69DETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings (Figs. 1-3) were received on 23 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
The replacement drawings (Fig. 4) were received on 3 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amended specification was were received on 3 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: claims 1 and 27 (first, second, third) distribution system which has been interpreted as a showerhead and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence. Further, all clarifications and/or corrections should take all dependent claims into account.
With respect to claim 14, the newly added last two lines of the claim refer to a third transfer chamber, which is not (i.e., is no longer) a feature of the claim. Thus, it is unclear feature(s) what the claimed invention is meant to encompass.
With respect to claim 15, in addition to the lack of clarity mentioned above regarding claim 14, claim 15 refers to each transfer tool, however, no transfer tools are previously recited, which compounds the lack of clarity. Thus, it is unclear feature(s) what the claimed invention is meant to encompass. In an effort to expedite examination, the claims have been interpreted as inclusive of and represented by the clearly recited subject matter, based on Examiner’s understanding of the intended claimed invention, until clarifications and/or corrections are made. Clarity matters regarding the claimed subject matter will need to be resolved before the claims can be fully and properly addressed with respect to prior art.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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, 14-15, 22 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0239394 to Watanabe et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,695,564 to Imahashi and AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art).
Regarding claim 1: Watanabe et al. disclose a reactor system (see annotated figure below) substantially as claimed and comprising: a plurality of reaction chambers; a first reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers; a first reaction chamber first gate valve (GV1) coupled to the first reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring a substrate at least one of into or out of the first reaction chamber; a first transfer chamber comprising a first transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5), wherein the first transfer chamber is in fluid communication with the first reaction chamber via the first reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the first reaction chamber first gate valve being opened, wherein the reactor system is configured to allow transfer of the substrate between the first reaction chamber and the first transfer chamber through the opened first reaction chamber first gate valve; a first reaction chamber second gate valve (GV2) coupled to the first reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring a substrate at least one of into or out of the first reaction chamber; a second transfer chamber, comprising a second transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5), the second transfer chamber in fluid communication with the first reaction chamber via the first reaction chamber second gate valve in response to the first reaction chamber second gate valve being opened, wherein the reactor system is configured to allow transfer of the substrate between the first reaction chamber and the second transfer chamber through the opened first reaction chamber second gate valve; a second reaction chamber of the plurality of rection chambers; a second rection chamber first gate valve (GV3) coupled to the second reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring the substrate at least one of into or out of the second reaction chamber, wherein the second reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the second transfer chamber via the second reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the second reaction chamber first gate valve being opened; a third transfer chamber comprising a third transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5); a second reaction chamber second gate valve (G4) coupled to the second reaction chamber wherein the second reaction chamber is in fluid communication with a third transfer chamber via the second reaction chamber second gate valve in response to the second reaction chamber gate valve being opened; a third reaction chamber (see annotated figure below) of the plurality of reaction chambers; a third reaction chamber first gate valve (GV5) coupled to the third reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring the substrate at least one of into or out of the third reaction chamber, wherein the third reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the third transfer chamber via the third reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the third reaction chamber first gate valve being opened; a third reaction chamber second gate valve (GV6) coupled to the third reaction chamber, wherein the third reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the second transfer chamber via the third reaction chamber second gate valve in response to the third reaction chamber second gate valve being opened; a fourth transfer chamber (see annotated figure below); a third reaction chamber third gate valve (GV7) coupled to the third reaction chamber, wherein the third reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the fourth transfer chamber via the third reaction chamber third gate valve in response to the third reaction chamber gate valve being opened; a first reaction chamber third gate valve (GV8) coupled to the first reaction chamber, wherein the first reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the fourth transfer chamber via the first reaction chamber third gate valve in response to the first reaction chamber third gate valve being opened, wherein the first reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the fourth transfer chamber via the first reaction chamber third gate valve being opened, wherein the reactor system is adaptable to bypass the second reaction chamber by transferring, via the fourth transfer chamber, a substrate from the first reaction chamber to a fourth reaction chamber. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the reactor system may include a load lock chamber (111) disposed adjacent the first transfer chamber, the first transfer chamber configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate from the load lock chamber to the first reaction chamber.
However, Watanabe et al. fail to disclose the first transfer chamber further configured to transfer a post-processed substrate from the third reaction chamber to the load lock chamber (i.e. using the load lock chamber for pre-processed wafers and post processed wafers).
As an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, in a multi-chamber processing apparatus, Imahashi teaches providing a single load lock chamber (e.g. Fig. 2, U8)(i.e. a load lock chamber for loading and unloading substrates) adjacent a first transfer chamber (U6) configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a pre-processed substrate form the load lock chamber to a first reaction chamber (e.g., U5 or U7), the first transfer chamber further configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a post processed substrate from the first transfer chamber to the load lock chamber the purpose of carrying a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa (also, see, e.g., column 7, rows 10-31). The apparatus of Imahashi further comprises a load lock chamber gate valve (176), the load lock chamber gate valve coupled to the load lock chamber and configured to open to transfer the pre-processed substrate out of the load lock chamber, the load chamber gate valve further configured to open to transfer the post-processed substrate into the load lock chamber. Imahashi also explicitly teaches that is the load lock chamber can be used for both pre-processed wafers and post-processed wafers, or separate load locks can be used for the former and the latter as is well-known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided, as an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, a single load lock chamber with a load lock chamber gate coupled to the load chamber and configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate to the load lock chamber and transfer a post-processed substrate from the load lock chamber, wherein the load lock chamber is provided in order to carry a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa as taught by Imahashi.
Modified Watanabe et al. fail to disclose a specific configuration of the reaction chambers.
AAPA discloses reaction system comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 2), a first reactant source comprising a first reactant (10), a second/third reaction source comprising a second/third reactant, a distribution system (8) configured to distribute the first/second/third reactants to the reaction chamber, and controllers (22, 24) for configured to supply the first/second/third reactants to the substrate via the distribution system for a set duration. Note: AAPA discloses the non-limiting number of “one or more” reactant sources, that is it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that additional reaction sources could be provided as desired. This analysis is applicable to each of the claimed first reactor system, second reactor system and third reactor system.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in each of the reaction chambers of Watanabe et al., a reactor system as set forth in AAPA in order to deliver material for processing a substrate in the reaction chambers in corresponding reaction systems as taught by AAPA.
Regarding the identity of the first reactant source, the second reactant and the third reactant, in a multi-chamber reactor system such as modified Watanabe, Watanabe teaches that the plurality of reactors may be provided for performing a number of different processes or a number of same processes (see, e.g., para. 121). Providing the reactors configured to and/or capable of performing a number of same processes AND different processes (which would at least be inclusive of supplying a same gas to two of the reactors and a different gas to another of the reactors using the structure of AAPA) is considered to be an adaptation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity, common sense and logic. Additionally, and notably, by mere duplication of the structure of AAPA for each of the reactor systems this feature is enabled by supplying the first gas in the first reactor system and the second reactant in the second/third reactant system (regardless of the actual chemical identity of the reactants (which is not presently claimed), wherein the “second reactant source” can be considered a same reactant for the second and third reactor systems). Further, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the intended use of the first, second and third processing chambers, which is inclusive of a set duration for supply of a first reactant, second reactant or third reactant in a respective reaction chamber, it is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, the local controller in each reactor system, as set forth by AAPA, for each of the reaction chambers allows for the functionality of controlling a set duration for a respective gas supply.
Regarding the specific transfer paths used for processing substrates (including bypassing and/or providing alternate paths and/or alternate processing orders), this too is considered to be a feature drawn to intended use of the apparatus. More specifically, modified Watanabe et al. is considered to capable of/configured to/adapted to use the claimed transfer tools to transfer a substate into and out of any of the tools to which they are attached. Watanabe et al. teaches that by connecting a transfer chamber to more than one reaction chamber, certain chambers can be bypassed (or alternately put, more than one route may be used) for the purpose of making it possible to flexibly select a conveyance path for each wafer that requires different processing and to increase processing speed as a whole (see, e.g., para. 118). Further still, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 2, in Watanabe et al., the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber are on opposite sides of the first reaction chamber. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 14, any of Figs. 5-6, 9 and 12-13 of Watanabe et al. and the accompanying text, disclose a reactor system, comprising: a plurality of reaction chambers (e.g. first reaction chamber, second reaction chamber, third reaction chamber and fourth reaction chamber as in annotated figure below); a plurality of transfer chambers (e.g., first transfer chamber, second transfer chamber, third transfer chamber and fourth transfer chamber as annotated in figure below); and at least two gate valves (e.g., GV1-8 as in annotated figure below) coupled to each reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers, wherein a first gate valve of the at least two gate valves fluidly couples a first respective reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers to a first transfer chamber of the plurality of transfer chambers when opened, and wherein a second gate valve of the at least two gate valves fluidly couples the first respective reaction chamber to a second transfer chamber of the plurality of transfer chambers when opened, wherein the first transfer chamber is adjacent to a maximum of two of the plurality of reaction chambers, wherein the first transfer chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers is adjacent to a maximum of two of the plurality of reaction chambers (e.g. first reaction chamber and fourth reaction chamber as in annotated figure below), wherein the reaction chambers are considered to be the first reaction chamber, the second chamber, the third reaction chamber and the fourth reaction as annotated below.
Additionally, the reactor system may include a load lock chamber (111) disposed adjacent the first transfer chamber, the first transfer chamber configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate from the load lock chamber to the first reaction chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Watanabe et al. fail to disclose the first transfer chamber further configured to transfer a post-processed substrate to the load lock chamber (i.e. using the load lock chamber for pre-processed wafers and post processed wafers).
As an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, in a multi-chamber processing apparatus, Imahashi teaches providing a single load lock chamber (e.g. Fig. 2, U8)(i.e. a load lock chamber for loading and unloading substrates) adjacent a first transfer chamber (U6) configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a pre-processed substrate form the load lock chamber to a first reaction chamber (e.g., U5 or U7), the first transfer chamber further configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a post processed substrate from the first transfer chamber to the load lock chamber the purpose of carrying a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa (also, see, e.g., column 7, rows 10-31). The apparatus of Imahashi further comprises a load lock chamber gate valve (176), the load lock chamber gate valve coupled to the load lock chamber and configured to open to transfer the pre-processed substrate out of the load lock chamber, the load chamber gate valve further configured to open to transfer the post-processed substrate into the load lock chamber. Imahashi also explicitly teaches that is the load lock chamber can be used for both pre-processed wafers and post-processed wafers, or separate load locks can be used for the former and the latter as is well-known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided, as an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, a single load lock chamber with a load lock chamber gate coupled to the load chamber and configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate to the load lock chamber and transfer a post-processed substrate from the load lock chamber, wherein the load lock chamber is provided in order to carry a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa as taught by Imahashi.
Modified Watanabe et al. fail to disclose a specific configuration of the plurality of reaction chambers.
AAPA discloses reaction system comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 2), a first reactant source comprising a first reactant (10), a second/third reaction source comprising a second/third reactant, a distribution system (8) configured to distribute the first/second/third reactants to the reaction chamber, and controllers (22, 24) for configured to supply the first/second/third reactants to the substrate via the distribution system for a set duration. Note: AAPA discloses the non-limiting number of “one or more” reactant sources, that is it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that additional reaction sources could be provided as desired. This analysis is applicable to each of the claimed first reactor system, second reactor system and third reactor system.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in each reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers of Watanabe et al., a reactor system as set forth in AAPA in order to deliver material for processing a substrate in the reaction chambers in corresponding reaction systems as taught by AAPA.
Regarding the identity of the first reactant source, the second reactant and the third reactant, in a multi-chamber reactor system such as modified Watanabe, Watanabe teaches that the plurality of reactors may be provided for performing a number of different processes or a number of same processes (see, e.g., para. 121). Providing the reactors configured to and/or capable of performing a number of same processes AND different processes (which would at least be inclusive of supplying a same gas to two of the reactors and a different gas to another of the reactors using the structure of AAPA) is considered to be an adaptation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity, common sense and logic. Additionally, and notably, by mere duplication of the structure of AAPA for each of the reactor systems this feature is enabled by supplying the first gas in the first reactor system and the second reactant in the second/third reactant system (regardless of the actual chemical identity of the reactants (which is not presently claimed), wherein the “second reactant source” can be considered a same reactant for the second and third reactor systems). Further, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the intended use of the first, and third processing chambers, which is inclusive of a set duration for supply of a first reactant, second reactant or third reactant in a respective reaction chamber, it is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, the local controller in each reactor system, as set forth by AAPA, for each of the reaction chambers allows for the functionality of controlling a set duration for a respective gas supply.
Regarding the specific transfer paths used for processing substrates (including bypassing and/or providing alternate paths and/or alternate processing orders), this too is considered to be a feature drawn to intended use of the apparatus. More specifically, modified Watanabe et al. is considered to capable of/configured to/adapted to use the claimed transfer tools to transfer a substate into and out of any of the tools to which they are attached. Watanabe et al. teaches that by connecting a transfer chamber to more than one reaction chamber, certain chambers can be bypassed (or alternately put, more than one route may be used) for the purpose of making it possible to flexibly select a conveyance path for each wafer that requires different processing and to increase processing speed as a whole (see, e.g., para. 118). Further still, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 15, the plurality of transfer chambers each comprise a transfer tool, and at least the transfer tool in the first transfer chamber is configured to transfer a substrate into or out of a maximum of two of the plurality of reaction chambers, as this is the number of reaction chambers of the plurality of reaction chambers to which the first transfer chamber is directly attached, wherein the reaction chambers are considered to be the first reaction chamber, the second chamber, the third reaction chamber and the fourth reaction as annotated above. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 22, in modified Watanabe et al., each of the first transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber, and the third transfer chamber are adjacent to a maximum of three reaction chambers of the plurality of reaction chambers, wherein the reaction chambers are considered to be the first reaction chamber, the second chamber, the third reaction chamber, and the fourth reaction chamber as set forth in claim 1.
With respect to claim 25, in modified Watanabe et al., each of the first transfer tool, the second transfer tool, and the third transfer tool are in communication with (i.e. when a gate valve is opened, see above regarding intended use) a maximum of three of the plurality of reaction chambers, wherein the plurality of reaction chambers are considered to be the first reaction chamber, the second chamber, the third reaction chamber, and the fourth reaction chambers as set forth in claim 1.
With respect to claim 26, as detailed above, in modified Watanabe, Imahashi discloses that a reactor system may be constructed comprising only one load lock chamber.
Regarding claim 27: Watanabe et al. disclose a reactor system (see annotated figure below) substantially as claimed and comprising: a plurality of reaction chambers; a first reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers; a first reaction chamber first gate valve (GV1) coupled to the first reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring a substrate at least one of into or out of the first reaction chamber; a first transfer chamber comprising a first transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5), wherein the first transfer chamber is in fluid communication with the first reaction chamber via the first reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the first reaction chamber first gate valve being opened, wherein the reactor system is configured to allow transfer of the substrate between the first reaction chamber and the first transfer chamber through the opened first reaction chamber first gate valve; a first reaction chamber second gate valve (GV2) coupled to the first reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring a substrate at least one of into or out of the first reaction chamber; a second transfer chamber, comprising a second transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5), the second transfer chamber in fluid communication with the first reaction chamber via the first reaction chamber second gate valve in response to the first reaction chamber second gate valve being opened, wherein the reactor system is configured to allow transfer of the substrate between the first reaction chamber and the second transfer chamber through the opened first reaction chamber second gate valve; a second reaction chamber of the plurality of rection chambers; a second rection chamber first gate valve (GV3) coupled to the second reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring the substrate at least one of into or out of the second reaction chamber, wherein the second reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the second transfer chamber via the second reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the second reaction chamber first gate valve being opened; a third transfer chamber comprising a third transfer tool (not numbered, see similar 55 in Fig. 5); a second reaction chamber second gate valve (G4) coupled to the second reaction chamber wherein the second reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the third transfer chamber via the second reaction chamber second gate valve in response to the second reaction chamber gate valve being opened; a third reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers; a third reaction chamber first gate valve (GV5) coupled to the third reaction chamber and configured to allow transferring the substrate at least one of into or out of the third reaction chamber, wherein the third reaction chamber is in fluid communication with the third transfer chamber via the third reaction chamber first gate valve in response to the third reaction chamber first gate valve being opened. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
472
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the reactor system may include a load lock chamber (111) disposed adjacent the first transfer chamber, the first transfer chamber configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate from the load lock chamber to the first reaction chamber.
However, Watanabe et al. fail to disclose the first transfer chamber further configured to transfer a post-processed substrate from the third reaction chamber to the load lock chamber (i.e. using the load lock chamber for pre-processed wafers and post processed wafers).
As an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, in a multi-chamber processing apparatus, Imahashi teaches providing a single load lock chamber (e.g. Fig. 2, U8)(i.e. a load lock chamber for loading and unloading substrates) adjacent a first transfer chamber (U6) configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a pre-processed substrate form the load lock chamber to a first reaction chamber (e.g., U5 or U7), the first transfer chamber further configured (i.e. capable) to transfer a post processed substrate from the first transfer chamber to the load lock chamber the purpose of carrying a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa (also, see, e.g., column 7, rows 10-31). The apparatus of Imahashi further comprises a load lock chamber gate valve (176), the load lock chamber gate valve coupled to the load lock chamber and configured to open to transfer the pre-processed substrate out of the load lock chamber, the load chamber gate valve further configured to open to transfer the post-processed substrate into the load lock chamber. Imahashi also explicitly teaches that is the load lock chamber can be used for both pre-processed wafers and post-processed wafers, or separate load locks can be used for the former and the latter as is well-known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided, as an alternative to providing separate load lock and unload lock chambers, a single load lock chamber with a load lock chamber gate coupled to the load chamber and configured to transfer a pre-processed substrate to the load lock chamber and transfer a post-processed substrate from the load lock chamber, wherein the load lock chamber is provided in order to carry a substrate from an atmosphere outside the apparatus and at a different pressure than inside the apparatus into the apparatus and vice versa as taught by Imahashi.
Modified Watanabe et al. fail to disclose a specific configuration of the reaction chambers.
AAPA discloses reaction system comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 2), a first reactant source comprising a first reactant (10), a second/third reaction source comprising a second/third reactant, a distribution system (8) configured to distribute the first/second/third reactants to the reaction chamber, and controllers (22, 24) for configured to supply the first/second/third reactants to the substrate via the distribution system for a set duration. Note: AAPA discloses the non-limiting number of “one or more” reactant sources, that is it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that additional reaction sources could be provided as desired. This analysis is applicable to each of the claimed first reactor system, second reactor system and third reactor system.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in each of the reaction chambers of Watanabe et al., a reactor system as set forth in AAPA in order to deliver material for processing a substrate in the reaction chambers in corresponding reaction systems as taught by AAPA.
Regarding the identity of the first reactant source, the second reactant and the third reactant, in a multi-chamber reactor system such as modified Watanabe, Watanabe teaches that the plurality of reactors may be provided for performing a number of different processes or a number of same processes (see, e.g., para. 121). Providing the reactors configured to and/or capable of performing a number of same processes AND different processes (which would at least be inclusive of supplying a same gas to two of the reactors and a different gas to another of the reactors using the structure of AAPA) is considered to be an adaptation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity, common sense and logic. Additionally, and notably, by mere duplication of the structure of AAPA for each of the reactor systems this feature is enabled by supplying the first gas in the first reactor system and the second reactant in the second/third reactant system (regardless of the actual chemical identity of the reactants (which is not presently claimed), wherein the “second reactant source” can be considered a same reactant for the second and third reactor systems). Further, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the intended use of the first, second and third processing chambers, which is inclusive of a set duration for supply of a first reactant, second reactant or third reactant in a respective reaction chamber, it is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, the local controller in each reactor system, as set forth by AAPA, for each of the reaction chambers allows for the functionality of controlling a set duration for a respective gas supply.
Regarding the specific transfer paths used for processing substrates (including bypassing and/or providing alternate paths and/or alternate processing orders), this too is considered to be a feature drawn to intended use of the apparatus. More specifically, modified Watanabe et al. is considered to capable of/configured to/adapted to use the claimed transfer tools to transfer a substate into and out of any of the tools to which they are attached. Watanabe et al. teaches that by connecting a transfer chamber to more than one reaction chamber, certain chambers can be bypassed (or alternately put, more than one route may be used) for the purpose of making it possible to flexibly select a conveyance path for each wafer that requires different processing and to increase processing speed as a whole (see, e.g., para. 118). Further still, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 28, in modified Watanabe et al., each of the first transfer tool, the second transfer tool, and the third transfer tool are adjacent to a maximum of two reaction chambers, wherein the reaction chambers are considered to be the first reaction chamber, the second chamber, the third reaction chamber as set forth in claim 27 and annotated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and accompanying arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or they are moot based on the modified rejections presented above to address the claim amendments and arguments.
Applicant has added the features of claim 9 into claim 1 and submitted that claim 1 is allowable since claim 9 was not rejected under 35 USC 103. However, claim 1 was rejected under 35 USC 112 and clarifications were made thereto by Applicant changing the scope and features of the claimed invention. Thus, claim 1 is not considered commensurate to previously presented claim 9. Similar analysis is applicable to claim 14 with respect to previously presented claim 23. Additionally, rejections and clarity issues with respect to claim 14 persist.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14 and 27, at least. Applicant notably has not provided on the record any specific reasoning or arguments as to why they believe the presently claimed invention(s) are not anticipated or are non-obvious of previously relied upon prior art. The rejections provided above have been modified to address Applicant’s claims as they are now presented.
As previously noted in previous office actions and interviews, Applicant’s claims, remarks and amendments appear to be based on the view that the claim language should be interpreted as the plurality of reaction chambers consisting of only the reaction chambers explicitly recited in the claims at issue. However, Applicant’s claims do not require such an interpretation. See MPEP 2111.03.
In order to advance examination, Applicant is invited to amend the claim language based on the guidance provided in MPEP 2111.03 with respect to the use of “open” and “closed” claim language. Alternatively, if Applicant wants to claim a different invention directed to a specific route of substrate processing using the instantly claimed apparatus, Examiner suggests pursuing method claims (e.g. original claims 16-20 or similar) in a separate divisional or continuation application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Both Imahashi and U.S. Patent No. 10,763,139 disclose providing blind plates on faces of a transfer chamber that are not attached to an adjacent chamber during an intended use of the apparatus.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights