DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cong et al. (US 2024/0170321).
Regarding claim 1, Cong et al. teaches a wafer processing tool, comprising:
a vacuum chamber, 100, comprising a transfer arm, 200; and
a wafer transfer paddle, 202, coupled to the wafer transfer arm, the wafer transfer paddle comprising a minimum contact area, 210, feature integral with an upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle and extending a z-height over the upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle, see figure 3, wherein the wafer transfer paddle comprises a gas flow bypass structure adjacent to the MCA feature, where the design of the paddle with two tines, 204, and a space between the two tines reads on the claimed gas flow bypass structure.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2022/0293399) in view of Cong et al. (US 2024/0170321).
Regarding claim 13, Mori teaches a wafer processing system, comprising:
at least one wafer processing chamber comprising one or more wafer chuck assemblies, 22;
a gas distribution showerhead, 36, above the one or more wafer chuck assemblies, 22; and
a rotary indexer, 3, adjacent to the one or more wafer chuck assemblies, 22, the rotary indexer comprising at least one indexing arm coupled to a wafer handling paddle, 32, where the paddle comprises a gas flow bypass structure, see voided space in the middle of the paddle which allow gas to flow around the through the structure of the paddle.
Mori does not teach the handling paddle comprising at least one minimum contact area and a gas flow bypass structure, as claimed. Cong et al. teaches a wafer transfer paddle, 202, coupled to the wafer transfer arm, the wafer transfer paddle comprising a minimum contact area, 210, feature integral with an upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle and extending a z-height over the upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle, figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the minimum contact area taught by Cong et al. with the wafer paddle or Mori in order to achieve the predictable result of minimizing the contact between the wafer and the paddle during processing in order to achieve the benefit of reduced or eliminated chances of defects during processing, see paragraph 0109.
Regarding claim 15, Mori teaches a method for operating a wafer processing system, comprising:
transferring one or more wafers into a wafer processing apparatus comprising a rotary indexer, 3, comprising at least one indexing arm coupled to a wafer transfer paddle, 32; and
rotating the at least one indexing arm to load the one or more wafers onto one or more processing stations, S1-S4, within the wafer processing apparatus; and
parking the at least one indexing arm in a neutral position, see figures 2 and 3, and paragraph 0030, where Mori teaches when the indexing arm is in the neutral position, wafers are loaded onto the processing stages and gas will flow within the processing chamber, and therefor over or through the paddle.
Mori does not teach the handling paddle comprising at least one minimum contact area, as claimed. Cong et al. teaches a wafer transfer paddle, 202, coupled to the wafer transfer arm, the wafer transfer paddle comprising a minimum contact area, 210, feature integral with an upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle and extending a z-height over the upper surface of the wafer transfer paddle, see figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the minimum contact area taught by Cong et al. with the wafer paddle or Mori in order to achieve the predictable result of minimizing the contact between the wafer and the paddle during processing in order to achieve the benefit of reduced or eliminated chances of defects during processing, see paragraph 0109.
Regarding claim 16, Mori teaches that transferring the one or more wafers into the wafer processing apparatus comprise transferring the one or more wafers from a load lock coupled to the wafer processing apparatus with a robotic transfer arm, see figure 4 and paragraph 0025.
Regarding claim 17, Mori teaches transferring the one or more wafers into the wafer processing chambers apparatus comprises placing the one or more wafers onto the wafer transfer paddle on the at least one indexing arm by the robotic transfer arm, see paragraph 0025 and 0026.
Regarding claim 18, Mori teaches that rotating the at least one indexing arm to load the one or more wafers into the one or more processing stations within the wafer processing apparatus comprises raising one or more lift pins, 26, to lift the one or more wafer off the wafer transfer paddle, see paragraph 0026.
Regarding claim 19, Mori teaches parking the at least one indexing arm in the neutral position comprises rotating the at least one indexing arm to a side of the one or more processing stations within the wafer processing apparatus, see paragraph 0026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 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.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5 claim specific shapes and structure of the gas flow bypass structure. The examiner was unable to find a specific teaching of the gas flow bypass structure in the prior art, as claimed. The Cong et al. reference is considered the best prior art that teaches an MCA, but it does not teach the bypass structure. It would not have been obvious to modify the paddle or the MCA of Cong et al. to teach the claims gas flow bypass structures of claims 2, 4, and 5 as the examiner could find no proper motivation. As such, these claims and those that depend therefrom are found to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 3 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated by Cong et al., applicant makes four arguments, all are not found to be persuasive.
First, applicant argues that the space between the alleged arms 204 of Cong is simply the inherent geometry of a forked blade. While this may be true, it is also true that the inherent design forms a gas flow bypass structure, as the gas flows around the fork arms when the fork arms are in the chamber and holding a wafer, therefore Cong teaches the claimed structure. Therefore, as gas flows around the substrate in the chamber and the transfer apparatus transfers the wafer, the gas would inherently bypass the solid structure of the arms, therefore forming the gas flow bypass structure – which clearly reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation.
Second, applicant argues that the gas flow bypass structure be on or adjacent to the MCA feature. Cong shows the MCA feature, 201, on the ends of arms 204, and the edge of the arms, which read on the gas bypass structure, are adjacent the MCA feature, 201. Therefore, Cong teaches this feature.
Third, examiner has indicated that claims 2, 4, and 5 are allowable subject because of the specific shapes of the gas bypass structure, such as the claimed notch in 2, the peninsular structure of claim 4, and the opening of claim 5. Cong not teaching these specific features of the gas bypass structure does not mean that Cong does not teach the general bypass structure of claim 1.
Fourth, in the method described in paragraph 0095+ gas flow is described, and the wafer transfer apparatus moves into the chamber to transfer a wafer while gas is flowing within the chamber. As such, claim 1 remains anticipated by Cong.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13-20 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Cong, applicant’s argument are not found to be persuasive.
First, applicant argues that the space between the alleged arms 204 of Cong is simply the inherent geometry of a forked blade. While this may be true, it is also true that the inherent design forms a gas flow bypass structure, as the gas flows around the fork arms when the fork arms are in the chamber and holding a wafer, therefore Cong teaches the claimed structure. Therefore, as gas flows around the substrate in the chamber and the transfer apparatus transfers the wafer, the gas would inherently bypass the solid structure of the arms, therefore forming the gas flow bypass structure – which clearly reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation.
Second, the voided space of Mori reads on the claimed gas flow bypass structure, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in relationship to the Cong reference, the gas bypass structure is interpreted as a structural feature of the paddle that gas can flow around, such as voids or spaced. The structural design of the Mori paddle, with the void in the middle, reads on this feature.
Third, examiner has indicated that claims 2, 4, and 5 are allowable subject because of the specific shapes of the gas bypass structure, such as the claimed notch in 2, the peninsular structure of claim 4, and the opening of claim 5. Cong not teaching these specific features of the gas bypass structure does not mean that Cong does not teach the general bypass structure of claim 1.
Finally, the applicant argues that the combination of Mori and Cong and the motivation ot combine is insufficient. As point out in the highlighted paragraph of Cong, the MCA features of Cong are included to reduce or eliminate chances of defects during processing, see paragraph 0109. The examiner contends that both Cong and Mori are in the same field of endeavor of transfer wafers within a wafer processing system, and the need to reduce defects during transferring is a well known motivation, and therefore the combination rejection of Mori and Cong is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included to show additional examples of wafer processing tools with similar features to the claimed invention. The prior art relied upon in the rejection above is considered the best prior art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
21 September 2026
Prosecution Insights