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 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Graham in view of Kitaoka and Liao
Claims 1-10 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130164147 A1 (“Graham”) in view of US 5586159 A (“Kitaoka”) and US 20190371646 A1 (“Liao”).
Graham pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0019-0020). Kitaoka pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Liao pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0015). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Graham discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, apparatus 10; ¶¶ 0019-0020) comprising:
a chamber including a processing space therein (Figs. 1-2, chamber 36 with processing space therein);
a substrate support unit disposed in the processing space and for supporting a substrate (Figs. 1-2, vacuum chucks 56 for supporting a substrate; ¶ 0019);
a first vacuum pump (Figs. 1-2, pump 26);
a second vacuum pump connected to the processing space of the chamber 36 (Figs. 1-2, pump 12 (having pumping stages 14-22), connected to chamber processing space via duct 38);
a first valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump (Figs. 1-2, first valve 50 between first vacuum pump 26 and second vacuum pump 12);
wherein the first vacuum pump is connected to...a surface of the substrate support unit for supporting the substrate and configured to reduce a pressure in a space between the substrate support unit and the substrate...to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit... (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0018-0019, first pump 26 is connected to the surface of the vacuum chucks 56 to reduce a pressure in a space between the top surface of the chucks 56 and a substrate placed on the top surface to secure the substrate to the chucks 56; see discussion below re “a plurality of holes” and “when the second valve is turned on”),
and wherein the second vacuum pump has one port connected to the processing space of the chamber through a third valve connected between the second vacuum pump and the processing space and another port connected to the first vacuum pump through the first valve connected between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump (Figs. 1-2, second pump 12 has one port 28 connected to the processing space of the chamber 36 via third valve 44, and another port 32 connected to first pump 26 via first valve 50).
[AltContent: textbox (Third valve 44)][AltContent: textbox (“Another node”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fourth valve 48)][AltContent: textbox (First valve 50)][AltContent: textbox (“Another port” 32)][AltContent: textbox (Second vacuum pump 12 (having pumping stages 14-22))][AltContent: textbox (“One port” 28)][AltContent: textbox (“Node”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First vacuum pump 26)][AltContent: textbox (Second valve added here)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
668
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Graham Fig. 1 (annotated for claim 1)
Graham does not explicitly disclose:
a second valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the substrate support unit, and coupled to a node located between the first vacuum pump and the first valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump,
wherein the first vacuum pump is connected to a plurality of holes formed on a surface of the substrate support unit for supporting the substrate and configured to reduce a pressure in a space between the substrate support unit and the substrate through the plurality of holes formed on the surface of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the second valve is turned on.
However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
Kitaoka discloses:
a second valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the substrate support unit... (Fig. 1, valve 13 disposed between pump 15 and wafer chuck 4),
wherein the first vacuum pump is connected to...a surface of the substrate support unit for supporting the substrate and...configured to reduce a pressure in a space between the substrate support unit and the substrate...to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the second valve is turned on (Fig. 1; 5:39-65, pump 15 is connected to the surface of the vacuum chuck 4 to reduce a pressure in a space between the top surface of the chuck 4 and a substrate 5 placed on the top surface to secure the substrate 5 to the chuck 4; 5:50-61, “the valve 13 is opened by which a predetermined vacuum attraction force is created at the wafer chuck 4”; Examiner interprets “turned on” to include opening the valve to allow fluid to pass through).
Liao discloses:
wherein the first vacuum pump is connected to a plurality of holes formed on a surface of the substrate support unit for supporting the substrate and configured to reduce a pressure in a space between the substrate support unit and the substrate through the plurality of holes formed on the surface of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit (Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0015, vacuum pump 130 is connected to holes 114 on the top surface of chuck 110 and is configured to reduce a pressure in a space (through the holes) between the top surface of chuck 110 and a substrate 200 placed on the top surface to secure the substrate 200 to the chuck 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kitaoka with Graham by adding a (second) valve between the first vacuum pump and vacuum chucks 56, coupled to a node as recited (e.g., near reference 52 at the location shown in annotated Graham Fig. 1 above). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the extra valve allows for better control of the vacuum pressure at the vacuum chucks 56, for example, the valve allows for disconnection of the vacuum pressure to vacuum chucks 56 without turning off vacuum pump 12 or 26 for removal of a held wafer (Kitaoka 5:50-61, “the valve 13 is opened by which a predetermined vacuum attraction force is created at the wafer chuck 4”). Applicant has not disclosed that specifically coupling the second valve to the “node” as recited provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs (e.g., the second valve is coupled at a different location between the first vacuum pump and the substrate support unit, such as a location closer to the substrate support unit). In fact, the term “node” is not found in the specification. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Liao with the Graham/Kitaoka combination by adding a plurality of holes to the top surface of the vacuum chuck. Both Graham and Kitaoka disclose securing a substrate to the vacuum chuck via vacuum pressure (Graham Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0018-0019; Kitaoka Fig. 1; 5:39-65) but are silent about “a plurality of holes” on the surface of the vacuum chuck. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple vacuum holes on the top surface of the vacuum chuck because this allows for a more uniform vacuum pressure to be applied across the entire substrate in order to reduce substrate warpage (Liao ¶¶ 0018-0022; ¶ 0021, “the use of multiple vacuum holes 114, distributed at different locations on the chuck body 110, reduces the presence of localized low pressure regions between the chuck body 110 and the wafer 200 since it share the pressure at which each vacuum hole 114 can operate to achieve an uniform vacuum pressure.”).
Examiner notes that it is well known to use valves in various portions of a vacuum processing system in order to provide a specific fluid path and/or isolate a portion of the system (see, e.g., US 20190115230 A1 (“Toyomura”) Fig. 2, an apparatus for processing a substrate including vacuum pumps and valves connected to the processing chamber and wafer chuck; US 20220037169 A1 (“Yang”) Fig. 1A, same; US 5228838 A (“Gebele”) Figs. 1-4, a dual vacuum chamber processing apparatus including vacuum pumps and valves connected to the chambers; US 5254169 A (“Wenk”) Fig. 2, same; see also Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”).
Regarding claim 2, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Graham further discloses a fourth valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the processing space; and a controller configured to control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure in the processing space when the fourth valve is turned on (Figs 1-2, first pump 26 connected to chamber 36 processing space via fourth valve 48; ¶¶ 0011-0017, 0019-0020, when first pump 26 is on, a controller controls the opening of fourth valve 48 and first pump 26, which is capable of reducing the pressure in the processing space of chamber 36 (see annotated Fig. 1 for claim 1 above)).
Regarding claim 3, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2 as applied above. Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to turn on the fourth valve before the second valve is turned on. However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to perform this recited limitation in view of the teachings of Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao. For example, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to open the fourth valve before opening the second valve for certain stages of the process, such as to maintain a vacuum in the chamber (via an open fourth valve) prior to placing a wafer onto the chuck 56 (after which, the second valve is opened) (Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”).
Regarding claim 4, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2 as applied above. Graham further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: turn off the second valve to separate the substrate from the substrate support unit (¶ 0020, as modified in the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination, no vacuum is applied to the wafer on chuck 56 when the second valve is closed; the processed wafer is carried out of the chamber at the end of the process, “When the deposition step is completed, the processed objects are removed from the vacuum chamber.”).
Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to...turn off the fourth valve after the second valve is turned off. However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to perform this recited limitation in view of the teachings of Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao. For example, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to close the fourth valve after closing the second valve for certain stages of the process, such as to shut the machine down safely at the end of a process run, even if the vacuum pumps are still running (second valve is closed to prevent a vacuum to chuck 56, at which time the wafer can be removed from chuck 56, and then fourth valve is closed as vacuum pressure in the chamber is no longer needed) (Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”).
Regarding claim 5, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Graham further discloses:
the third valve disposed between the second vacuum pump and the processing space (Figs. 1-2, second pump 12 connected to chamber 32 processing space via third valve 44),
wherein the first vacuum pump is configured to be connected to the second vacuum pump in response to the first valve being turned on (Figs. 1-2, as modified in the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination, when first valve 50 is opened (with an open fourth valve 48), second pump 12 is fluidly connected to first pump 26).
Regarding claim 6, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 5 as applied above. Graham further discloses a controller configured to: control the second vacuum pump to reduce a pressure in the processing space when the third valve being turned on (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0011-0017, 0019-0020, a controller controls the opening of third valve 44 when second pump 12 is on, which is capable of reducing the pressure in the processing space).
Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not explicitly disclose turn on the first valve before the third valve is turned on. However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to perform this recited limitation in view of the teachings of Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao. For example, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to open the first valve before opening the third valve for certain stages of the process, such as to purge the vacuum line up to the first valve 50 prior to opening third valve 44 to provide a vacuum to the processing space (Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”).
Regarding claim 7, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 6 as applied above. Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to turn on the third valve before the second valve is turned on. However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to perform this recited limitation in view of the teachings of Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao. For example, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to open the third valve before opening the second valve for certain stages of the process, such as to maintain a vacuum in the chamber (via an open third valve) prior to placing a wafer onto the chuck 56 (after which, the second valve is opened) (Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”).
Regarding claim 8, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Graham further discloses wherein the substrate support unit includes a flow path between the second valve and the substrate, wherein the first vacuum pump is configured to absorb a gas in the flow path (Fig. 1, vacuum chuck 56 assembly includes ducts 52 (“flow path”); ¶ 0019, first pump 26 absorbs gas in ducts 52 coming from chucks 56; as modified in the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination, there is a “second valve” near reference 52).
Regarding claim 9, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above.
Graham further discloses the first and second vacuum pumps are configured to absorb a gas (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0019-0020, first pump 26 and second pump 12 absorb gas).
Kitaoka further discloses a gas supply unit for supplying a gas to the processing space, wherein the gas supply unit is configured to discharge a gas (Fig. 1; 4:11-15, “Connected to the stage accommodating chamber 1 are a vacuum pump 19 and a helium (He) source (not shown), through valves 18 and 20, respectively. By means of these elements, the air within the stage accommodating chamber 1 can be replaced by helium (He) gas.”; 5:24-33; Examiner notes that in this claim, the first instance of “a gas” and the second instance of “a gas” may refer to the same gas or different gases).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add a gas supply unit as taught by Kitaoka. Graham discloses the introduction of deposition vapor into the chamber 36 during wafer processing even though it is silent on the details of that structure (Graham ¶ 0010, “In a known chemical vapour deposition process, such as SACVD, a chemical vapour deposition step is performed in a vacuum chamber at a relatively low vacuum”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, based on Kitaoka, that deposition vapor (“gas”) could be introduced to the processing chamber 36 by using Kitaoka’s valve 20, the attached duct, and gas source.
Regarding claim 10, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 9 as applied above. Graham further discloses wherein a space between the substrate support unit and the substrate is not connected to the gas supply unit (Figs. 1-2, when a wafer is placed on chuck 56, and third valve 44 (or valve 48) is closed, the space (e.g., near reference 54) is not fluidly connected to the gas supply unit (i.e., not fluidly connected to chamber 36)).
Regarding claim 18, Graham discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, apparatus 10; ¶¶ 0019-0020) comprising:
a chamber including a processing space therein (Fig. 1, chamber 36 with processing space therein);
a substrate support unit disposed in the processing space and including an upper exposed hole formed on an upper surface of the substrate support unit supporting the substrate and a flow path connected to the upper exposed hole (Figs. 1-2, vacuum chucks 56 for supporting a substrate, connected to ducts 52 (“flow path”); ¶ 0019, an exposed hole is inherently disclosed as there must be a hole that fluidly connects the upper surface of vacuum chucks 56 (on which a wafer is placed and held) with ducts 52; see discussion below re “hole”);
a first vacuum pump connected to the processing space through a first valve (Figs. 1-2, pump 26 connected to chamber 36 processing space via first valve 48);
a second vacuum pump connected to the first vacuum pump through a second valve and connected to the processing space through a third valve (Figs. 1-2, second pump 12 is connected to first pump 26 through second valve 50, and connected to chamber 36 processing space via third valve 44);
a controller configured to (¶ 0017, a controller controls the opening of valves and pumps):
control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure in the processing space when the first valve is turned on (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0011-0017, 0019-0020, a controller controls the opening of first valve 48 and first vacuum pump 26, which is capable of reducing the pressure in the processing space; Examiner interprets “turned on” to include opening the valve to allow fluid to pass through),
control the second vacuum pump to reduce a pressure in the processing space when the second valve and the third valve are turned on (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0011-0017, 0019-0020, a controller controls the opening of second valve 50, third valve 44, and second vacuum pump 12, which is capable of reducing the pressure in the processing space),
control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure of the flow path through the upper exposed hole of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support unit and the fourth valve is turned on (Figs. 1-2, vacuum chucks 56 for supporting a substrate, connected to ducts 52 (“flow path”); ¶ 0019, the pressure in ducts 52 is reduced by first pump 26 via the exposed hole to hold wafers onto the upper surface of vacuum chucks 56; see discussion below re “fourth valve”);
control the substrate to be carried out after the fourth valve is turned off (¶ 0020, the processed wafer is carried out of the chamber at the end of the process, “When the deposition step is completed, the processed objects are removed from the vacuum chamber.”; see discussion below re “fourth valve”),
[AltContent: textbox (First valve 48)]wherein the second vacuum pump has one port connected to the processing space of the chamber through the third valve connected between the second vacuum pump and the processing space and another port connected to the first vacuum pump through the second valve connected between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump (Figs. 1-2, second pump 12 has one port 28 connected to the processing space of the chamber 36 via third valve 44, and another port 32 connected to first pump 26 via second valve 50).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Another node”)][AltContent: textbox (Third valve 44)][AltContent: textbox (Second valve 50)][AltContent: textbox (“Another port” 32)][AltContent: textbox (Second vacuum pump 12 (having pumping stages 14-22))][AltContent: textbox (“One port” 28)][AltContent: textbox (“Node”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First vacuum pump 26)][AltContent: textbox (Fourth valve added here)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
668
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Graham Fig. 1 (annotated for claim 18)
Graham does not explicitly disclose:
a fourth valve connecting the flow path of the substrate support unit and the first vacuum pump and coupled to a node located between the first vacuum pump and the second valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump;
control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure of the flow path through the upper exposed hole of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support unit and the fourth valve is turned on,
control the fourth valve to be turned off after processing of the substrate is completed.
However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious this claim.
Kitaoka discloses:
a fourth valve connecting the flow path of the substrate support unit and the first vacuum pump... (Fig. 1, valve 13 disposed between pump 15 and wafer chuck 4).
control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure of the flow path through the upper exposed hole of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support unit and the fourth valve is turned on (Fig. 1; 5:50-61, duct 11 (“flow path”) is connected to wafer chuck 4 and has its pressure reduced when a wafer is placed on chuck 4 and valve 13 is opened, “the valve 13 is opened by which a predetermined vacuum attraction force is created at the wafer chuck 4”),
control the fourth valve to be turned off after processing of the substrate is completed (Fig. 2; 7:12-18, valve 13 is closed after processing of the wafer, and remains closed until the next wafer is placed on the chuck 4).
Liao discloses:
a substrate support unit disposed in the processing space and including an upper exposed hole formed on an upper surface of the substrate support unit supporting the substrate and a flow path connected to the upper exposed hole...control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure of the flow path through the upper exposed hole of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support unit and the fourth valve is turned on (Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0015, vacuum pump 130 is connected to holes 114 on the top surface of chuck 110 and is configured to reduce a pressure in a space (through the holes) between the top surface of chuck 110 and a substrate 200 placed on the top surface to secure the substrate 200 to the chuck 110).
The obviousness rationale for claim 18 is the same as for claim 1. To the extent Graham and Kitaoka do not disclose “an upper exposed hole”, this is explicitly disclosed by Liao, which is combinable with the Graham/Kitaoka combination for the reasons stated in claim 1. Examiner notes that the addition of the fourth valve, which is to be controlled by the Graham controller, results in an apparatus that is capable of the following recited functions for the same reasons discussed in the preceding claims (Graham ¶ 0017, “Alternatively valve arrangements will be apparent to those skilled in the art and may be provided for directing the fluid as required...The control may receive a signal from a vacuum chamber control unit indicating the process step to be performed, and the control controls the valve arrangement in response to the signal.”):
control the second vacuum pump to reduce a pressure in the processing space when the second valve and the third valve are turned on (see claim 6),
control the first vacuum pump to reduce a pressure of the flow path through the upper exposed hole of the substrate support unit to fix the substrate to the substrate support unit when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support unit and the fourth valve is turned on (see claim 3),
control the fourth valve to be turned off after processing of the substrate is completed (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 18 as applied above.
Graham further discloses the first and second vacuum pumps are configured to absorb a gas (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0019-0020, first pump 26 and second pump 12 absorb gas).
Kitaoka further discloses a gas supply unit for supplying a gas to the processing space, wherein the gas supply unit is configured to discharge a gas (Fig. 1; 4:11-15, “Connected to the stage accommodating chamber 1 are a vacuum pump 19 and a helium (He) source (not shown), through valves 18 and 20, respectively. By means of these elements, the air within the stage accommodating chamber 1 can be replaced by helium (He) gas.”; 5:24-33; Examiner notes that in this claim, the first instance of “a gas” and the second instance of “a gas” may refer to the same gas or different gases).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 9, except as depending from claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 19 as applied above. Graham further discloses wherein the first vacuum pump, the second vacuum pump, and the flow path are not directly connected to the gas supply unit (Figs. 1-2, when a wafer is placed on chuck 56, and third valve 44 is closed, the first pump 26, second pump 12, and the flow path (e.g., near reference 54) are not fluidly connected to the gas supply unit (i.e., not fluidly connected to chamber 36)).
Regarding claim 21, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Graham further discloses a fourth valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the processing space, and coupled to another node located between the first vacuum pump and the first valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump (Figs. 1-2, fourth valve 48 is between first pump 26 and the processing space, and coupled to “another node” as recited (see annotated Fig. 1 for claim 1 above)).
Regarding claim 22, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 18 as applied above. Graham further discloses wherein the first valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the processing space is coupled to another node located between the first vacuum pump and the second valve disposed between the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump. (Figs. 1-2, first valve 48 is between first pump 26 and the processing space, and coupled to “another node” as recited (see annotated Fig. 1 for claim 18 above)).
Graham in view of Kitaoka, Liao, and Bailey
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130164147 A1 (“Graham”) in view of US 5586159 A (“Kitaoka”), US 20190371646 A1 (“Liao”), and US 20050142010 A1 (“Bailey”).
Graham pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0019-0020). Kitaoka pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Liao pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Figs. 3-4; ¶ 0015). Bailey pertains to a substrate processing apparatus having a vacuum pump system (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 14, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not explicitly wherein the first vacuum pump includes a dry pump, and the second vacuum pump includes a turbo molecular pump. However, the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao/Bailey combination makes obvious this claim.
Bailey discloses wherein the first vacuum pump includes a dry pump, and the second vacuum pump includes a turbo molecular pump (¶¶ 0005, 0010, 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Bailey with the Graham/Kitaoka/Liao combination. Graham, Kitaoka, and Liao do not describe the types of pumps used. However, Bailey discloses that “to achieve a vacuum high enough for thin-film coating and other high vacuum applications, a pumping system that includes both a primary oil-sealed or dry pump and a secondary, high-vacuum molecular pump is used” (Bailey ¶ 0005). This would have been obvious because this is a case of simple substitution, where a dry pump is used for first pump 26, and a turbo molecular pump is used for second pump 12. This would have been desirable because Graham teaches that the deposition process produces particulates (Graham ¶ 0015, “In this deposition step, a relatively large amount of the dust or particulates are generated. However, the fluid comprising the entrained particulates and/or dust is conveyed through only one pumping stage 22 of the vacuum pump 12.”), and a turbo molecular pump limits the amount of particulates reentering into the ducts (Bailey ¶ 0012, “Turbo pumps (or turbo molecular pumps) utilize a turbine-like rotor that accelerates molecules in the exhaust direction, increasing the probability that a molecule will move out of the chamber toward the backing pump. That technique has come to be used in applications where cleanliness is critical, because there is no problem with the back streaming of any materials used in the pumping mechanism”). Further, the use of a dry pump is “preferred in the semiconductor manufacturing industry because they introduce fewer contaminants into the system” (Bailey ¶ 0010).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. New claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 15-17 have been canceled. Claims 1-14 and 18-22 are pending. Claims 11-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-10, 14, and 18-22 are rejected.
Claims – The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Due to Applicant’s amendment, the arrangement of the pumps and valves previously discussed for Graham have been remapped to different pumps and valves as recited in the claims. Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the rejections of claims 1 and 18 above. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 6817377 B1 (“Reimer”) discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate including vacuum pumps and valves connected to the processing chamber and wafer chuck (Abstr.; Fig. 2);
US 4850806 A (“Morgan”) discloses an apparatus for evacuating an enclosed space including vacuum pumps and valves (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5);
US 20170294333 A1 (“Iu”) discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate including a pump and valves (Abstr.; Fig. 1);
US 20060135047 A1 (“Sheydayi”) discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate including a pump and valves (Abstr.; Figs. 1-1H).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723