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)(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, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsunaga et al. 2002/0037210.
In Re Claim 1, Matsunaga et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a first processing chamber (11) configured to collectively perform a first processing on a plurality of substrates (W) held by a substrate holder (30) in a shelf-like shape; a load lock chamber (60) located below the first processing chamber and having an interior communicating with an inside of the first processing chamber; (Fig. 15) and a driving mechanism (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Paragraph 42) configured to move the substrate holder up and down and horizontally.
In Re Claim 2, Matsunaga et al. teach wherein the driving mechanism is configured to move the substrate holder up and down between the first processing chamber and the load lock chamber. (Paragraph 42, Paragraph 111) Fig. 15)
In Re Claim 3, Matsunaga et al. teach wherein the driving mechanism is configured to move the substrate holder horizontally inside the load lock chamber. (Paragraph 42, Paragraph 111, Fig. 14)
In Re Claim 5, Matsunaga et al. teach wherein the load lock chamber is configured to be capable of being depressurized. (paragraph 111)
In Re Claim 7, Matsunaga et al. teach wherein the driving mechanism (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Paragraph 42) includes an articulated arm configured to move the substrate holder up and down and horizontally.
In Re Claim 8, Matsunaga et al. teach wherein the driving mechanism includes: an elevation driving mechanism (22) configured to move the substrate holder up and down; and a horizontal driving mechanism (24) configured to move the substrate holder horizontally.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pressnall et al. 6,442,867
In Re Claim 19, Pressnall et al. teach a substrate processing method, comprising: moving a substrate holder (30) holding a plurality of substrates in a shelf-like shape to a processing position; (Column 5, Lines 24-45) collectively performing processing on the plurality of substrates held by the substrate holder at the processing position; (Column 5, Lines 24-45) after the performing the processing, moving the substrate holder to an unloading position immediately below the processing position (adjacent 64); (Column 5, Lines 24-45) moving the substrate holder located at the unloading position to a transfer position shifted in a horizontal direction from the unloading position; and taking the plurality of substrates held by the substrate holder at the transfer position out of the substrate holder. (Column 5, Lines 24-45)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. and in view of Takamura et al. 2023/0096299.
In Re Claim 4, Matsunaga et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Matsunaga et al. do not teach wherein the driving mechanism is configured to move the substrate holder horizontally inside the first processing chamber.
However, Takamura et al. teach a driving mechanism (19) configured to move the substrate holder (20) horizontally inside the first processing chamber (11). (Paragraph 24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to move the substrate holder horizontally in the system of Matsunaga et al. as taught by Takamura et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to perform more uniform processing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. and in view of Pressnall et al. 6,442,867.
In Re Claim 6, Matsunaga et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Matsunaga et al. do not teach wherein the driving mechanism is configured to move the substrate holder between a processing position at which the first processing is performed and a transfer position at which the substrates are loaded to or unloaded from the substrate holder with the respect to the substrate holder, and wherein the processing position is different from the transfer position in a horizontal direction.
However, Pressnall et al. teach wherein the driving mechanism is configured to move the substrate holder (30) between a processing position (Raised position of 30, Fig. 2) at which the first processing is performed and a transfer position (rotated position for 64 access, Column 5, Line 24-33) at which the substrates are loaded to or unloaded from the substrate holder with the respect to the substrate holder, and wherein the processing position is different from the transfer position in a horizontal direction. (Column 5, Lines 24-33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to move the substrate holder horizontally to the transfer position in the system of Matsunaga et al. as taught by Pressnall et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce cross contamination between process chamber transfer area.
Claims 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. and in view of Fluit 2021/0035841.
In Re Claims 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Matsunaga et al. teach the apparatus of Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 as discussed above.
Matsunaga et al. do not teach a second processing chamber located above the load lock chamber and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber and configured to communicate with an inside of the load lock chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder.
However, Fluit teaches a second processing chamber (58) located above the load chamber (Chamber for 60, Fig. 2) and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber (56) and configured to communicate with an inside of the load chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating an entirety of the substrate holder. (Paragraph 27)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a second processing chamber above the Load lock chamber in the system of Matsunaga et al. as taught by Fluit with a reasonable expectation for success in order increase throughput of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al./ Takamura et al. and in view of Fluit 20210035841.
In Re Claim 12, Matsunaga et al./ Takamura et al. teach the apparatus of Claims 4 as discussed above.
Matsunaga et al./ Takamura et al. do not teach a second processing chamber located above the load lock chamber and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber and configured to communicate with an inside of the load lock chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder.
However, Fluit teaches a second processing chamber (58) located above the load chamber (Chamber for 60, Fig. 2) and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber (56) and configured to communicate with an inside of the load chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating an entirety of the substrate holder. (Paragraph 27)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a second processing chamber above the Load lock chamber in the system of Matsunaga et al./ Takamura et al. as taught by Fluit with a reasonable expectation for success in order increase throughput of the system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al./Pressnall et al. and in view of Fluit 20210035841.
In Re Claim 14, Matsunaga et al./Pressnall et al. teach the apparatus of Claims 6 as discussed above.
Matsunaga et al./Pressnall et al. do not teach a second processing chamber located above the load lock chamber and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber and configured to communicate with an inside of the load lock chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder.
However, Fluit teaches a second processing chamber (58) located above the load chamber (Chamber for 60, Fig. 2) and at a lateral side of the first processing chamber (56) and configured to communicate with an inside of the load chamber, wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating at least a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating a part of the substrate holder; (Paragraph 27) and wherein the second processing chamber is configured to be capable of accommodating an entirety of the substrate holder. (Paragraph 27)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a second processing chamber above the Load lock chamber in the system of Matsunaga et al./Pressnall et al. as taught by Fluit with a reasonable expectation for success in order increase throughput of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shimatani et al. and Inokana et al. teach a process chamber above a load lock chamber and a driving mechanism to vertically move a holder into the process chamber. Yudovsky et al. teach a driving mechanism to horizontally and vertically move a holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights