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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a temperature measurer installed at the gas supplier and configured to measure the temperature of the buffer space” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 19 is 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. Examiner is unable to locate “a temperature measurer installed at the gas supplier and configured to measure the temperature of the buffer space” in the original disclosure. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
Claim 20-21 are 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.
Claims 20 and 21 refer to “a wall at one end of the buffer space”, “a wall at another end of the buffer space”, “an upper wall of the buffer space” and “a side wall of the buffer space”. These claims depend from claim 1 and it is unclear how these features are meant to refer to claim 1 “a wall that forms a buffer space”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that each of the walls of claims 21 and claim 22 may or may overlap with the “a wall that forms the buffer space”.
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) 1-4, 6-12 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0129769 to Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0283949 to Yahata et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0177446 to Saido.
Regarding claim 1: Kim et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a processing space (Fig. 3A, not numbered, space above 322) in which a substrate (322) is accommodated; a substrate mounting table (323) configured to mount the substrate in the process space; a gas supplier (multiple structures, e.g., 309, 312, 313) configured to supply a gas to the substrate in the process space and including a wall (e.g., surfaces surrounding 316) that forms a buffer space (316); a buffer chamber (310) formed at an upstream side of the gas supplier; a first gas supply line (319) being configured to supply a first gas to the process space via the buffer space; a second gas supply line (317) capable of/configured to supply a second gas to the process space via the buffer chamber; a third gas supply line (320) connected to the buffer space via a gas introduction hole (not numbered) at the wall for the buffer space, and capable of/configured to supply a third gas, whose temperature may be lower than a temperature of the first gas, to the buffer space via the gas introduction hole; at least one first gas supply port (Figs. 3A-B, 315) installed at the gas supplier and being in fluid communication with the first gas supply line via the buffer space; and at least one second gas supply port (Figs. 3A-B, 311) installed at the gas supplier and being in fluid communication with the second gas supply line via the buffer chamber.
However, Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a first exhaust pipe, a first end of which is connected to the process space via a second exhaust hole formed at a wall of the processing space, and a second end of which is configured to exhaust an internal atmosphere space of the process space; a first opening/closing valve installed at the first exhaust pipe; or the first gas supply line including a first heater and being configured to supply a first gas, which has been heated by the first heater, via the gas supplier.
Within the art, Yahata et al. disclose a similar substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 100) comprising, inter alia, disclose a first exhaust pipe (262), a first end of which is connected to the process space via a second exhaust hole formed at a wall of the processing space, and a second end of which is configured to exhaust an internal atmosphere space of the process space; and a first opening/closing valve (275 and 277) installed at the first exhaust pipe for exhausting the atmosphere of a processing space of the substrate processing apparatus. Yahata et al. also teach that a heater may be provided on a gas supply line for the purpose of heating a gas passing therethrough to a predetermined temperature (see, e.g., paras. 57-61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first exhaust pipe, a first opening/closing valve and a first heater on the first gas supply line in order to exhaust the atmosphere of the processing space and heat a gas passing therethrough to a predetermined temperature as taught by Yahata et al.
Regarding features related to intended use, the courts have ruled claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Kim et al. also fail to disclose a second exhaust pipe, a first end of which is directly connected to the buffer space via a first exhaust hole formed at the buffer space, and a second end of which is configured to exhaust an internal atmosphere of the buffer space; a second opening/closing valve installed at the second exhaust pipe and a controller configured to control the first gas supply line, the third gas supply line, the first opening/closing valve and the second opening closing valve to perform a process comprising:
supplying the first gas heated by the first heater to the processing space via the buffer space, and exhausting the first gas via the first exhaust pipe;
supplying the second gas to the substrate via the buffer chamber; and
supplying the third gas to the buffer space between (a) and (b) and exhausting the third gas via the second exhaust pipe.
Also, within the art, Saido discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 100) comprising, inter alia, disclose a second exhaust pipe (236 connected to 240a), a first end of which is directly connected to a buffer space (232a) via a first exhaust hole (e.g., 240a) formed at the buffer space, and a second end of which is configured to exhaust an internal atmosphere of the buffer space; a second opening/closing valve (240a) installed at the second exhaust pipe; and a controller (e.g., 260) wherein the controller is configured to the gas supply features and the gas exhaust features of the substrate processing apparatus. The features are provided for the purpose exhausting an atmosphere in the buffer space and controlling functions of the overall apparatus (see, e.g., paras. 26-29, 49-55).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substrate processing apparatus of modified Kim et al. further including the features detailed above in order to exhaust the atmosphere in the buffer space and control functions of the overall apparatus (including, but not limited to, the first gas supply line, the second gas supply line, the third gas supply line, the first opening/closing valve, and the second opening/closing valve) the as taught by Saido.
Regarding the claimed process performed by the controller, as part of general use of the their substrate processing apparatus, Yahata et al. and Saido disclose using a controller, 280 and 260 respectively, to control the substrate processing apparatus to perform the following steps:
Yahata et al. disclose (a) “heated gas supply step” (Figs. 1, 3, 4B, “S104”, paras. 74-80) of supplying a first heated gas by a first heater (248e) to a processing space (201) via a buffer space (252c), and exhausting the first gas via the first via a first gas exhaust pipe (261), wherein the “heated gas supply step” allows for bringing a substrate into a predetermined temperature range;
Yahata et al. also disclose (b) “film forming step” and “second process gas supply step” (Figs. 1, 3, 6B, “S110” and “S206”, paras. 94-97) supplying a second gas to a substrate via a buffer chamber (232), wherein “the film forming step” allows for a substrate to be processed in accordance with a desired final result regarding film formation; and
Saido disclose (c) “purge step” (Figs. 1, 2B, 5, “S204”, paras. 70-79) of supplying a third “purge” gas to a buffer space (232a) between (a) “a heated gas supply step” and (b) “a film forming step” and exhausting the third gas via a second exhaust pipe (at 237a and 240a), wherein “the purge step” allows for residual gases to be removed from the buffer space (and other areas) before proceeding with additional steps in a film formation process
With respect to claim 2, in modified Kim et al., Yahata et al. further disclose the apparatus of may further comprise a second heater (213) installed at the substrate mounting table; and a lift pin (207) configured to hold the substrate over the substrate mounting table wherein the heater is provided for heating the substrate and the lift pins assist and holding and loading a substrate to a substrate processing apparatus (see, e.g. paras. 21-23).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Kim et al., Kim et al. further disclose the third gas supply line is fluidly connected to the first gas supply line.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Kim et al., Kim et al. further disclose the third gas supply line may be fluidly connected to the gas supplier in parallel with the first gas supply line.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Kim et al., Yahata et al. teach in additional gas supply lines (e.g., 245) may be configured to supply a fourth gas to a transfer chamber (at 206) installed in the process space (via the buffer chamber and buffer space), wherein multiple gases may be provided to the buffer chamber and/or the buffer space, which will also therefore may be supplied to the transfer chamber. Yahata et al. fail to explicitly disclose the fourth gas supply line including a fourth heater. Nevertheless, elsewhere in the disclosure, Yahata et al. teach that a heater may be provided on a gas supply line for the purpose of heating a gas passing therethrough to a predetermined temperature (see, e.g., paras. 57-58). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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), wherein the addition of an additional gas supply line is not viewed as providing a new and unexpected result.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Kim et al., Kim et al. further disclose the gas supplier is configured to face an upper surface of the substrate, wherein depending on how the apparatus is used, the first gas supply line maybe fluidly connected to a central side of the gas supplier, and the third gas supply line may be fluidly connected to an outer peripheral side of the gas supplier. Examiner also notes however that the courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 8, in modified Kim et al., Kim et al. disclose the at least one first gas supply port installed at the gas supplier includes one or more ports installed at a central side to the substrate and one or more ports installed at an outer peripheral side to the substrate, and wherein the one or more ports installed at the central side to the substrate and the one or more ports installed at the outer peripheral side to the substrate may be arbitrarily selected to be different from each other in groups of numbers of the one or more ports. Examiner also notes however that the courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claims 9-12 and the identity of the gases, 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Also, as detailed above, the first and third gas may be an inert gas such as N2, used during heating (a) and purge (c) steps, and the second gas, used during a film formation step, may be a processing gas.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Kim et al., Kim et al. further discloses the second gas supply line is configured to supply the second gas to the substrate without introducing the second gas into the first gas supply line.
With respect to claim 18, controlled “to be capable of” is considered a recitation drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, wherein 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).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Kim et al., there is no disclosure of the temperature of the buffer space is measured by a temperature measurer installed at the gas supplier and configured to measure the temperature of the buffer space. However, Yahata et disclose the provision of a temperature measuring unit and controller (249 and 250) configured to measure the temperature of a heater (248e) for providing a gas to a buffer space using the heater such that the gas is heated to a predetermined temperature. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious to use the predetermined temperature to determine/measure a temperature of the buffer space with the gas supplied at the predetermined temperature.
With respect to claim 20, modified Kim et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first exhaust hole is connected to a wall at one end of the buffer space, and the first supply line and the third gas supply line are configured to be connected to a wall at another end of the buffer space. However, this appears to be a mere rearrangement of parts wherein the courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 21, modified Kim et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first gas supply line is connected to an upper wall of the buffer space, the third gas supply line is connected to a side wall of the buffer space, and the first exhaust hole is connected to the upper wall of the buffer space. However, this appears to be a mere rearrangement of parts wherein the courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12 and 17-21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,121,650 to Kamakura.
Modified Kim et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Yahata et al. and Saido disclose a substrate loading port (206) provided on a side surface of the transfer chamber for loading and unloading the substrate; and Yahata et al. discloses a third exhaust hole (at 261) installed at the side surface of the transfer chamber, facing the substrate loading/unloading port, and configured to exhaust an atmosphere of the transfer chamber.
However, modified Kim et al. fail to disclose the fourth gas supply is installed below the substrate loading/unloading port.
Kamakura discloses providing a fourth gas supply (Fig. 1, 248) installed below the substrate loading/unloading port for the purpose of providing increased pressure control in a similar substrate processing apparatus during a purge step such that residual gas can be prevented from migrating from a process space to a transfer space (see, e.g., paras. 101-110).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the fourth gas supply installed below the substrate loading/unloading port in modified Kim et al. in order to provide increased pressure control during a purge step such that residual gas can be prevented from migrating from the process space to the transfer space as taught by Kamakura.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 15 November 2023 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USP 11,145,505 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has been modified to account for Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pub. 2021/0404064 discloses an exhaust pipe directly connected to a buffer space (and other spaces) of a gas supplier. USP Patent Pubs. 20160319424 and 20170253968 disclose similar substrate processing 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