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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are pending.
Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are currently amended.
Claim 9 is currently withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima (US 20160083837 A1), further in view of Ashihara (US 20170067157 A1) and Lee (US 5711815 A).
Regarding claim 1, Narushima teaches an apparatus for forming a film on a substrate (Fig. 1, [0043], film formation device forms film on wafer W), the apparatus comprising:
a processing container (Fig. 1, [0043], processing vessel 1) in which a reaction gas is supplied to a surface of the substrate in a vacuum atmosphere to perform a film forming process (Fig. 1, [0043], reaction gases are supplied to surface of wafer W, and exhaust port 132 and exhaust part 65 correspond to a vacuum exhaust that evacuates the interior of processing space 312);
a stage installed in the processing container, configured to place the substrate thereon (Fig. 1, [0046], wafer W sits on mounting stand 2), and including a heater configured to heat the substrate (Fig. 1, [0046], heater 21 embedded in mounting stand 2 heats wafer W);
a lifting shaft installed to extend in a vertical direction while supporting the stage from a center of a bottom surface side of the stage (Fig. 1, [0050], elevating shaft 23 extends in up-down direction and connects to lower side of mounting stand 2 at the center position), and connected to an external lifting mechanism via a through port formed in the processing container (Fig. 1, [0050], elevating shaft 23 is connected to motor part 24, which moves mounting stand 2 up-down in through-hole 15 which is formed on the bottom surface of processing vessel 1);
a casing installed between the processing container and the lifting mechanism and covering a periphery of the lifting shaft (Fig. 4, [0051], bellows 231 is installed between edge of through-hole 15 and elevating plate 232, covering periphery of elevating shaft 23);
a lid member disposed to surround the lifting shaft (Fig. 4, [0064], lid member 41 surrounds elevating shaft 23) with a first gap interposed between a side peripheral surface of the lifting shaft and an inner edge of the lid member (Fig. 4, [0065], lid member 41 is disposed so a gap is formed between elevating shaft 23 and inner surface of lid member 41), and installed in the processing container over an entire circumference such that communication between a lower side space and an upper side space of the lid member is blocked in a portion other than the gap (Fig. 4, [0065], lid member 41 is installed over entire circumference of processing vessel 1 so that communication between space below lid member 41 and space above lid member 41 is prevented in regions other than the gap); and
a purge gas supplier configured to supply a purge gas into the casing (Figs. 1&4, [0072], nitrogen gas supply source 63b, supply path 141, flow path 435, and gas ejection holes 432 supply purge gas to casing area defined by bellows 42);
Narushima fails to teach a guide member installed on a top surface of the lid member, disposed to surround the lifting shaft with a second gap, disposed at a position above the lid member with a third gap, disposed at a position facing an end portion of the first gap that opens toward an interior of the processing container, and including a guide surface configured to guide the purge gas supplied to the casing such that the purge gas flows into the processing container through the first gap and then through the third gap so as to flow away from a direction toward a rear surface of the stage,
wherein the second gap is formed between an inner edge of the guide member and the side peripheral surface of the lifting shaft,
wherein the third gap is formed between the guide surface and the top surface of the lid member, and
wherein a dimension of the second gap is smaller than a dimension of the first gap, and the dimension of the first gap is smaller than a dimension of the third gap.
However, Ashihara teaches a guide member installed on a top surface of the lid member (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed on top surface of lower portion 261a/lower member 261b), disposed to surround the lifting shaft with a second gap (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed such that there is a gap formed between itself and shaft 217), disposed at a position above the lid member with a third gap (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed on top surface of lower portion 261a/lower member 261b such that a gap slit area 261e is formed), disposed at a position facing an end portion of the first gap that opens toward an interior of the processing container (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed in purge flow path between end of lower portion 261a/lower member 261b and transfer space 203, Fig. 1), and including a guide surface configured to guide the purge gas supplied to the casing such that the purge gas flows into the processing container through the first gap and then through the third gap so as to flow away from a direction toward a rear surface of the stage (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed such that purge gas can be discharged towards lateral region 263, which is perpendicular to a vertical direction towards rear surface of table 210, Fig. 1),
wherein the second gap is formed between an inner edge of the guide member and the side peripheral surface of the lifting shaft (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed such that there is a gap formed between itself and shaft 217),
wherein the third gap is formed between the guide surface and the top surface of the lid member (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid 261d is disposed on top surface of lower portion 261a/lower member 261b such that a gap slit area 261e is formed between), and
wherein a dimension of the second gap is smaller than a dimension of the first gap (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], gap formed between shaft 217 and lid member 261d is smaller than gap between shaft 217 and lower portion 261a/lower member 261b).
Ashihara is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same filed of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the guide member of Ashihara into the apparatus of Narushima as doing so would prevent unwanted film formation from occurring on surfaces below the substrate table, thereby lengthening the time between maintenance cycles and thus reducing operational downtime of the apparatus (Ashihara, [0189]).
Modified Narushima fails to teach wherein the dimension of the first gap is smaller than a dimension of the third gap.
However, Lee teaches wherein the dimension of the first gap is smaller than a dimension of the third gap (Lee, Fig. 16, C10 L1-25, gap F is larger than the distance from projection 710 to edge of ring portion 91).
Lee is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same filed of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the gapping distance relations of surfaces in a purge flow path as taught by Lee into the apparatus of modified Narushima as doing so would ensure the purge gas flows away from the bottom surface of the substrate/table, preventing process gas from above the table from depositing on unwanted areas underneath the table, and doing so without disrupting uniform film formation on the surface of the wafer (Lee, C6 L20-35).
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “a guide surface configured to guide the purge gas supplied to the casing such that the purge gas flows into the processing container through the first gap and then through the third gap so as to flow away from a direction toward a rear surface of the stage” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The lid member of Ashihara is oriented in a purge flow path such that purge gas direction can be altered, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed foes not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” is the prior art apparatus teaches al the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, modified Narushima fails to teach wherein a ratio of the dimension of the first gap to the dimension of the second gap is a value within a range of more than 1 and equal to or smaller than 2.5.
While Lee does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Lee teaches wherein a ratio of the dimension of the first gap to the dimension of the second gap is a result effective variable. Particularly, Lee teaches wherein the positions of the ring projections A+B, as dictated by the lateral positioning C+D of portion 92, must be set at a value such that deposition of a film on the nearby vertical surfaces S and 84 is prevented (Lee, Fig. 16, C10 L26-42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to have discovered the optimum ratio of the dimension of the first gap to the dimension of the second gap of modified Narushima through routine experimentation in order to prevent undesired film deposition on specific vertical surfaces, such as the substrate table (Lee, Fig. 16, C10 L26-42). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Narushima fails to teach wherein a ratio of the dimension of the third gap to the dimension of the second gap is a value in a range of 1.5 to 3.5.
While Lee does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Lee teaches wherein a ratio of the dimension of the third gap to the dimension of the second gap by altering the width of the third gap is a result effective variable. Particularly, Lee teaches wherein varying the position of the ring projection 91, as dictated by the vertical positioning of portion 92, controls the proportion of purge gas that flows through either side of the purge gas flow diverting ring portion (Lee, Fig. 16, C10 L15-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to have discovered the optimum ratio of the dimension of the third gap to the dimension of the second gap of modified Narushima through routine experimentation in order to prevent undesired film deposition on specific vertical surfaces, such as the substrate table, without inhibiting film deposition on desired surfaces, such as the substrate top (Lee, Fig. 16, C10 L15-25). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Narushima teaches wherein the lid member includes a recess formed on the top surface of the lid member and including a tapered surface having an opening diameter increasing from a lower side toward an upper side (Fig. 4, lid member 41 has recess area 412, where the surface of lid member 41 is slanted, with increasing diameter from bottom to top).
Narushima fails to teach wherein the guide member is disposed to cover an opening of the recess when viewed from a top surface side, so that a vortex of the purge gas is formed in a space between the guide member and the recess.
However, Ashihara teaches wherein the guide member is disposed to cover an opening of the recess when viewed from a top surface side (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid member 261d extends and covers lower portion 261a/lower member 261b when viewed from the top).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the guide member of Ashihara into the apparatus of Narushima as doing so would prevent unwanted film formation from occurring on surfaces below the substrate table, thereby lengthening the time between maintenance cycles and thus reducing operational downtime of the apparatus (Ashihara, [0189]).
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “so that a vortex of the purge gas is formed in a space between the guide member and the recess” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed foes not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” is the prior art apparatus teaches al the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Narushima fails to teach wherein the guide member includes an outer edge disposed at a position outside an edge portion of the opening of the recess.
However, Ashihara teaches wherein the guide member includes an outer edge disposed at a position outside an edge portion of the opening of the recess (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], outer end of lid member 261d extends and covers to the outer end of lower portion 261a/lower member 261b).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the guide member of Ashihara into the apparatus of Narushima as doing so would prevent unwanted film formation from occurring on surfaces below the substrate table, thereby lengthening the time between maintenance cycles and thus reducing operational downtime of the apparatus (Ashihara, [0189]).
Regarding claim 8, Narushima teaches wherein the lid member includes a recess formed on the top surface of the lid member and including a tapered surface having an opening diameter increasing from a lower side toward an upper side (Fig. 4, lid member 41 has recess area 412, where the surface of lid member 41 is slanted, with increasing diameter from bottom to top).
Narushima fails to teach wherein the guide member is disposed to cover an opening of the recess when viewed from the top surface side, so that a vortex of the purge gas is formed in a space between the guide member and the recess.
However, Ashihara teaches wherein the guide member is disposed to cover an opening of the recess when viewed from the top surface side (Ashihara, Figs. 8A & 8B, [0179]-[0190], lid member 261d extends and covers lower portion 261a/lower member 261b when viewed from the top).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the guide member of Ashihara into the apparatus of Narushima as doing so would prevent unwanted film formation from occurring on surfaces below the substrate table, thereby lengthening the time between maintenance cycles and thus reducing operational downtime of the apparatus (Ashihara, [0189]).
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “so that a vortex of the purge gas is formed in a space between the guide member and the recess” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed foes not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” is the prior art apparatus teaches al the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 9/25/2025, the Applicant asserts that the cited prior art, specifically Lee, fails to teach the newly amended claim limitation in claim 1 of “a guide member installed on a top surface of the lid member, disposed to surround the lifting shaft with a second gap, disposed at a position above the lid member with a third gap, disposed at a position facing an end portion of the first gap that opens toward an interior of the processing container, and including a guide surface configured to guide the purge gas supplied to the casing such that the purge gas flows into the processing container through the first gap and then through the third gap so as to flow away from a direction toward a rear surface of the stage, wherein the second gap is formed between an inner edge of the guide member and the side peripheral surface of the lifting shaft, wherein the third gap is formed between the guide surface and the top surface of the lid member, and wherein a dimension of the second gap is smaller than a dimension of the first gap, and the dimension of the first gap is smaller than a dimension of the third gap”.
One basis of the argument being that since Lee depends upon placement of the guide member to be on the chamber wall or substrate table itself vs the instant invention where placement of the guide member depends upon placement on the lid member, one would not apply the guide member of Lee onto the lid member of Narushima. In response to the amendments and arguments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamasaki (US 6797068 B1) teaches relations of gaps and extension lengths of guide members above, and attached to, a vertical member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718