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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 5-8, 12, 23-24 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 18, 20-22 is/are amended; claim(s) 25-27 is/are newly added.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Ding, Martinson in addition to previously relied on references below.
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:
Gas supplier (first gas supply structure, second gas supply structure, para. [0051]) in claims 1-20.
Plasma generator (resonance coil, para. [0049]) in claims 1-20.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13-19, 21-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150184301 to Saido in view of US 20210366791 to Tanaka and further in view of US 20010054601 to Ding, US 20130337602 to Martinson.
Claims 1, 18: Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (202 [process container], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (200 [wafer]) is accommodated (para. [0018]); a substrate support (210 [substrate placement device]) provided in the process chamber (202) and on which the substrate (200) is placed, and configured to be capable of elevating and lowering the substrate (para. [0023]); a gas supplier (230/241 [showerhead]/[gas introduction hole]) through which a process gas is supplied onto the substrate (200); a shower head buffer chamber (232 [buffer chamber], Fig. 1, Saido) to which the process gas is supplied;
a first heater (213 [heater]) provided in the substrate support (210) and configured to heat the substrate (200, para. [0021]); a second heater (234h [dispersion plate heater] of 234c [flange part]) configured to heat an outer periphery of the substrate (200), comprising a first heating element (234h), and:
a plasma generator (231 [lid]) provided in a flat plate shape (231) above the shower head buffer chamber (232) and configured to activate the process gas in the process chamber (202), and a controller (260 [controller]) configured to be capable of controlling the first heater (213), the second heater (234h), the gas supplier (230/241) and the plasma generator (252) to perform: (a) heating the substrate to at least a temperature between a first temperature and a second temperature (para. [0095-0099], where it is interpreted that the temperatures can be same or different).
However Saido does not explicitly disclose (b) supplying the process gas activated by the plasma generator while setting a temperature of the second heater to be higher than that of the second heater at which (a) is performed such that a temperature deviation on a surface of the substrate is within a predetermined temperature deviation range.
Tanaka teaches that the two different heaters have a correspondence relationship between the temperatures produced by the two different heaters which are measured and put into a database and then subsequently changed as necessary and correcting a deviation from a desired temperature (para. [0050-0058]) for the purpose of obtaining a desired temperature distribution on the surface of the wafer (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of using a correspondence relationship between the two different heaters based on feedback controls as taught by Tanaka with motivation to obtain a desired temperature distribution on the surface of the wafer.
However the apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka does not disclose the second heater comprising: a second heating element provided on an inner peripheral surface of an upper container constituting the process chamber;
Ding discloses a second heater (115/210, Fig. 9) comprising: a second heating element (115/110/210 [peripheral heat source]/[cylindrical liner]) provided on an inner peripheral surface of an upper container constituting the process chamber (inner peripheral surface of 150 [cylindrical sidewall]) for the purpose of maintaining the wall at a sufficiently high temperature to prevent polymer condensation thereon (para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second heating element and configuration as taught by Ding with motivation to maintain the wall at a sufficiently high temperature to prevent polymer condensation thereon.
However the apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka does not disclose the second heater comprising: a first heating element provided on an inner peripheral surface of the shower head buffer chamber within a gas dispersion structure of the gas supplier.
Martinson teaches a first heating element (860) may be attached to the inner surface of a component (30 [tube]), or be embedded into the wall of the component (30), or it may be located adjacent but not in contact with the wall of the component (30), for the purpose of reducing or preventing material deposition on the end portions.
It is noted that Martinson is teaching the concept of rearrangement or placement of a heater for specified purposes which is an obvious matter of design choice. The courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimized placement of the first heating element as taught by Martinson with motivation to reduce or prevent material deposition on the end portions.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the gas supplier (230/241, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided so as to face the substrate (200), and the plasma generator (252) surrounds in the gas supplier (230/241, Fig. 1).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the second heater (234h, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided at a location at which the second heater (234h) is capable of heating an upper portion of the process chamber (202a [upper container] of 202) above the first heater (213) of the substrate support (210) elevated to a processing position (para. [0024-0025]).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the second heater (234h, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided at a location at which the second heater (234h) is capable of heating an upper portion of the process chamber (202a of 202) above the first heater (213) of the substrate support (210) elevated to a processing position (para. [0024-0025]).
Claims 5-8: (Cancelled).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the first heating element (234h, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided in the gas supplier (230/241).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the first heating element (234h, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided in the gas supplier (230/241).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the first heating element (234h, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided in the gas supplier (230/241).
Claim 12: (Cancelled).
Claims 13-15: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka does not disclose (claim 13-15) wherein the second heater is configured as a lamp heater.
Tanaka discloses (claims 13, 15) wherein the second heater (62, Fig. 1, Tanaka) is configured as a lamp heater (para. [0062] where 72 is an IR lamp), for the purpose of emitting light in the visible region to obtain a temperature distribution in which an etching rate is uniform over the entire surface of the wafer (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the IR lamp as taught by Tanaka with motivation to emit light in the visible region to obtain a temperature distribution in which an etching rate is uniform over the entire surface of the wafer.
Claims 16, 17: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the controller (260, Fig. 1, Saido) is configured to be capable of changing a pre-set value (para. [0125]).
However Saido does not explicitly disclose (claim 16) of the temperature deviation based on substrate data including at least one of a thickness distribution of a film formed on the substrate or a wafer etching rate; (claim 17) wherein, based on substrate data including at least one of a thickness distribution of a film formed on the substrate or a wafer etching rate, the controller is configured to be capable of changing at least one of a pre-set temperature value of the first heater or a pre-set temperature value of the second heater.
Tanaka teaches (claim 16) correcting a desired a deviation from a desired temperature distribution based on the wafer etching rate; (claim 17) wherein, based on substrate data including at least one of a thickness distribution of a film formed on the substrate or a wafer etching rate, the controller is configured to be capable of changing (para. [0047]) at least one of a pre-set temperature value of the first heater or a pre-set temperature value of the second heater (para. [0048-0049]); Tanaka disclose this for the purpose of homogenizing the etching processing to prevent the variation in quality and to improve the throughput (para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deviation correction to change the temperature deviation as taught by Tanaka with motivation to homogenize the etching processing to prevent the variation in quality and to improve the throughput.
Claim 19: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the substrate processing method of claim 18 (see above).
Claims 21, 22: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka discloses wherein the gas supplier (230/241, Fig. 1, Saido) is provided with a shower head (230) configured to disperse and supply the process gas into the process chamber (202, para. [0019]), and wherein the second heater (234h) is provided below a lower portion of the shower head (lower portion of 230).
Claims 23, 24: (Cancelled).
Claim 25: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka, Ding, Martinson discloses wherein the process chamber (202, Fig. 1, Saido) comprises a processing space (201a [process space]) for processing the substrate (200 [wafer]) on an upper side, and the second heating element (210/215/110, Fig. 9, Ding) is configured to heat the processing space (inside 140 [cylindrical chamber]) from an inner peripheral surface of the process chamber (140, para. [0077-0078]).
Claim 26: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka, Ding, Martinson discloses wherein the gas supplier (230/241, Fig. 1) comprises a gas supply pipe (242 [common gas supply pipe]) configured to supply the process gas (para. [0033]), and a dispersion hole (231a [lid hole]) configured to disperse the process gas is provided at a tip portion of the gas supply pipe (tip of 242).
Claim 27: The apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka, Ding, Martinson discloses wherein the controller (260, Fig. 1, Saido) is configured to be capable of performing feedback control of the second heater (234h, para. [0036, 0095-0109]).
Regarding the limitations, in accordance with a wafer etching rate on an outer peripheral side of the substrate, the claim recites that the controller is capable of performing, thus the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150184301 to Saido in view of US 20210366791 to Tanaka and further in view of US 20010054601 to Ding, US 20130337602 to Martinson.
Claim 20: Saido discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program related to a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (202 [process container], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (200 [wafer]) is accommodated (para. [0018]); a substrate support (210 [substrate placement device]) provided in the process chamber (202) and on which the substrate (200) is placed, and configured to be capable of elevating and lowering the substrate (para. [0023]); a gas supplier (230/241 [showerhead]/[gas introduction hole]) through which a process gas is supplied onto the substrate (200); a shower head buffer chamber (232 [buffer chamber], Fig. 1, Saido) to which the process gas is supplied;
a first heater (213 [heater]) provided in the substrate support (210) and configured to heat the substrate (200, para. [0021]); a second heater (234h [dispersion plate heater] of 234c [flange part]) configured to heat an outer periphery of the substrate (200), comprising a first heating element (234h), and:
a plasma generator (231 [lid]) provided in a flat plate shape (231) above the shower head buffer chamber (232) and configured to activate the process gas in the process chamber (202), and a controller (260 [controller]) configured to be capable of controlling the first heater (213), the second heater (234h), the gas supplier (230/241) and the plasma generator (252) to perform: (a) heating the substrate to at least a temperature between a first temperature and a second temperature (para. [0095-0099], where it is interpreted that the temperatures can be same or different).
However Saido does not explicitly disclose (b) supplying the process gas activated by the plasma generator while setting a temperature of the second heater to be higher than that of the second heater at which (a) is performed such that a temperature deviation on a surface of the substrate is within a predetermined temperature deviation range.
Tanaka teaches that the two different heaters have a correspondence relationship between the temperatures produced by the two different heaters which are measured and put into a database and then subsequently changed as necessary and correcting a deviation from a desired temperature (para. [0050-0058]) for the purpose of obtaining a desired temperature distribution on the surface of the wafer (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the program concept of using a correspondence relationship between the two different heaters based on feedback controls as taught by Tanaka with motivation to obtain a desired temperature distribution on the surface of the wafer.
However the apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka does not disclose the second heater comprising: a second heating element provided on an inner peripheral surface of an upper container constituting the process chamber;
Ding discloses a second heater (115/210, Fig. 9) comprising: a second heating element (115/110/210 [peripheral heat source]/[cylindrical liner]) provided on an inner peripheral surface of an upper container constituting the process chamber (inner peripheral surface of 150 [cylindrical sidewall]) for the purpose of maintaining the wall at a sufficiently high temperature to prevent polymer condensation thereon (para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second heating element and configuration as taught by Ding with motivation to maintain the wall at a sufficiently high temperature to prevent polymer condensation thereon.
However the apparatus of Saido in view of Tanaka does not disclose the second heater comprising: a first heating element provided on an inner peripheral surface of the shower head buffer chamber within a gas dispersion structure of the gas supplier.
Martinson teaches a first heating element (860) may be attached to the inner surface of a component (30 [tube]), or be embedded into the wall of the component (30), or it may be located adjacent but not in contact with the wall of the component (30), for the purpose of reducing or preventing material deposition on the end portions.
It is noted that Martinson is teaching the concept of rearrangement or placement of a heater for specified purposes which is an obvious matter of design choice. The courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimized placement of the first heating element as taught by Martinson with motivation to reduce or prevent material deposition on the end portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220102114 a first heater (213, Fig. 1) and a second heater (271 is heater in gas guide (270)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights