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 Amendment
The amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending.
Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended.
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumoto (US 20140227883 A1) in view of Toshima (JP 2011009299 A), Juergensen (US 20090178620 A1), Hayashi (US 20100043975 A1), Tzu (US 20150075432 A1), and Kudoh (US 20110308464 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Izumoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Izumoto, Fig. 1, substrate processing apparatus 1) comprising:
a process chamber comprising a chamber body which has an opened upper portion (Izumoto, Fig. 1, [0030], base part 213 and chamber sidewall 214 are enclosed with an open upper portion disposed above), in which an installation groove is defined at a central side of a bottom surface thereof (Izumoto, Fig. 1, [0030], inner chamber sidewall 212, base part 213, and chamber sidewall 214 define an installation groove at the bottom center of the apparatus 1), and
an inner lid part which is installed to be vertically movable in the inner space and of which a portion is in close contact with the bottom surface adjacent to the installation groove through descending to divide the inner space into a sealed processing space in which the substrate support is disposed and a sealed non-processing space, which is the remaining space excluding the processing space (Izumoto, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, [0031], chamber cover 122 moves down vertically to contact upper portion of chamber sidewall 214, creating an inner sealed space 120 where the substrate is disposed, and the areas outside this sealed space are enclosed by cover 17 and base part 213); and
a driving source connected to the other end of each of the plurality of driving rods to drive the driving rods vertically (Izumoto, Fig. 1, [0032], open and closing mechanism 131 drives the cover 122 to move up and down vertically).
Izumoto fails to teach a gate configured to load/unload a substrate is disposed at one side thereof, and a top lid coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define a sealed inner space;
a substrate support installed to be inserted into the installation groove of the chamber body and having a top surface on which the substrate is seated;
an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part, and wherein the inner lid driving part comprises: a plurality of driving rods, each of which one end passes through the top surface of the process chamber and is coupled to the inner lid part;
a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support, the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space;
a bellows installed to surround the driving rod between the top surface of the process chamber the inner lid part; and
a substrate support pin part configured to support the substrate loaded into and unloaded from the process chamber and seated on the substrate support; wherein the support pin part comprises: a plurality of substrate support pins passing through the substrate support to move vertically, thereby supporting the substrate; an annular substrate support ring installed in a support pin installation groove formed in the installation groove, the annular substrate support ring having the plurality of substrate support pins installed thereon; and a substrate support pin driving part that drives the plurality of substrate support pins vertically.
However, Toshima teaches a substrate support installed to be inserted into the installation groove of the chamber body and having a top surface on which the substrate is seated (Toshima, Figs. 6 & 10, [0025]-[0026], recess 210 is formed in bottom surface of lower chamber 21, into which cooling plate 31 sits, and wafer W sits on cooling plate 31).
Toshima is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the substrate support and magnetic rotational motors of Izumoto with the lower chamber assembly and rotational cooling plate of Toshima as doing so would provide for the same functionality while reducing dead processing space volume within the sealed processing space, allowing for the capability of high-pressure processing (Toshima, [0068]).
Modified Izumoto fails to teach a gate configured to load/unload a substrate is disposed at one side thereof, and a top lid coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define a sealed inner space;
an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part, and wherein the inner lid driving part comprises: a plurality of driving rods, each of which one end passes through the top surface of the process chamber and is coupled to the inner lid part;
a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support, the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space;
a bellows installed to surround the driving rod between the top surface of the process chamber the inner lid part; and
a substrate support pin part configured to support the substrate loaded into and unloaded from the process chamber and seated on the substrate support; wherein the support pin part comprises: a plurality of substrate support pins passing through the substrate support to move vertically, thereby supporting the substrate; an annular substrate support ring installed in a support pin installation groove formed in the installation groove, the annular substrate support ring having the plurality of substrate support pins installed thereon; and a substrate support pin driving part that drives the plurality of substrate support pins vertically.
