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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant has argued that the new limitations of the control modules being “programmed to” do certain functions is not persuasive due to the lack of support in the specification and appears to be new matter. A text search for the word “program” or “computer” or “CPU” or “recipe” or “software” could not be found. As such, the following 112 1st paragraph rejection is made and the previous 103 rejection is maintained, as there is insufficient support for the control modules to be programmed. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has made many arguments that the limitation of “programming” means there is software or some kind of CPU/computer involved, but the Specification expressly states that these modules are “automatic pressure control valves” [0069-0072] and omits any language to a computer or software, such that it appears that the original disclosure was only ever drawn to a basic pumping mechanism without programming or a CPU. A further google search for “automatic pressure control valve” also did not suggest that a computer was required for this structure. As such, the new claim limitations of “programmed to” must be interpreted as “capable of” as there is no express suggestion of any programming in the Specification.
Thus the rejection below is made FINAL.
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 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 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.
Specifically, the Applicant has added language “programmed to” to the claims, but there is insufficient support that programming of any sort is supported by the Specification. A text search for the word “program” or “computer” or “CPU” or “recipe” or “software” could not be found. Therefore, the new limitations of “programmed to” are considered new matter. As such, the new claim limitations of “programmed to” must be interpreted as “capable of” as there is no express suggestion of any programming in the Specification.
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, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2021/0050190 to Miura et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0098232 to An et al, United States Patent Application No. 2005/0000423 to Kasai et al, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0105509 to Drewery et al, and United States Patent Application No. 2005/0189074 to Kasai et al (hereinafter Kasai ‘074).
In regards to Claim 1, Miura teaches an apparatus Fig. 1 for processing a substrate W comprising: a process chamber 10 in which a reaction gas 66 is processed to have a first pressure (pressure wherein the gas is supplied into the chamber [0031] therein; a support module 17 that holds the substrate W within the process chamber, a first pump 85; a second pump 83; a first automatic pressure control module (87 CM2) for adjusting a pumping pressure of the first pump 85 [0049; 0020-0085].
Miura teaches an electrode module (34, 36, 38) comprising an upper electrode 38 that forms a top wall of the electrode module and the process chamber, as shown in Fig. 1.
Miura does not expressly teach the electrode module comprising: an upper electrode forming a top wall of the electrode module and the process chamber; an ion blocker installed within the process chamber under the upper electrode, the ion blocker being separated from the upper electrode within the process chamber by a plasma generating space a shower head installed between the ion blocker and a support module that holds the substrate within the process chamber and a heater ring disposed between the shower head and the ion blocker that separates the shower head from the ion blocker.
An teaches an apparatus Fig. 1 with an electrode module 113, 115, 117 comprising an upper electrode 113 forming a top wall of the electrode module and the process chamber; an ion blocker 115 installed within the process chamber under the upper electrode, the ion blocker being separated from the upper electrode within the process chamber by a plasma generating space PGR, a shower head 117 installed between the ion blocker and a support module 119 that holds the substrate 1000 within the process chamber [0019-0097]. An further reaches that the different zones and plates for gas mixing resolves problems such as clogging or holes or the penetration of contaminants [0062].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Miura, by changing the electrode module to the one as taught by An. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of resolving problems such as clogging or holes or the penetration of contaminants. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. Furthermore, it has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. The resulting apparatus would form an apparatus with an electrode module as claimed.
Miura in view of An does not expressly teach a heater ring disposed between the shower head and the ion blocker that separates the shower head from the ion blocker.
Kasai teaches a showerhead 10 with a ring heater 18 [0104-0105] that is placed just above the showerhead plate [0053-0107], the addition of the heating ring heats the showerhead more rapidly and controlled uniformly so that the film on the substrate W is more uniform [0088].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the electrode module of Miura in view of An to add the ring heater right above the showerhead, so that is it disposed between the showerhead and the ion blocker, as per the teachings of Kasai. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of heating the showerhead more rapidly and making the film on the substrate W is more uniform. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus forms the claimed electrode module as claimed.
Miura teaches the first automatic pressure control module (87, CM2) comprises a first automatic pressure control valve 87 disposed between the process chamber and the first pump (as shown in Fig. 1) and a first automatic pressure control unit (sensor CM2 in combination with controller 200) for controlling the first automatic pressure control valve.
Miura teaches that the pumps can be used for low, middle and high pressures between 10 mTorr to 800 mTorr, and expressly teaches through the switching and cyclical pressure control and cycling of pressures the first pump reduces the first pressure within the process chamber to a second pressure smaller than the first pressure (high pressure of Fig. 2C) and then after the first pressure has been reduced to the second pressure, further reduces the second pressure to a third pressure smaller than the second pressure wherein the first pressure is reduced to the third pressure by the first pump and the second pump within a single cycle for the processing of the substrate ([0061-0084]; and as shown in Fig. 4).
However, the Examiner notes that even with the cyclical nature of low and high pressure evacuations of the apparatus, these limitations are functional limitation of the two pumps. It has been held that 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). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Miura is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, as they are automatic pressure control valves that turn on and off the apparatus of Miura would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to performing the pumping and the pressures therein, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Miura’s pressure modules and that of the claim.
Miura does not expressly teach a temperature control module for controlling a temperature inside the second pump, wherein the temperature control module increases the temperature inside the second pump to a temperature at which by-products inside the process chamber are sublimated.
Drewery teaches a vacuum pump system for a plasma processing chamber (Abstract) with a turbomolecular pump 130 Fig. 1A, 1B, the pump being heated to 160° [0064], which is a temperature which by-products inside the process chamber are sublimated (which is supported by the instant application as being a temperature to sublimate the by-products as it is above 100°C, see [0074-0078] of the instant application) through a temperature control module of heated purge gas or fluid or rotors [0072-0075, 0012-0112]. Drewery teaches that the heating of the pump prevents deposition byproduct buildup [0064].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Miura in view of An and Kasai and by adding a heating mechanism, i.e., a temperature control module for controlling a temperature inside the second pump such that wherein a temperature inside the second pump is 160°C or higher, as per the teachings of Drewery. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to prevent deposition byproduct buildup. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Miura teaches on/off valves 84, 86 as shown in Fig. 1 but does not expressly teach a first on-off valve interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve and the first pump or a second on-off valve interposed between the process chamber and the second pump.
Kasai ‘074 teaches a processing apparatus 52 with a chamber 4 that has an evacuation device 32 wherein the gas exhaust port 30 Fig. 6, 7 that is connected to a first pump 38 and a second pump 60 has a throttle valve 36 [0009-0013] that is upstream and between the chamber and the first pump that is a throttle valve that controls an opening ratio and thus the pressure of the chamber with the control unit of 50/55 and a first on-off valve (64 of Kasai ‘074) interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve 36 and the first pump 38, a second on-off valve 40 interposed between the process chamber and the second pump; a third on-off valve interposed between the first pump and the second pump (as shown in 40 between 38 and 60) [0038-0100].
Kasai ‘074 teaches a first on-off valve (72 of Kasai ‘074) interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve 78 and the first pump 38.
Kasai ‘074 teaches a second on-off valve 40 interposed between the process chamber and the second pump 60.
Kasai ‘074 teaches that the controller and on/off valves presented can properly control pressure such that many kinds of processes with big differences in processing pressure ranges can be carried out [0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Miura in view of An and Kasai and Drewery with the on/off valves of Kasai ‘074. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of properly controlling pressure such that many kinds of processes with big differences in processing pressure ranges can be carried out.
Miura in view of An, Kasai, Drewery and Kasai ‘074 do not expressly teach after the first on-off valve is opened, a first pumping process by the first pump is performed, and after the first on-off valve is closed, a second pumping process by the second pump is performed.
The Examiner notes that this is considered a functional limitation, as no additional structure or controller is presented here and the status of the valves and processes are recited herein instead. It has been held that 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). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Miura in view of An, Kasai, Drewery and Kasai ‘074 is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Miura in view of An, Kasai, Drewery and Kasai ‘074 would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able after the first on-off valve is opened, a first pumping process by the first pump is performed, and after the first on-off valve is closed, a second pumping process by the second pump is performed, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Miura in view of An, Kasai, Drewery and Kasai ‘074and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 4, Miura teaches a second automatic pressure control module (82 and CM1) is configured to adjust a magnitude of pressure by adjusting a pumping pressure of the second pump (as it is connected between 83 and the chamber).
In regards to Claim 5, Miura teaches the second automatic pressure control module comprises a second automatic pressure control valve 82 disposed between the process chamber and the second pump (as shown in Fig. 1) and a second automatic pressure control unit (CM1 and 200) for controlling the second automatic pressure control valve.
In regards to Claim 6, Miura teaches on/off valves 84, 86 as shown in Fig. 1 but does not expressly teach a first on-off valve interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve and the first pump or a second on-off valve interposed between the process chamber and the second pump.
Kasai ‘074 teaches a processing apparatus 52 with a chamber 4 that has an evacuation device 32 wherein the gas exhaust port 30 Fig. 6 that is connected to a first pump 38 and a second pump 60 has a throttle valve 36 [0009-0013] that is upstream and between the chamber and the first pump that is a throttle valve that controls an opening ratio and thus the pressure of the chamber with the control unit of 50/55 and a first on-off valve (64 of Kasai ‘074) interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve 36 and the first pump 38, a second on-off valve 40 interposed between the process chamber and the second pump; a third on-off valve interposed between the first pump and the second pump (as shown in 40 between 38 and 60) [0038-0100].
Kasai ‘074 teaches a first on-off valve (64 of Kasai) interposed between the first automatic pressure control valve 36 and the first pump 38.
Kasai ‘074 teaches a second on-off valve 40 interposed between the process chamber and the second pump 60.
Kasai ‘074 teaches that the controller and on/off valves presented can properly control pressure such that many kinds of processes with big differences in processing pressure ranges can be carried out [0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Miura in view of An and Kasai and Drewery with the on/off valves of Kasai ‘074 for claim 6. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of properly controlling pressure such that many kinds of processes with big differences in processing pressure ranges can be carried out. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 7, Miura teaches a third on-off valve 84 interposed between the first pump and the second pump.
In regards to Claim 9, Miura in view of Drewery teaches the temperature inside the second pump is 100°C. or higher, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716