafers to the plurality of bases (Fig. 2C);
A transfer mechanism (84), including a finger and swing rods, arranged in the transfer chamber and configured to transfer a wafer from outside the processing chamber onto the base, and to transfer the wafer on the base out of the processing chamber (2, 49-61);
Wherein the plurality of bases is around the carrier mechanism (Fig. 2B);
Wherein the carrier mechanism includes a plurality of wafer carrying positions;
Wherein a number of wafer carrying positions, four, is equivalent to the number of bases, four;
Wherein the carrier mechanism is configured to allow the plurality of wafer carrying positions to transfer the wafers onto the bases (4, 44-55; 5, 8-15).
Claim 6: As shown by Figure 2B, two wafer transfer opening are formed on the left side wall of the transfer chamber, whereby the transfer mechanism (84) is configured to obtain a wafer from outside the processing chamber through the transfer opening, as well as to transfer a wafer out of the processing chamber via the transfer opening.
Claim 10: The entirety of the system shown by Figure 2A may be taken as the “semiconductor processing equipment.”
Claim 22: Figure 2A of Boitnott depicts an upper chamber body (105) stacked atop a lower chamber body (88), as well as upper covers (99-102) sealing a corresponding number of top openings. Further, the transfer chamber (86) is located in the lower chamber body (88) and the reaction chambers (111-114) are located in the upper chamber body (105).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott.
Boitnott’s carrier mechanism (90) includes four extensions to bear wafers, a central hub, and an actuation means. The actuation means may be taken as the claimed “driver,” the central hub may be taken as the “connector,” as the four wafer-bearing extensions may be taken as the “finger pieces.” Further, the wafer carrying positions are formed on the upper surfaces of the finger pieces, which are themselves arranged around the connector (Fig. 2C). The driver drives the finger pieces to rotate around a rotation axis of the connector (4, 21-29).
Lastly, it is unclear if the carrier mechanism “ascends and descends,” but the four bases do elevate vertically, thereby establishing the operation of relative movement between the carrier mechanism and the bases. Given the operation of relative motion, simply inverting the moving component would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, as it would have been obvious to try an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott in view of Todaka, US 2007/0034479.
Boitnott drives the carrier mechanism so that the finger pieces rotate to a position above the plurality of bases in a one-to-one correspondence, whereby a gap, or “clearance,” forms between the upper surface of the base and a respective finger piece (Fig. 2A). Boitnott, though, is silent regarding the matter of a support column. In supplementation, Todaka describes an analogous processing chamber comprising a plurality of bases (20) along with a carrier mechanism (25) for carrying and transferring wafers to the various bases ([0033]; Fig. 2). In addition, Todaka prescribes a solution for providing clearance between the base’s upper surface and the wafer to permit access by an arm of the carrier mechanism: support columns (44) extend through a corresponding plurality of base holes formed within the base [0035]. As shown by Figures 12-14, the support columns can descend relative to the base and ascend with the base, as well as support and lift a wafer on the base. It would have been obvious to incorporate support columns within the bases of Boitnott to facilitate wafer transfer operations, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott in view of Todaka, and in further view of Aichholzer et al., US 2011/0042906.
Todaka’s support column does not appear to have a “position limiting member” to establish a fixed relative position to the base. Aichholzer, however, imagines a modification to the conventional support column (12) which fashions the head as a countersink, thereby establishing a fixed position in relation to the top surface of the base’s carrying surface, as the claim requires ([0038]; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to design the head of Todaka’s support column in accordance with this archetype to prevent the retraction of the column within the body of the base, since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott in view of Schaller et al., US 2021/0013055.
Boitnott does not elevate the wafer during processing; instead, cylindrical sleeves elevate to seal the processing environment. As such, the primary reference does not disclose a base which carries the wafer “through a…bottom opening,” as claim 24 requires and claim 23 implies. Alternative arrangements, however, are known in the art. Schaller, for example, discloses a processing chamber (700) comprising a plurality of reaction chambers (725) disposed above a transfer chamber (Fig. 7D). In addition, a carrier mechanism (720) arranged in the transfer chamber carries and transfers a plurality of wafers to a corresponding plurality of bases (710) [0058]. During processing, a given base elevates the wafer through the bottom opening of the reaction chamber, processing proceeds with the wafer support by said base (Fig. 7E). This embodiment permits an arrangement in which a first wafer is supported by a base within the reaction chamber while a second wafer is supported by the carrier mechanism, per claim 23. It would have been obvious to configure Boitnott’s bases to elevate the wafer during processing, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Silva et al., US 2010/0012036. Silva depicts a transfer chamber and a plurality of reaction chambers (214) located above the transfer chamber via bottom openings (Fig. 2B). In addition, Silva provides a plurality of vertically movable wafer-carrying bases (326) in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of reaction chambers [0041]. A carrier mechanism (216) is arranged in the transfer chamber and is configured to carry and transfer a plurality of wafers to the plurality of bases (Fig. 2A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights