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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: newly added claims 22-23 are directed to a substrate processing method invention instead of an apparatus invention, and therefore, the newly added claims 22-23 are directed to a different invention that the pending examined claims. The inventions are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to process a non-semiconductor device, or perform a cleaning, etching or deposition method. Additionally, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as a capacitive coupling apparatus or a microwave plasma apparatus, or by hand. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 09/20/2017. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2017-179784 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-12 and 14-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations “a first area in which a process recipe for processing a substrate is set for each container” in claim 1-lines 21-22, “a first column for setting a pre-processing recipe…before the process recipe is executed” in claim 1, lines 23-25, “a second column for setting whether or not an automatic execution setting … the process container reaches the target temperature” in claim 1, lines 26-29, and “a second area including the first column and the second column provided for each process container” in claim 1-lines 30-31, are confusing. It is not clear if applicant is claiming the limitations as parts of the claimed substrate processing apparatus or as part of the input/output device of the processing apparatus. It appears that these limitations are part of information to be displayed on the sequence recipe editing screen of the input/output device of the processing apparatus, instead of a part of the substrate processing apparatus. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Once a limitation is introduced in a claim sequence subsequent use of that limitation must use either --the-- or --said--, or be appropriately differentiated to represent a different limitation, note that the term “process recipe” recited in claim 1-line 24 has already been introduced in claim 1-line 37. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one temperature sensor provided … to detect a temperature of the at least one processing container: in claim 2, lines 1-4 is not clear. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. The examiner suggests to add the phrase -- the apparatus further comprises --, after the word “wherein” in line 2.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima, WO 2011/013702 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366 and Nomura, US 2011/0218659 and Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923.
With respect to independent claim 1, Matsushima shows the invention substantially as claimed including a substrate processing apparatus comprising: at least one process container including a plasma generation space (9/top of 32/top of 42) in which a processing gas is plasma-excited and a substrate processing space (6,6a/bottom of 32/bottom of 42) communicating with the plasma generation space; a plasma generator (5/48,49); a gas supply section 4 that supplies the processing gas to the plasma generation space; and a controller (8/33/41) configured to control the plasma generator and the gas supply section to execute a pre-processing recipe before a process recipe for processing a substrate, wherein the pre-processing recipe is configured to cause the temperature of the at least one process containers to fall within a range of a target temperature defined by a preset upper limit value and a preset lower limit value, prior to execution of a process recipe for processing a substrate (see Figs. 1-2 and 4, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0014, 0018-0021, 0026, 0031-0037, 0046, 0049, 0051, 0055-0062, 0072-0079, 0081-0089, 0097-0099, Figs. 1-2 of Matsushima are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
806
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed hold (end of the warm-up process), it should be noted that Matsushima discloses that the pre-processing heating stops when the temperature detected by the at least one temperature sensor is higher than the preset upper limit value (see, for example, paragraphs 0032-0035 and 0036); and on a condition that the high-frequency power source is in an on-state, the hold includes stopping a supply of the high frequency power and stopping a supply of the processing gas (see, for example, paragraphs 0035-0037); and on a condition that the high-frequency power source is in an off-state, the hold includes not supplying the high-frequency power and supplying the processing gas until the substrate plasma processing (see, for example, paragraphs 0037-0038).
Matsushima does not expressly disclose that the plasma generator includes the claimed coil but discloses that while microwave excited type and capacitive coupled type plasma processing apparatuses are described as examples, the method of generating the plasma is not limited thereto and can be appropriately changed (see p. 0098). Ishii et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plasma generator including a coil 6/69 arranged to surround a plasma generation space and provided to be wound around an outer periphery of at least one processing containers 2, and a high-frequency power source 7/61 that supplies high-frequency power to the coil (see, for example, Figs. 1, 4-17, 22-23, 26-31, 37 and 39, especially Fig. 8, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a coil as the mechanism for generating plasma because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently generating high density plasma.
Matsushima does not expressly disclose that the apparatus further comprises an input/output device. Nomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plurality of processing containers PM1-PM4, and an input/output device 100/110/115 able to display a recipe editing screen 120 on a display unit 115 (see, for example, Figs. 1-2, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed, to modify the apparatus of Matsushima as to comprise an input/output device in order to effectively and efficiently control (by setting an operation mode, monitor displaying, log-in data, alarm interpretation, and parameter editing) the process(es) performed within the apparatus.
With respect to the input/output device configured as claimed, it should be noted
that Nomura discloses that the input/output device is configured to display a sequence recipe editing screen for setting a process container pre-processing recipe, and/or setting a process recipe for processing a substrate for each process container (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
380
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, and also regarding claim 21, Nomura discloses an automatic execution of the pre-processing recipe for setting to all of the process containers, so that the pre-processing recipe is executed in the processing container, and when the execution of the pre-processing recipe is completed, the process proceeds to the execution of the processing recipe (see, for example, paragraphs 0138-0143). With respect to the configuration of the first area, second area, third area, fourth area, first column and second column of the editing screen (independent claim 1 and claims 15-20), a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the arrangement of the editing screen information to display any desired/required information of the process to be performed within the apparatus, and because there is no evidence that the choice of a particular information display arrangement would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. Furthermore, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The input/output device of the apparatus of Matsushima in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, is capable of using the input/output device to display in the screen a desired/required method operation and/or recipe that it is been conducted in the substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to the controller controlling the pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed, it should be noted that Nomura discloses that the process operation/recipe continues until a pre-processing or processing is performed in a plurality of process containers PM1-PM4 (see, for example, Figs. 3-5). Furthermore, Nomura discloses operation of an alarm to end processing when abnormalities in the processing operation occur (see, for example, Figs. 6-9, and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0077, Fig. 9 is shown below). It should be noted that when abnormalities occur it would render the processing operation invalid.
PNG
media_image6.png
470
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Matsumoto et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of plasma processing containers PM1-PM4, and a control unit 100 configured to control the plasma generator and the gas supply to perform a warm-up process depending on the temperature of the processing container detected by a sensor (see, for example, the abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 13 and 15, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0033-0034, Fig. 1 of Matsumoto et al. is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
692
497
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Matsushima as to comprise a plurality of the processing containers because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to minimize time and contamination by treating multiple substrates at the same time and/or performing different processes at the same time, thereby minimizing processing time, contamination, and optimizing the throughput of the apparatus. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the controller of the apparatus of Matsushima in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura and Matsumoto et al. to control the temperature control pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed in order to effectively and efficiently perform the desired/required pre-processing recipe to avoid damage of the substrate during the processing recipe.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the apparatus of Matsushima further comprises at least one temperature sensor (7/47) provided outside the at least one process containers and configured to detect a temperature of the at least one process containers; and the at least one process containers of the apparatus of Matsushima includes an upper container and a lower container, and at least one temperature sensor is provided in the upper container (see, for example, Figs. 1-2).
With respect to claim 4, Matsushima further discloses that the pre-processing recipe is configured not to transfer the substrate (see, for example, p.0031-0033).
With respect to claim 8, it should be noted that the controller 8/33/41 of the apparatus of Matsushima is configured to complete the pre-processing recipe when the temperature of the at least one process container is higher than the preset lower limit value of the range of the target temperature and lower than the preset upper limit value of the range of the target temperature (see, for example, p. 0036).
With respect to claims 9-12, it should be noted that the controller of the apparatus of Matsushima modified by Ishii et al. and Nomura and Matsumoto et al., would be configured to: complete the pre-processing recipe when the temperatures for the processing containers is higher than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature and lower than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature, and to distribute and transfer the substrate to each of substrate process chambers respectively formed in the processing containers; to execute the process recipe individually; to continue the pre-processing recipe when the temperature detected by at least one of temperature sensors respectively provided for the processing containers is higher than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature or when the temperature detected by at least one of temperature sensors respectively provided for the processing containers is lower than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima, WO 2011/013702 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366 and Nomura, US 2011/0218659 and Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8-12 and 15-21 above, and further in view of Brezoczky et al., US 6,241,477 or Satoh, US 6,435,798.
Matsushima, Ishii et al., Nomura, and Matsumoto et al. are applied as above and Matsushima further discloses a susceptor 15 arranged at a center on a bottom side of the at least one processing container, wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container. However, the references do not expressly disclose the claimed drive mechanism for the susceptor, through-holes and pins. Brezoczky et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 106 including a drive mechanism 118 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes (see modified Fig. 1 below), and pins (see modified Fig. 1 below) arranged on a bottom surface 120 of the at least one process container, wherein the pins could penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, a modified Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
416
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Also, Satoh discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 2 including a drive mechanism 14/15/16 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes 13, and pins 11 arranged on a bottom surface of the at least one process container, wherein the pins penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
354
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Matsushima modified by Ishii et al. and Nomura and Matsumoto et al., as to comprise the claimed susceptor drive mechanism, through-holes, and pins means, because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for vertically moving the susceptor within the processing container to a desired location/position, and for lifting the substrate from the susceptor in order to facilitate the transfer of the substrate into and out of the processing container.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366 and Nomura, US 2011/0218659.
Matsumoto et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a substrate processing apparatus comprising: at least one process container PM1-PM4 including a plasma generation space (top of 12) in which a processing gas is plasma-excited and a substrate processing space (bottom of 12) communicating with the plasma generation space; a plasma generator 16; a gas supply section 20h/36/41 that supplies the processing gas to the plasma generation space; and a controller 100 configured to control the plasma generator and the gas supply section to execute a pre-processing recipe (S103) before a process recipe for processing a substrate (S107), cause the temperature of at least one of the processing containers detected by at least one temperature sensor to fall within a range of a target temperature defined by a preset upper limit value and a preset lower limit value (S104), prior to execution of a process recipe for processing a substrate (S107); see, for example, Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, and 13, and their descriptions, Figs. 2 and 6 of Matsumoto et al. are shown below.
PNG
media_image10.png
616
393
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
700
446
media_image11.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed hold (end of the warm-up process), it should be noted that Matsumoto et al. discloses that the pre-processing heating stops when the temperature detected by the at least one temperature sensor is higher than the preset upper limit value (see, for example, step S105 in Fig. 6); and on a condition that the high-frequency power source is in an on-state, the hold includes stopping a supply of the high frequency power and stopping a supply of the processing gas (see, for example, paragraph 0079 and Step S105); and on a condition that the high-frequency power source is in an off-state, the hold includes not supplying the high-frequency power and supplying the processing gas until the substrate plasma processing (see, for example, paragraph 0079 and Steps S105-S107).
Matsumoto et al. does not expressly disclose that the plasma generator includes the claimed coil. Ishii et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plasma generator including a coil 6/69 arranged to surround a plasma generation space and provided to be wound around an outer periphery of at least one processing containers 2, and a high-frequency power source 7/61 that supplies high-frequency power to the coil (see, for example, Figs. 1, 4-17, 22-23, 26-31, 37 and 39, especially Fig. 8, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a coil as the mechanism for generating plasma because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently generating high density plasma.
Matsumoto et al. does not expressly disclose that the apparatus further comprises an input/output device. Matsushima does not expressly disclose that the apparatus further comprises an input/output device. Nomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plurality of processing containers PM1-PM4, and an input/output device 100/110/115 able to display a recipe editing screen 120 on a display unit 115 (see, for example, Figs. 1-2, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed, to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto et al., as to comprise an input/output device in order to effectively and efficiently control (by setting an operation mode, monitor displaying, log-in data, alarm interpretation, and parameter editing) the process(es) performed within the apparatus.
With respect to the input/output device configured as claimed, it should be noted
that Nomura discloses that the input/output device is configured to display a sequence recipe editing screen for setting a process container pre-processing recipe, and/or setting a process recipe for processing a substrate for each process container (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
380
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, and also regarding claim 21, Nomura discloses an automatic execution of the pre-processing recipe for setting to all of the process containers, so that the pre-processing recipe is executed in the processing container, and when the execution of the pre-processing recipe is completed, the process proceeds to the execution of the processing recipe (see, for example, paragraphs 0138-0143). With respect to the configuration of the first area, second area, third area, fourth area, first column and second column of the editing screen (independent claim 1 and claims 15-20), a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the arrangement of the editing screen information to display any desired/required information of the process to be performed within the apparatus, and because there is no evidence that the choice of a particular information display arrangement would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. Furthermore, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The input/output device of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, is capable of using the input/output device to display in the screen a desired/required method operation and/or recipe that it is been conducted in the substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to the controller controlling the pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed, it should be noted that Nomura discloses that the process operation/recipe continues until a pre-processing or processing is performed in the plurality of process containers PM1-PM4 (see, for example, Figs. 3-5). Furthermore, Nomura discloses operation of an alarm to end processing when abnormalities in the processing operation occur (see, for example, Figs. 6-9, and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0077, Fig. 9 is shown below). It should be noted that when abnormalities occur it would render the processing operation invalid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the controller of the apparatus of Matsumoto in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura to control the pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed in order to effectively and efficiently perform the desired/required pre-processing recipe to avoid damage of the substrate during the processing recipe.
PNG
media_image6.png
470
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. further comprises at least one temperature sensor 210 provided outside the at least one process containers and configured to detect a temperature of the at least one process containers; and at least one process containers of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. includes an upper container and a lower container, and at least one of the temperature sensors is provided in the upper container (see, for example, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, it should be noted that the controller 100 of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. is configured to execute a pre-processing recipe before the process recipe, and the pre-processing recipe is configured to supply power to the plasma generator for plasma-exciting the processing gas, wherein the pre-processing recipe is configured not to transfer the substrate (see, for example, p. 0075-0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, that the controller of the apparatus of apparatus of Matsumoto et al. modified by Ishii et al. and Nomura, would be configured to execute a pre-processing recipe before the process recipe, and the pre-processing recipe is configured to supply, to the coil, high-frequency power for plasma-exciting the processing gas.
With respect to claim 8, it should be noted that the controller 100 of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. is configured to complete the pre-processing recipe when the temperature of the at least one process container is higher than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature and lower than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature (see, for example, p. 0078).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto et al. further discloses a plurality of process containers, the at least one process containers includes a plurality of plasma process containers PM1-PM4, and wherein the controller is configured to complete the pre- processing recipe when the temperatures for the processing containers is higher than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature and lower than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature (see, for example, the abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 13 and 15, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0033-0034, Fig. 1 of Matsumoto et al. is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
692
497
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the controller of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. modified by Ishii et al. and Nomura, would be configured to: complete the pre-processing recipe when the temperatures detected by at least one of the temperature sensors respectively provided for the processing containers is higher than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature and lower than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature, and to distribute and transfer the substrate to each of substrate process chambers respectively formed in the processing containers; to execute the process recipe individually; and to continue the pre-processing recipe when the temperature detected by at least one of temperature sensors respectively provided for the processing containers is higher than the upper limit value of the range of the target temperature or when the temperature detected by at least one of temperature sensors respectively provided for the processing containers is lower than the lower limit value of the range of the target temperature.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366 and Nomura, US 2011/0218659, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, and 15-21 above, and further in view of Brezoczky et al., US 6,241,477 or Satoh, US 6,435,798.
Matsumoto et al., Ishii et al., and Nomura, are applied as above and Matsumoto et al. further discloses a susceptor 14 arranged at a center on a bottom side of the at least one processing container, wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container. However, the references do not expressly disclose the claimed drive mechanism for the susceptor, through-holes and the pins. Brezoczky et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 106 including a drive mechanism 118 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes (see modified Fig. 1 below), and pins (see modified Fig. 1 below) arranged on a bottom surface 120 of the at least one process container, wherein the pins could penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, a modified Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
416
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Also, Satoh discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 2 including a drive mechanism 14/15/16 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes 13, and pins 11 arranged on a bottom surface of the at least one process container, wherein the pins penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
354
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. modified by Ishii et al. and Nomura, as to comprise the claimed susceptor drive mechanism, through-holes, and pins means, because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for vertically moving the susceptor within the processing container to a desired location/position, and for lifting the substrate from the susceptor in order to facilitate the transfer of the substrate into and out of the processing container.
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 1-2, 4, 8-12, and 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,491 in view of Nomura, US 2011/0218659 and Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923.
Claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491 recite the invention substantially as claimed except for the claimed input/output device and plurality of processing containers. Nomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plurality of processing containers PM1-PM4, and an input/output device 100/110/115 able to display a recipe editing screen 120 on a display unit 115 (see, for example, Figs. 1-2, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed, to modify the apparatus of claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491, as to comprise an input/output device in order to effectively and efficiently control (by setting an operation mode, monitor displaying, log-in data, alarm interpretation, and parameter editing) the process(es) performed within the apparatus.
With respect to the input/output device configured as claimed, it should be noted
that Nomura discloses that the input/output device is configured to display a sequence recipe editing screen for setting a process container pre-processing recipe, and/or setting a process recipe for processing a substrate for each process container (see, for example, Figs. 3-5, and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
380
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, and also regarding claim 21, Nomura discloses an automatic execution of the pre-processing recipe for setting to all of the process containers, so that the pre-processing recipe is executed in the processing container, and when the execution of the pre-processing recipe is completed, the process proceeds to the execution of the processing recipe (see, for example, paragraphs 0138-0143). With respect to the configuration of the first area, second area, third area, fourth area, first column and second column of the editing screen (independent claim 1 and claims 15-20), a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the arrangement of the editing screen information to display any desired/required information of the process to be performed within the apparatus, and because there is no evidence that the choice of a particular information display arrangement would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. Furthermore, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The input/output device of the apparatus of claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491 in view of Nomura, is capable of using the input/output device to display in the screen a desired/required method operation and/or recipe that it is been conducted in the substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to the controller controlling the pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed, it should be noted that Nomura discloses that the process operation/recipe continues until a pre-processing or processing is performed in a plurality of process containers PM1-PM4 (see, for example, Figs. 3-5). Furthermore, Nomura discloses operation of an alarm to end processing when abnormalities in the processing operation occur (see, for example, Figs. 6-9, and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0077, Fig. 9 is shown below). It should be noted that when abnormalities occur it would render the processing operation invalid.
PNG
media_image6.png
470
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Matsumoto et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of plasma processing containers PM1-PM4, and a control unit 100 configured to control the plasma generator and the gas supply to perform a warm-up process depending on the temperature of the processing container detected by a sensor (see, for example, the abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 13 and 15, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0033-0034, Fig. 1 of Matsumoto et al. is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
692
497
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491, as to comprise a plurality of the processing containers because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to minimize time and contamination by treating multiple substrates at the same time and/or performing different processes at the same time, thereby minimizing processing time, contamination, and optimizing the throughput of the apparatus. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the controller of the apparatus of claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491, to control the pre-processing recipe to continue and end as claimed in order to effectively and efficiently perform the desired/required pre-processing recipe to avoid damage of the substrate during the processing recipe.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,491 in view of Nomura, US 2011/0218659 and Matsumoto et al., US 2015/0064923, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, and 15-21 above, and further in view of Brezoczky et al., US 6,241,477 or Satoh, US 6,435,798.
Claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491, do not further disclose the claimed drive mechanism for the susceptor, through-holes and pins. Brezoczky et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 106 including a drive mechanism 118 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes (see modified Fig. 1 below), and pins (see modified Fig. 1 below) arranged on a bottom surface 120 of the at least one process container, wherein the pins could penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, a modified Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
416
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Also, Satoh discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a susceptor 2 including a drive mechanism 14/15/16 that moves the susceptor toward an upper side of the at least one processing container and away from the upper side of the at least one processing container, through-holes 13, and pins 11 arranged on a bottom surface of the at least one process container, wherein the pins penetrate through the through-holes in a non-contact state when the susceptor is lowered by the driving mechanism, and wherein the susceptor is provided in a lower container of the at least one process container (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
354
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of claims 1-14 of US Patent 11,145,491, as to comprise the claimed susceptor drive mechanism, through-holes, and pins means, because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for vertically moving the susceptor within the processing container to a desired location/position, and for lifting the substrate from the susceptor in order to facilitate the transfer of the substrate into and out of the processing container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the newly added limitations of the first area, second area, first column, and second column. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as stated in the above rejections, Nomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a plurality of processing containers PM1-PM4, and an input/output device 100/110/115 able to display a recipe editing screen 120 on a display unit 115, wherein the input/output device is configured to display a sequence recipe editing screen for setting a process container pre-processing recipe, and/or setting a process recipe for processing a substrate for each process container (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
380
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, as stated in the above rejections, with respect to the configuration of the first area, second area, third area, fourth area, first column and second column of the editing screen, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the arrangement of the editing screen information to display any desired/required information of the process to be performed within the apparatus, and because there is no evidence that the choice of a particular information display arrangement would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. Furthermore, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The input/output device of the apparatus of Matsushima in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, or the input/output device of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, are capable of using the input/output device to display in the screen a desired/required method operation and/or recipe that it is been conducted in the substrate processing apparatus.
Applicant argues that the sequence recipe editing screen of Nomura does not disclose settings for idle recipes or post-processing recipes. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sequence recipe editing screen having settings for idle recipes or pos-processing recipes) are not recited in the independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, as stated above, with respect to the configuration of the editing screen, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the arrangement of the editing screen information to display any desired/required information of the process to be performed within the apparatus, and because there is no evidence that the choice of a particular information display arrangement would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. Furthermore, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The input/output device of the apparatus of Matsushima in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, or the input/output device of the apparatus of Matsumoto et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Nomura, are capable of using the input/output device to display in the screen a desired/required method operation and/or recipe that it is been conducted in the substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Nomura does not disclose or suggest whether or not the pre-processing recipe has an automatic execution setting. The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Nomura discloses an automatic execution of the pre-processing recipe for setting to all of the process containers, so that the pre-processing recipe is executed in the processing container, and when the execution of the pre-processing recipe is completed, the process proceeds to the execution of the processing recipe (see, for example, paragraphs 0138-0143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qian et al. (US 6,447,636) is cited because of its teachings of a plasma generator including a coil, a controller including an input and output device, and a display.
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 LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights