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 .
The amendment filed 30 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suma (JP 4-92410).
[AltContent: textbox (adjacent
without
intervening
elements
therebetween)][AltContent: textbox (adjacent
without
intervening
elements
therebetween)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
556
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: a first processing device comprising a first entryway (6 with 3; processing includes transferring a wafer);
a second processing device comprising a second entryway (1 with 3); and
a first air curtain device (8/9b) and a second air curtain (another 8/9b) device positioned at the first entryway and the second entryway, respectively, and between the first and second processing devices, wherein the first air curtain device comprises an inner air curtain device and an outer air curtain device adjacent to each other (9b includes 7/8/9a/etc. as shown in at least figure 2; see “adjacent” arrows above in modified figure 1);
Claim 6: wherein the first and second air curtain devices are configured to generate a substantially vertical and downward laminar flow (figure 2; “Then, a flow in a certain direction, that is, a gas curtain C is formed” denotes laminar flow);
Claim 8: wherein one or more of the first and second air curtain devices are configured to flow an inert gas, under pressure, towards an exhaust system (7 provides pressure for O2);
Claim 22: wherein the inner air curtain device and the outer air curtain device are adjacent to each other without intervening elements therebetween (see “without intervening elements therebetween” arrows above in modified figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-4, 15-18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (2019/0096702) (“Sakai”).
[AltContent: textbox (adjacent
without
intervening
elements
therebetween)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
274
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: a first processing device comprising a first entryway (31 top left of FIG. 1);
a second processing device comprising a second entryway (31 top right of FIG. 1); and
a first air curtain device (curtain at 72 at top left of FIG. 1) and a second air curtain (curtain at 72 at top right of FIG. 1) device positioned at the first entryway and the second entryway, respectively, and between the first and second processing devices, wherein the first air curtain device comprises an inner air curtain device and an outer air curtain device adjacent to each other (one curtain at 72 is inner air curtain and other curtain at 72 is outer air curtain; see “adjacent” arrows above in modified FIG. 1);
Claim 2: a wafer loading station (23a);
a wafer unloading station (23b); and
a wafer transport system, comprising:
a track connected to the wafer loading station, the wafer unloading station, and the first and second processing devices (44); and
a robotic arm configured to move a wafer from the wafer loading station, into and out of the first and second processing devices, through the first and second air curtain devices, and to the wafer unloading station (40);
Claim 3: an additional processing device having one or more additional entryways; and
an additional air curtain device positioned at each of the one or more additional entryways to shield the wafer from contamination (other 31/72 under uppermost 31/72 in FIG. 1)
Claim 4: wherein the first processing device, the second processing device, and the additional processing device are positioned along the track, and wherein the robotic arm loads and unloads the wafer into and out of the first processing device, the second processing device, and the additional processing device (FIG. 1)
Claim 15: a track (44) connecting a wafer loading station and a wafer unloading station (23a/23b);
a wafer processing device (depressurized volume of 30; transferring is a process) arranged along the track and comprising an entryway (entryway at 31 top left of FIG. 1 between 72/46a(46b));
a wafer transport system (40) configured to transport a wafer among the wafer processing device, the wafer loading station, and the wafer unloading station; and
an air curtain device at the entryway of the wafer processing device (72’s at 31 top left and top right of FIG. 1), wherein the air curtain device comprises a first air curtain device inside the wafer processing device (72 at 31 top left of FIG. 1 at the entryway) and a second air curtain device outside the entryway and in contact with the wafer processing device (curtain at 72 at top right of FIG. 1 at 31 that contacts 30 volume);
Claim 16: a controller device configured to synchronize an operation of the air curtain device with an operation of the entryway to which the air curtain device is attached (80; transferring is an operation);
Claim 17: a controller device configured to coordinate motion of a robotic arm (41a/41b/etc.) to transfer the wafer into and out of the wafer processing device and through the air curtain device (80);
Claim 18: wherein the air curtain device is configured to activate upon activation of the wafer processing device, and wherein activation of the wafer processing device comprises one or more of a power-on procedure, a door opening procedure, and a start-up procedure (turning on the device is part of power-on/start-up procedures that activates 72);
Claim 22: wherein the inner air curtain device and the outer air curtain device are adjacent to each other without intervening elements therebetween (see “without intervening elements therebetween” arrows above in modified FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Sasaki (US 2003/0066797). Sakai discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Sakai does not directly show:
Claim 5: wherein one or more of the first and second processing devices are configured to process a wafer using a solvent, and wherein the solvent is a liquid, a vapor, a gas, or an aerosol.
Sasaki shows a similar device having:
Claim 5: wherein one or more of the first and second processing devices are configured to process a wafer using a solvent, and wherein the solvent is a liquid, a vapor, a gas, or an aerosol (para. [0073]);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of completely drying the wafer for efficient processing of the wafer (para. [0015]-[0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakai as taught by Sasaki and include Sasaki’s similar device having:
Claim 5: wherein one or more of the first and second processing devices are configured to process a wafer using a solvent, and wherein the solvent is a liquid, a vapor, a gas, or an aerosol;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of completely drying the wafer for efficient processing of the wafer.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Suma. Sakai discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Sakai does not directly show:
Claim 19: wherein the air curtain device is configured to generate a substantially vertical and downward laminar flow.
Sasaki shows a similar device having:
Claim 19: wherein the air curtain device is configured to generate a substantially vertical and downward laminar flow (figure 2 shows downward laminar, straight-line flow at 13);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of minimizing impurities other than high-purity gas used in a reaction chamber from entering the reaction chamber (para. [0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakai as taught by Sasaki and include Sasaki’s similar device having:
Claim 19: wherein the air curtain device is configured to generate a substantially vertical and downward laminar flow;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of minimizing impurities other than high-purity gas used in a reaction chamber from entering the reaction chamber.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-19, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,562 (“USPN”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application fit into (are broader than) the above claims of USPN.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 re. the double patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is not clear how cancelling dependent claims 4, 7, and 20 overcome the double patenting rejections; there were no specific arguments thereto.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-9, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Suma et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection are made re. the interpretation of Suma et al.
Conclusion
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 Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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 (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights