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 .
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.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitadori [US 20170287681] in view of Koji [JP200289602] in view of Murobayashi [US 20120214317] and Maula [WO2010092235].
Claim 1: Nitadori teaches a substrate processing system [abstract] comprising a substrate in a tube (processing chamber 4) [0016] that is provided in a processing container of the heat treatment apparatus (heat insulating body) [0029] adjusting a temperature inside the tube by a heater (heater wire) to heat an inside of the processing container [0030; claim 8]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the step of heating would naturally adjust the temperature inside the tube by the heater. Nitadori further teaches using gas from a gas supply [0003-0004] and teaches forming a film [0026] although Nitadori does not explicitly teach film forming gases, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in the semiconductor art, using film forming gases for forming a film on a wafer is well known in the semiconductor art. As for when to supply the gas containing film forming gas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of possibilities for when to supply the gases such as before heating, after heating or during heating. Nitadori further teaches the gas supply is supplied into the tube through the gas supply pipe (34) that extends into the tube [Fig. 1]. However, Nitadori does not teach adjusting the temperature by a gas containing a heat transfer gas. Koji is provided.
Koji teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus that can shorten temperature rising/falling time [abstract], by switching to a second gas (He gas) [abstract], wherein the second gas has a higher thermal conductivity, where when the temperature rises/falls the temperatures becomes higher or falls faster (heat transfer gas) [0008]. Koji also teaches supplying the second gas to the process chamber [0008], where the gas supply pipe is inserted into and positioned within the tube [Fig. 2], and performing a temperature control using the second gas into the tube (switching control means for controlling the flow of the second gas during temperature raising and lowering steps) [0007]. Koji further teaches using a control unit and memory to control the valve to supply the second gas during the raising and lowering processes [pg 4, para 5]. However, Koji does not appear to teach the temperature control is performed by a supply timing of the heat transfer in response to a temperature condition during adjusting the temperature. Murobayashi is provided.
Murobayashi teaches a temperature sensor can be provide to detect the temperature in the processing chamber and a temperature control unit coupled to the sensor, the control unit can control the temperature within the processing chamber to have a specific temperature distribution at a specified timing [0034]. Murobayashi further teaches using feedback control means based upon the information detected by the temperature sensor [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the temperature by a supply timing of the second gas according to a temperature condition of the process chamber as taught by Murobayashi, so as to improving substrate processing productivity [0005].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the heat is transferred from the space between the processing container and the tube to the inside of the tube, thereby raising the temperature inside the tube to predetermined target temperature. Maula is provided.
Maula teaches that in indirect heating of the second chamber 4, the heating means may be installed for instance on the side, end, top or bottom walls of the first chamber 2, from which heat transfers by radiation or gas to heat the second chamber 4 [0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heating means taught by the prior art would be able to provide heat transfer from the space between the processing container and the tube to the inside the tube, and raise the temperature of the inside of the tube to a target temperature as suggested by Maula.
Claim 2: Koji teaches the temperature can rise or fall [abstract].
Claim 5: Hudson teaches the heat transfer gas can be He [abstract].
Claim 12: Koji teaches the heat transfer gas is supplied into an interior region of the tube through the gas supply pipe and the interior region of the tube is defined separately from the space between the processing container and the tube [Fig. 1, pg 5].
Claim 13: Koji teaches selectively initiating, maintaining, or stopping the supply of the second gas to either increase or decrease the temperature in the process chamber (control unit controls the valve to stop the supply of the second gas) [abstract, pg 5].
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitadori in view of Koji, Murobayashi and Maula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humayun [CN 104752339].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations regarding claim 3-4, 6-7. Humayun is provided.
Claim 3: Humayun teaches the heat transfer gas is supplied before the formation of the film on the substrate [pg 13, para 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the heat transfer gas to heat the chamber before the formation of the film so as to provide the optimal conditions for substrate processing [pg 2, para 2; pg 13].
Claim 4: Humayun teaches the processing steps can be repeated a plurality of times [pg 5], wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by providing a step of supplying a heat transfer gas, one would pre-determine the amount over time; hence, calculate a predetermine amount of time. Furthermore, since Humayun teaches repeating the cycles a plurality of times, this would inherently include the steps of providing the heat transfer gas.
Claim 6: Humayun teaches film formation can involve deposition of metal [pg 7], where it is well known in the semiconductor art to deposit metal layers on a substrate.
Claim 7: Humayun teaches heating in a vacuum cavity (chamber) [pg 2], and heating is supplied in the cavity [pg 13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by providing the heating step in a vacuum cavity would indicate that the heat transfer gas is supplied when the chamber is evacuated.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitadori in view of Koji, Murobayashi and Maula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardman [CN 111278767].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach air and the heat transfer gas are combined. Hardman is provided.
Claim 8: Hardman teaches the heat transfer gas may include helium and air or mixture there of [pg 29]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide helium and air as the heat transfer gas since Hardman teaches such mixture is an another operable gas for heat transfer gas steps.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitadori in view of Koji, Murobayashi and Maula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaushal [WO2007115138].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach suppressing an overshoot or under undershoot of a target temperature. Kaushal is provided.
Claims 10-11: Kaushal provides a number of sensors arranged in a vertical alignment to measure temperature of the tube [0066-0067]. Kaushal also teaches that a control can be used to control the treatment atmosphere from the output signals of the sensors [0068], and the heat can be adjusted based upon the calculations from the collected sensor data to achieve the target parameters [0203-0204]. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach suppressing an overshoot or undershoot, since Kaushal teaches a controller to adjust the heating conditions based upon the data collected from the sensors measuring the temperature of the tube, one would have expected that the prior would have been able to perform and produce the same results from using similar physical arrangements and materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is argued that the new amendments are still primarily taught by Nitadori (as shown in Fig. 1 for a gas supply pipe that extends into the tube). Arguments suggesting Hudson is non-analogous art because Hudson is a single processing container, it is argued by the examiner Hudson is relied upon to teach that it is known in the art that another option to provide heat to the substrate processing space is to supply heat transfer gas directly to the substrate, in which Hudson teaches [0140]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in addition or alternatively to the heating means, directly supplying a heat gas transfer to the substrate is another way of provide heat to the substrate in the a processing space. As for applicant’s arguments that Hudson is improperly combined with Maula because Maula is a double processing container and Hudson is a single processing chamber, it is argued that Nitadori teaches a double processing container and that Maula is relied upon for teach that heating means that are position on side, end, top and etch of the walls of the inner chamber can also provide heat transfer by gas to the second inner chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of Maula suggests that Nitadori’s double chamber comprising heating elements is also capable of providing heat transfer by gas to the second inner chamber. Therefore, applicant’s arguments were deemed to be not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights