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 .
Correction of Pending Claims
This action is sent to correct the action filed June 16, 2026. Claims 21-32 are pending due to the preliminary amendment filed November 25, 2024. The examiner apologizes for this inadvertent omission that led to the previous action referring to claims 1-20. Noting that claims 1-20 are canceled by the preliminary amendment, the previous rejections are withdrawn. A new action reflecting pending claims 21-32 is provided herewith.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Loading/unloading part as recited in claims 21-32 where the functional language is loading/unloading a plurality of substrates to/from a cassette where the generic placeholder is part
Lot formation part as recited in claims 24-28 where the functional language is lot formation and the generic placeholder is part.
Transfer part as recited in claims 21, 22, and 29-32, where the functional language is transfer as in transfer a plurality of substrates one by one and the generic placeholder is part
Transfer device as recited in claims 22, 27, 28 where the functional language is transfer as in transfer a plurality of substrates and the generic placeholder is device
Drying apparatus as recited in claims 21-32 where the functional language is to dry the plurality of substrates with a supercritical fluid and the generic placeholder is apparatus
Solution processing apparatus as recited in clam 21-32 where the functional language is forming a solution film of a drying solution on each of the plurality of substrates
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Loading/unloading part is interpreted as element 2 and has a stage 21 as recited in [0021] of the original specification
Lot formation part is interpreted as element 51 as recited in [0029] and holds the plurality of substrates W at the first pitch P1 and forms a lot L
Transfer part is interpreted as element 52 as recited in [0030] and includes a first transfer robot 52 and a second transfer robot 54
Transfer device is interpreted as element 24 as recited in [0024] and has a first transfer arm
Drying apparatus is interpreted as element 35 as recited in [0027] and dries the substrates W one by one with a supercritical fluid
Solution processing apparatus is interpreted as element 34 as recited in [0027] is of a single substrate type or batch type see Fig. 1
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 22, and 24-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,613 henceforth referred to as the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claimed invention is fully encompassed by the claims of the patent
Regarding claim 21: The patent claims in claim 1 a substrate processing system comprising a loading/unloading part, batch -type processing part including a processing bath that stores a processing solution in a lump form or a mist form, a single-substrate-type processing part, and an interface part where the loading/unloading part, the single substrate-type processing part, and an interface part, and the batch -type processing part are arranged in this order. See claim 1 of the patent where it also claims a lot formation part and a transfer part. See claim 18 of the patent where a solution processing apparatus and a drying apparatus.
Regarding claim 22: See claim 1 where a single substrate type processing part is recited and see claim 2 of the patent where a first and second transfer robot are recited and are interpreted as the transfer devices and the holder (first and/or second) of claim 4 of the patent as the transition device.
Regarding claim 24: See claim 1 of the patent where an interface part further comprises a lot formation part, and see claim 2 where a first transfer robot is recited .
Regarding claim 25: See claims 3 and 11 of the patent.
Regarding claim 26: See claims 4 and 12 of the patent.
Regarding claim 27: See claim 5 of the patent.
Regarding claim 28 See claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claims 29: See claim 7 of the patent.
Regarding claim 30: See claim 8 of the patent.
Regarding claim 31: See claim 9 of the patent.
Regarding claim 32: See claim 10 of the patent.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,613 henceforth referred to as the patent in view of Osuga (US 2015/0362546).
The claims of the patent were discussed above.
The claims of the patent do not recite the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate.
The prior art of Osuga teaches a probe apparatus and wafer transfer system.
See [0039] of Osuga where the wafer transfer arm 161 performs air (high humidity gas) assist using the gas ejection nozzle 155. See [0045] of Osuga which teaches a transfer arm 161 that includes suction units 162a (providing air to suction gas).
The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the clams of the patent with the teachings of Osuga to the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate is to provide suction and enhance the support of the substrate while held by the transfer robot. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the clams of the patent with the teachings of Osuga to enhance support of the wafer.
Claims 21, 22, and 26-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114 henceforth referred to as the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claimed invention is fully encompassed by the claims of the patent.
Regarding claim 21: The patent claims in claim 1 a substrate processing system comprising a loading/unloading part, batch -type processing part including a processing bath that stores a processing solution in a lump form or a mist form, a single-substrate-type processing part, and an interface part where the loading/unloading part, the single substrate-type processing part, and an interface part, and the batch -type processing part are arranged in this order. See claim 1 of the patent where it also claims a lot formation part and a transfer part. See claim 1 of the patent where the batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath. See claim 9 of the patent which recites a drying apparatus to dry a plurality of substrates with a supercritical fluid. Regarding the limitation reciting the convex-concave pattern formed on the substrate. Note that this limitation is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the type of substrate and the pattern formed thereupon are not structurally part of the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent et al could process a wafer with this claimed pattern.
Regarding claim 22: See claim 1 of the patent which recites a transition device as first and/or second holder and the transfer device as recited in claim 2 of the patent.
Regarding claim 26 See claim 1 of the patent where a first and second pitch are recited.
Regarding claim 27: See claim 2 of the patent
Regarding claims 28 and 32: See claim 3 of the patent.
Regarding claim 29: See claim 4 of the patent.
Regarding claim 30: See claim 5 of the patent.
Regarding claim 31: See claim 6 of the patent.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114, (henceforth referred to as the patent) in view of Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310).
The claims of the patent were recited above.
Regarding claim 24: The patent fails to claim that the transfer part specifically comprises a first and second robot.
The prior art of Onzuka et al teaches a substrate processing system with a transfer part (wafer handling section 3) that comprises a first transfer robot (FOUP transport 12) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part (60) to the lot formation part, and a second transfer robot (19) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See [0022], [0031] of Onzuka et al.
The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the transfer part of Onzuka et al is that the transfer provides a first transfer robot and a second transfer robot to transport a single wafer to the single-substrate type processing part and the batch-type processing part separately and independently.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the first and second transfer robots of Onzuka et al in order to transport a single wafer to the single-substrate type processing part and the batch-type processing part separately and independently.
Regarding claim 25: The patent fails to claim that the first transfer robot is suspended on a ceiling of the interface part, and the second transfer robot is installed on a floor of the interface part. See Fig. 2 (provided below) of Onzuka et al where the first and second transfer robots are located as claimed that the transporting of the substrate(s) to their respective processing parts can be performed without interference or delay while other substrate(s) are transported. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent to locate the first and second transfer robots as suggested by Onzuka et al.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114, (henceforth referred to as the patent) in view of Osuga (US 2015/0362546).
The claims of the patent were discussed above.
The claims of the patent do not recite the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate.
The prior art of Osuga teaches a probe apparatus and wafer transfer system.
See [0039] of Osuga where the wafer transfer arm 161 performs air (high humidity gas) assist using the gas ejection nozzle 155. See [0045] of Osuga which teaches a transfer arm 161 that includes suction units 162a (providing air to suction gas).
The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the clams of the patent with the teachings of Osuga to the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate is to provide suction and enhance the support of the substrate while held by the transfer robot. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the clams of the patent with the teachings of Osuga to enhance support of the wafer.
.
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 21, 22, and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310) in view of Cho et al (US 2008/0063493).
Regarding claim 21: The prior art of Onzuka et al teaches a substrate processing system comprising: a loading/unloading part 5 into and from which a cassette (FOUP F)that accommodates a plurality of substrates is loaded and unloaded respectively; a batch-type processing part 4 configured to collectively process a lot including the plurality of substrates([0022]) ; a single-substrate-type processing part (see claim 1) [0031] configured to process the plurality of substrates of the lot one by one; and an interface part configured to deliver the plurality of substrates between the batch-type processing part and the single-substrate-type processing part, wherein the loading/unloading part, the single-substrate-type processing part, the interface part (see location of FOUP and the robots 12, 19, 21) and the batch-type processing part are arranged in this order See Fig. 2, and wherein the interface part comprises a lot formation part configured to form the lot (cassettes/FOUP), and a transfer part configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part to the lot formation part, and configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See [0033] of Onzuka et al.
See also Fig. 7 of Onzuka which illustrates chemical tank 31 that processes a plurality of wafers W held by wafer holding unit 37a see Fig. 8 of Onzuka.
The processing bath of Onzuka is capable of holding/storing a solution in a plethora of forms to include lump or mist form.
See Onzuka et al teaches drying unit 8 (drying apparatus) in [0048] and [0064] of Onzuka teaches that IPA (the suggested supercritical fluid according to the original specification [0063] of the present invention) is used to dry the wafers.
Regarding the l the convex-concave pattern formed on the substrate. Note that this limitation is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the type of substrate and the pattern formed thereupon are not structurally part of the apparatus and the prior art of Onzuka et al could process a wafer with this pattern.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22: See Fig. 2 of Onzuka et al where the is interpreted as the transition device (FOUP F) see also [0020] and the transfer device is transfer robots 12 and/or robots 19/22.
Regarding claim 24: The transfer part (wafer handling section 3) comprises a first transfer robot (FOUP transport 12) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part (60) to the lot formation part, and a second transfer robot (19/22) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. [0022], [0031] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 25: Wherein the first transfer robot is installed on a floor of the interface part, and the second transfer robot is suspended on a ceiling of the interface part. See Fig. 2 of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 26: The batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath (tanks 31-33) that stores a processing solution having a lump shape or a mist shape, a first holder configured to hold the plurality of substrates at a first pitch, and a second holder configured to receive the plurality of substrates arranged at a second pitch, which is N times of the first pitch (N is a natural number of 2 or more), from the first holder in the processing solution, and wherein the transfer part transfers the plurality of substrates, which are held separately by the first holder and the second holder in the processing solution, from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See Figs. 3, 7, and 8 see [0044] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 27: The batch-type processing part 4further comprises a transfer region having a rectangular shape in a plan view, and a transfer device configured to move and rotate (see [0007]) while holding the lot in the transfer region, and wherein the lot formation part is arranged near a short side of the transfer region, the processing bath is arranged near a long side of the transfer region, and the transfer part is arranged near both the lot formation part [0038]and the processing bath. See [0022] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claims 28 and 32: Wherein the processing bath stores pure water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 29: Wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a dilute hydrofluoric acid in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 30: Wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a phosphoric acid aqueous solution in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al.
Regarding claim 31: The substrate processing system of Claim 8, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a mixed solution of ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, and water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al, see recitation of SC-1 which is the claimed mixed solution.
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, 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310) in view of Osuga (US 2015/0362546).
The prior art of Onzuka et al was discussed above.
Onzuka et al fails to teach the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate.
The prior art of Osuga teaches a probe apparatus and wafer transfer system.
See [0039] of Osuga where the wafer transfer arm 161 performs air (high humidity gas) assist using the gas ejection nozzle 155. See [0045] of Osuga which teaches a transfer arm 161 that includes suction units 162a (providing air to suction gas).
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Onzuka et al with the teachings of Osuga to the transfer arm to hold one substrate and to supply high humidity gas to the substrate is to provide suction and enhance the support of the substrate while held by the transfer robot. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Onzuka et al with the teachings of Osuga to enhance support of the wafer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Obikane (US 2008/0240891) teaches a transfer and inspective device where transfer arm 17A is provided with gas ejecting nozzles 23A according to [0039].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights