The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pars. [0050] and [0051] state that substrate 212 is rotated about (horizontal) axis 214. However, it appears from Fig. 2 as well as at least par. [0052] that the substrate is in fact rotated about vertical axis 216.
In par. [0063], line 5, “separate” should apparently be --separation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 8, third-to-last line, the second occurrence of “a” should be deleted;
in claim 14, line 2, “a” should be --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2024/0234184, effectively filed at least as early as 8/24/23, or corresponding WO 2022/181927, published 9/01/22).
Lee shows a load lock arrangement 40 configured for performing parallel processes, the load lock arrangement comprising:
a load lock body 41 or 42 in fluid communication with a vacuum assembly 1400, the vacuum assembly configured for exhaust/vent operations for controlling a pressure in the load lock body (par. [0110]; all citations refer to the US Publication);
an alignment assembly 1200 configured to rotate a substrate about a first axis of the load lock body for substrate alignment operations, the alignment assembly comprising a rotation module including an alignment stage 1210 coupled to a first end of a drive shaft 1230, and a rotation drive disposed outside of the load lock body and coupled to a second end of the drive shaft (not shown but note Fig. 5 and par. [0103]: “a driver, such as a motor, ... may be disposed in the exterior of the chamber”), the first end and second end of the drive shaft coupled by a feedthrough mechanism (not shown but note the last sentence of par. [0103]: “shaft 1230 may be inserted into a hole formed in the housing, and the space between the housing and the shaft may be sealed using a magnetic fluid”);
a rotation sensor 1240/1250 configured and arranged to sense a rotational alignment of the substrate on the alignment stage through a view port 1112, 1113 and/or 1121 (Fig. 5 and pars. [0105], [0106]) disposed in a wall of the load lock body;
and a controller 70 operably connected with the vacuum assembly, the rotation module, and the rotation sensor, to enable parallel alignment operations and exhaust/vent operations within the load lock body (par. [0111], esp. the last sentence).
Re claim 7, as noted above, Lee discloses in par. [0103] that the feedthrough mechanism comprises a ferrofluidic seal including a magnetic fluid disposed between the drive shaft and a drive shaft housing.
Re claim 8, Lee discloses a semiconductor processing system 1 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a load lock arrangement 40 having all of the limitations of claim 1 above;
an equipment front-end module 20 (EFEM) connected to a front face of the load lock body, the EFEM housing a front-end [a] substrate transfer robot 25; and
a back-end transfer module 50 (BETM) connected to a rear face of the load lock body, the BETM coupling a process module 60 to the load lock body.
Re claim 12, one or more additional process modules 60 are configured in a cluster-type arrangement (Fig. 1).
Re claim 13, Lee discloses one or more additional load lock arrangements 41 or 42 (Fig. 3), wherein the controller is configured to perform parallel alignment operations, exhaust/vent operations, and substrate positioning operations in the one or more additional load lock arrangements.
Re claim 14, the controller is operably connected with [a] the front-end substrate transfer robot to enable parallel alignment operations, exhaust/vent operations, and front-end substrate transfer robot movement operations.
Re claim 15, the load lock arrangement of Lee is clearly used in a method of performing parallel operations within a load lock arrangement including an alignment assembly 1200, the method comprising:
(a) transferring a substrate W to the load lock arrangement and seating the substrate on an alignment stage 1210 of the alignment assembly, the alignment stage being disposed within a load lock body 41 or 42 (Fig. 5);
(b) performing exhaust/vent operations to control a pressure in the load lock body by engaging a vacuum assembly 1400 in fluid communication with the load lock body (par. [0110]);
(c) sensing substrate alignment and generating a misalignment signal by employing a rotation sensor 1240/1250 configured and arranged to observe the substrate on the alignment stage through a view port 1112/113/1121 disposed in the load lock body (pars. [0105], [0106]), and
(d) aligning the substrate by controlled rotation of the alignment stage in response to the misalignment signal, the rotation of the alignment stage being achieved by engaging a rotation drive (par. [0103]) disposed outside of the load lock body and coupled to a second end of a drive shaft 1230, a first end of the drive shaft being coupled to the alignment stage (Fig. 5), wherein the first end and the second end of the drive shaft are coupled by a feedthrough mechanism (par. [0103],
wherein the steps of (b) performing exhaust/vent operations, (c) sensing substrate alignment, and (d) aligning the substrate, are performed at least partially in parallel (par. [0111]).
Re claim 16, the load lock arrangement comprises part of a semiconductor process system 1 in a cluster-type arrangement (Fig. 1), and the steps of (b) performing exhaust/vent operations, (c) sensing substrate alignment, and (d) aligning the substrate, are performed a plurality of times at least partially in parallel.
Re claim 20, the feedthrough mechanism comprises (at least one of) a magnetic coupling or a ferrofluidic seal, as noted above with respect to claim 7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of del Puerto et al (US 2003/0082466, cited by applicant).
Re claims 2, 9 and 17, Lee does not show an elevation module configured to elevate the substrate about a second axis* (see note below) of the load lock body for substrate positioning operations, the elevation module connected to the rotation module and including an elevation drive and an elevation feedthrough seal, the elevation feedthrough seal configured to maintain the pressure within the load lock body when the elevation drive is engaged.
*Note: the claim language neither requires the second axis to be different than the first axis nor precludes them from being one and the same; furthermore, as noted above in par. 2, it is apparent from Fig. 2 and at least par. [0052] of the written specification that the (first) axis of rotation of the substrate and the (second) axis of elevation of the substrate are the same axis (i.e., vertical axis 216).
Del Puerto discloses a substantially similar substrate processing system including a load lock assembly 104/105 comprising vacuum equipment (not shown but note par. [0031]) which pumps down the pressure within the load lock chamber while an alignment assembly performs an alignment of a wafer (pars. [0009], [0016]), wherein the alignment assembly is configured to rotate a substrate about a first (vertical) axis of the load lock body for substrate alignment operations, the alignment assembly comprising a rotation module including an alignment stage 218 coupled to a first end of a drive shaft 230, and a rotation drive (not shown but note Fig. 2B and par. [0044]) disposed outside of the load lock body and coupled to a second end of the drive shaft, the first end and second end of the drive shaft coupled by a feedthrough mechanism 304-308, a rotation sensor 202 configured and arranged to sense a rotational alignment of the substrate on the alignment stage through a wall of the load lock body (Fig. 2A), and a controller (not explicitly identified but considered inherent) operably connected with the vacuum assembly, the rotation module, and the rotation sensor, to enable parallel alignment operations and exhaust/vent operations within the load lock body (Fig. 4A and par. [0053]), and an elevation module 231 (Fig. 2B) configured to elevate the substrate about a second axis (which is the same as the first axis) of the load lock body for substrate positioning operations, the elevation module connected to the rotation module and including an elevation drive and an elevation feedthrough seal 302 (Fig. 3A), the elevation feedthrough seal configured to maintain the pressure within the load lock body when the elevation drive is engaged (par. [0048]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee by providing the load lock arrangement with an elevation module configured to elevate the substrate about a second axis (which was the same as the first axis) of the load lock body for substrate positioning operations, wherein the elevation module was connected to the rotation module and included an elevation drive and an elevation feedthrough seal, and wherein the elevation feedthrough seal was configured to maintain the pressure within the load lock body when the elevation drive was engaged, as shown by del Puerto, to provide an additional degree of freedom to the substrate alignment/positioning operation within the load lock chamber.
Re claims 3 and 19, del Puerto discloses that the elevation feedthrough seal comprises a bellows (par. [0048]). Such a feature would obviously be included in the apparatus of Lee when modified as above.
Re claims 4 and 10, del Puerto does not explicitly disclose an elevation sensor for determining an elevation of the alignment stage, with the elevation sensor and the elevation module operably connected to the controller to enable substrate positioning operations in parallel with substrate alignment operations, and exhaust/vent operations, all within the load lock body. Nevertheless, it is considered at least implicit, if not inherent, from del Puerto’s disclosure in par. [0044] of “control elements” for moving the alignment stage in the rotational, horizontal and vertical degrees of freedom which are “apparent to a person skilled in the relevant arts” that some type of elevation sensor (as well as rotational and horizontal translation sensors) would be needed in order to effectively control the substrate alignment and positioning operations within the load lock chamber during the exhaust and venting operations described. As such, it would have been obvious to have additionally modified the load lock arrangement of Lee with such an elevation sensor to more effectively control the substrate positioning operation.
Re claim 6, del Puerto discloses that the feedthrough mechanism may comprise a magnetic coupling instead of a ferrofluidic seal (par. [0048]). As such, the further modification of Lee to substitute such a coupling in place of the ferrofluidic seal thereof would have been a simple and obvious substitution of one known alternate equivalent type of seal for another in the same environment and for the same purpose, the use of either of which in the apparatus of Lee would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results.
Claims 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of del Puerto et al, as applied to claims 4, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Kurita et al (US 6,824,343).
Lee as modified does not show a temperature control plate disposed in the load lock body, wherein the elevation sensor, the controller, and the elevation module operate together to control a separation between the alignment stage and the temperature control plate to enable substrate temperature control operations in parallel with substrate alignment operations, and exhaust/vent operations, all within the load lock body.
Kurita shows a load lock arrangement in which substrate alignment, elevation, and temperature control are all performed within a load lock body 100. Specifically, the vertical separation between a substrate alignment stage 160 and a temperature control plate 214 enables temperature control operations to be performed in parallel with alignment operations (col. 10:5-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Lee by providing a temperature control plate in the load lock body, wherein the elevation sensor, the controller, and the elevation module operated together to control a separation between the alignment stage and the temperature control plate to enable substrate temperature control operations in parallel with substrate alignment operations, and exhaust/vent operations, all within the load lock body, as suggested by Kurita (in conjunction with de Puerto), to provide additional time savings and thus throughput.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
9/28/26
Prosecution Insights