However, Jurgensen teaches a top lid coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define a sealed inner space (Juergensen, Fig. 3, [0023], space defined by housing cover 1 and housing wall 2); an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part (Juergensen, Fig. 3, [0023], threaded spindle 22 is mounted through housing cover 1 and moves pressure ring 23), and wherein the inner lid driving part comprises: a plurality of driving rods, each of which one end passes through the top surface of the process chamber and is coupled to the inner lid part (Juergensen, Fig. 3, [0023], threaded spindle 22 are provided in plural, and are mounted through housing cover 1 to move pressure ring 23).
Juergensen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the drive mechanism of Izumoto to incorporate the top lid drive mechanism arrangement of Juergensen as doing so would allow for height of the internal chamber to be varied during processing, or after the reactor housing has been closed (Juergensen, [0024]).
Modified Izumoto fails to teach a gate configured to load/unload a substrate is disposed at one side thereof, and
a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support, the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space; and
a bellows installed to surround the driving rod between the top surface of the process chamber the inner lid part; and
a substrate support pin part configured to support the substrate loaded into and unloaded from the process chamber and seated on the substrate support; wherein the support pin part comprises: a plurality of substrate support pins passing through the substrate support to move vertically, thereby supporting the substrate; an annular substrate support ring installed in a support pin installation groove formed in the installation groove, the annular substrate support ring having the plurality of substrate support pins installed thereon; and a substrate support pin driving part that drives the plurality of substrate support pins vertically.
However, Hayashi teaches a bellows installed to surround the driving rod between the top surface of the process chamber the inner lid part (Hayashi, Fig. 1, [0036], bellows 31, installed between top surface of process chamber 13 and movable cooling plate 25, covers moving shaft 26).
Hayashi is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have provided a bellows in the manner of Hayashi to the apparatus of modified Izumoto as doing so would seal off the inside of the chamber from outside contaminants, maintaining the chamber under a clean atmosphere (Hayashi, [0056]).
Modified Izumoto fails to teach a gate configured to load/unload a substrate is disposed at one side thereof,
a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support, the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space; and
a substrate support pin part configured to support the substrate loaded into and unloaded from the process chamber and seated on the substrate support; wherein the support pin part comprises: a plurality of substrate support pins passing through the substrate support to move vertically, thereby supporting the substrate; an annular substrate support ring installed in a support pin installation groove formed in the installation groove, the annular substrate support ring having the plurality of substrate support pins installed thereon; and a substrate support pin driving part that drives the plurality of substrate support pins vertically.
However, Tzu teaches a gate configured to load/unload a substrate is disposed at one side thereof (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0019], slit valve 108 in wall 104 of chamber body 106 facilitates entry and egress of a substrate into and out of the process chamber 100), a substrate support pin part configured to support the substrate loaded into and unloaded from the process chamber and seated on the substrate support (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0023], pin lift mechanism supports substrate 120, where pin lift hoop 116 is enclosed in lift hoop opening 117 by cover plate 150); wherein the support pin part comprises: a plurality of substrate support pins passing through the substrate support to move vertically, thereby supporting the substrate (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0023], pins 122 penetrate support 112 through pin openings 113 and are raised and lowered); an annular substrate support ring installed in a support pin installation groove formed in the installation groove (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0023], pin lift hoop 116 is disposed in pin lift hoop opening 117), the annular substrate support ring having the plurality of substrate support pins installed thereon (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0023], pins 122 are installed on pin lift hoop 116); and a substrate support pin driving part that drives the plurality of substrate support pins vertically (Tzu, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0023], pin lift hoop 116 having pins 122 installed thereon are raised and lowered by lift motor 118).
Tzu is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the slot valve of Tzu into the apparatus of modified Izumoto as doing so would allow for substrates to be transferred into/out of the processing chamber without having to open the top lid of Izumoto, thus preventing exposure of the processing space to atmosphere. As well, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the lower chamber assembly and substrate support of Toshima to remove the central wafer holding part and incorporate the pin lift mechanism as taught by Tzu as doing so would provide alignment features (Tzu, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B [0021]-[0024], alignment feature 164 of cover plate 150 aligns pin lift holes 320 with pins 122) ensuring that the lift pins are lined up prior to entry into the lift pin holes 113 in support 112 and lift the substrate, whereas the central wafer holding part of Toshima lacks such features.
Modified Izumoto fails to teach a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support, the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space.
However, Kudoh teaches a gas supply part installed adjacent to the substrate support between a contact position between the inner lid part and the bottom surface and an edge of the substrate support (Kudoh, Figs. 3A and 4, [0052]-[0053], gas supply passage 71 is adjacent to edge of mounting board 4 and container main body 2 and movable cover body 3, providing gas to spaces L1 and L2), the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space (Kudoh, Figs. 3A and 4, [0050]-[0053], gas supply passage 71 is in communication with gas supply chamber 72 and gas supply pipe 73 via bottom of container main body 2, where gas supply pipe 73 is in communication with supply source 63).
Kudoh is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space” 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 apparatus of Kudoh has a gas supply passage in communication with an external gas supply source where the gas supply passage is in communication with the processing space, and where a control unit is in communication with valves capable of controlling gas line. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the bottom surface is disposed higher than a top surface of the substrate support.
However, Toshima teaches wherein the bottom surface is disposed higher than a top surface of the substrate support (Toshima, Fig. 10, [0026], top of lower chamber 21 is higher than wafer W sitting on cooling plate 31).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the substrate support and magnetic rotational motors of Izumoto with the lower chamber assembly and rotational cooling plate of Toshima as doing so would provide for the same functionality while reducing dead processing space volume within the sealed processing space, allowing for the capability of high-pressure processing (Toshima, [0068]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the installation groove is provided in a shape corresponding to the substrate support installed so that the processing space is minimized.
However, Toshima teaches wherein the installation groove is provided in a shape corresponding to the substrate support installed so that the processing space is minimized (Toshima, Fig. 2, [0025]-[0026], recess 210 is formed in bottom surface of lower chamber 21, into which cooling plate 31 and drive mechanism 33 sit).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the substrate support and magnetic rotational motors of Izumoto with the lower chamber assembly and rotational cooling plate of Toshima as doing so would provide for the same functionality while reducing dead processing space volume within the sealed processing space, allowing for the capability of high-pressure processing (Toshima, [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the substrate support comprises: a substrate support plate which has a planar circular shape and on which the substrate is seated on the top surface thereof; and a substrate support post passing through a bottom surface of the installation groove so as to be connected to the substrate support plate, wherein the installation groove has a shape corresponding to the substrate support plate to minimize a remaining space except for a space in which the substrate support plate is installed.
However, Toshima teaches wherein the substrate support comprises: a substrate support plate which has a planar circular shape and on which the substrate is seated on the top surface thereof (Toshima, Fig. 2, [0026], wafer W sits on disc-shaped cooling plate 31); and a substrate support post passing through a bottom surface of the installation groove so as to be connected to the substrate support plate (Toshima, Fig. 2, [0027], elevating bar 32), wherein the installation groove has a shape corresponding to the substrate support plate to minimize a remaining space except for a space in which the substrate support plate is installed (Toshima, Fig. 2, [0025]-[0026], recess 210 is formed in bottom surface of lower chamber 21, into which cooling plate sits).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the substrate support and magnetic rotational motors of Izumoto with the lower chamber assembly and rotational cooling plate of Toshima as doing so would provide for the same functionality while reducing dead processing space volume within the sealed processing space, allowing for the capability of high-pressure processing (Toshima, [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Izumoto teaches wherein the processing space is defined between a portion of the bottom surface of the inner lid part and the top surface (Izumoto, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, [0031], chamber cover 122 moves down vertically to contact upper portion of chamber sidewall 214, creating an inner sealed space 120 where the substrate is disposed, and the areas outside this sealed space are enclosed by cover 17 and base part 213).
Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas supply part is connected to the substrate support.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas supply part is connected to the substrate support (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0052]-[0053], gas supply passage 71 is adjacent to mounting board 4, providing gas to spaces L1 and L2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas supply part comprises: a gas injection part defining a first diffusion space in which the process gas is diffused; and a plurality of gas injection holes defined in the gas injection part to inject the process gas to the processing space.
However, Kudo teaches wherein the gas supply part comprises: a gas injection part defining a first diffusion space in which the process gas is diffused (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050], gas supply chamber 72); and a plurality of gas injection holes defined in the gas injection part to inject the process gas to the processing space (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050], gas supply chamber 72 has multiple gas supply passages 71).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas injection part is provided in an annular shape to be installed along an edge of the substrate support.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas injection part is provided in an annular shape to be installed along an edge of the substrate support (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050], multiple gas supply passages 71 are formed to be annularly around mounting board 4)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the process chamber comprises a supply passage provided to pass through the bottom surface so as to communicate with the first diffusion space and configured to transfer the process gas to the first diffusion space from outside, and the gas injection part comprises a first diffusion groove for the first diffusion space in a bottom surface thereof to communicate with the supply passage.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the process chamber comprises a supply passage provided to pass through the bottom surface so as to communicate with the first diffusion space and configured to transfer the process gas to the first diffusion space from outside (Kudoh, Fig. 4, gas supply pipe 73 connects to gas supply chamber 72), and the gas injection part comprises a first diffusion groove for the first diffusion space in a bottom surface (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050], gas supply chamber 72) thereof to communicate with the supply passage.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas injection holes are defined in a top surface of the gas injection part.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas injection holes are defined in a top surface of the gas injection part (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050], multiple gas supply passages 71 are on the top surface of gas supply chamber 72).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Izumoto fails to teach a gas diffusion part that is disposed between the gas supply part and the process chamber to diffuse the process gas transferred to the gas supply part by providing a second diffusion space.
However, Kudoh teaches a gas diffusion part that is disposed between the gas supply part and the process chamber to diffuse the process gas transferred to the gas supply part by providing a second diffusion space (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0052], buffer chamber 7 is disposed between gas supply chamber 72 and the process area L1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to diffuse the process gas“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Incorporating the buffer chamber of Kudoh into the apparatus of Izumoto allows an enclosed volume for gas from the gas supply part to diffuse within the space before entering the process chamber. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas diffusion part comprises a second diffusion groove defined in a bottom surface of the gas diffusion part to define the second diffusion space together with the process chamber.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas diffusion part comprises a second diffusion groove defined in a bottom surface of the gas diffusion part to define the second diffusion space together with the process chamber (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0052], buffer chamber 7 is disposed in the lower surface of side wall chamber part 21).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the gas injection part is installed on the top surface of the gas diffusion part to define the first diffusion space together with the top surface of the gas diffusion part, and the gas diffusion part comprises at least one gas transfer hole defined in the top surface to transfer the process gas from the second diffusion space to the first diffusion space.
However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas injection part is installed on the top surface of the gas diffusion part to define the first diffusion space together with the top surface of the gas diffusion part (Kudoh, Fig. 4, buffer chamber 7 is above gas supply chamber 72), and the gas diffusion part comprises at least one gas transfer hole defined in the top surface to transfer the process gas from the second diffusion space to the first diffusion space (Kudoh, gas transfers from gas supply chamber 72 to buffer chamber space 7 via gas supply passage 71).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumoto (US 20140227883 A1) in view of Toshima (JP 2011009299 A), Juergensen (US 20090178620 A1), Hayashi (US 20100043975 A1), Tzu (US 20150075432 A1), and Kudoh (US 20110308464 A1), as applied in claims 1-4 and 6-13, and further in view of Toyoda (US 20170159181 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-13 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Izumoto fails to teach a temperature adjusting part installed in the inner lid part to adjust a temperature of the substrate disposed in the processing space.
However, Toyoda teaches a temperature adjusting part installed in the inner lid part (Toyoda, Fig. 1, [0040], heater 271 is installed in rectifying part 271) to adjust a temperature of the substrate disposed in the processing space.
Toyoda is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature (Toyoda, [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to adjust a temperature of the substrate disposed in the processing space“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Incorporating the rectifying part of Toyoda into the apparatus of Izumoto enables the capability to adjust the temperature of the substrate in the processing space by utilizing the embedded heater to selectively heat the space. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 15, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the substrate support comprises: a substrate support plate on which the substrate is seated on a top surface; a substrate support post passing through the bottom of the installation groove so as to be connected to the substrate support plate; and an internal heater installed inside the substrate support plate.
However, Toshima teaches a substrate support plate on which the substrate is seated on a top surface (Toshima, Fig. 12, [0026], wafer W sits on cooling plate 31, in recess 210); a substrate support post passing through the bottom of the installation groove so as to be connected to the substrate support plate (Toshima, Fig. 2, [0027], elevating bar 32).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the substrate support and magnetic rotational motors of Izumoto with the lower chamber assembly and rotational cooling plate of Toshima as doing so would provide for the same functionality while reducing dead processing space volume within the sealed processing space, allowing for the capability of high-pressure processing (Toshima, [0068]).
Modified Izumoto fails to teach an internal heater installed inside the substrate support plate.
However, Toyoda teaches an internal heater installed inside the substrate support plate (Toyoda, Fig. 1, [0040], heater 213 in substrate mounting table 212).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the substrate heater of Toyoda as doing so makes it possible to heat the substrate and to improve the quality of a film formed on the substrate (Toyoda, [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the temperature adjusting part comprises: a temperature adjusting plate installed in the inner lid part to heat or cool the substrate; and a rod part passing through the top lid so as to be coupled to the temperature adjusting plate.
However, Toyoda teaches wherein the temperature adjusting part comprises: a temperature adjusting plate installed in the inner lid part to heat or cool the substrate (Toyoda, Fig. 1, [0040] heater 271 is installed in rectifying part 271); and a rod part passing through the top lid so as to be coupled to the temperature adjusting plate (Toyoda, Fig 1, [0062], pipe 242 is connected to rectifying heater part 270).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature (Toyoda, [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Izumoto fails to teach herein the temperature adjusting plate is installed in a through-hole defined at a central side of the inner lid part corresponding to the substrate.
However, Toyoda teaches wherein the temperature adjusting plate is installed in a through-hole defined at a central side of the inner lid part corresponding to the substrate (Toyoda, Fig. 1, rectifying part 270 is installed in cut out buffer space area 232 in showerhead 234a).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature (Toyoda, [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the temperature adjusting part further comprises a buffer plate configured to cover the through-hole at a lower side of the inner lid part.
However, Toyoda teaches wherein the temperature adjusting part further comprises a buffer plate configured to cover the through-hole at a lower side of the inner lid part (Toyoda, Fig. 1, [0039], distribution plate 234a, made of quartz, covers buffer space 232 at the lower side).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature (Toyoda, [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Izumoto fails to teach wherein the temperature adjusting plate comprises at least two temperature adjusting areas, which are separated from each other on a plane and are independently adjustable in temperature with respect to each other.
However, Toyoda teaches wherein the temperature adjusting plate comprises at least two temperature adjusting areas, which are separated from each other on a plane and are independently adjustable in temperature with respect to each other (Toyoda, Fig. 2, [0041], heater 271 has heating zones 271a – 271c, which are independently adjustable).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature (Toyoda, [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Izumoto fails to teach a controller configured to control the heating or cooling of the temperature adjusting part, wherein the controller controls the temperature adjusting part so that the temperature of the substrate or the processing space is constantly maintained while a pressure of the processing space is changed.
However, Toyoda teaches a controller configured to control the heating or cooling of the temperature adjusting part (Toyoda, Fig. 5, controller 260 controls heaters 271a – 271c based on inputs), wherein the controller controls the temperature adjusting part so that the temperature of the substrate or the processing space is constantly maintained while a pressure of the processing space is changed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the rectifying heater part and controller of Toyoda as the multiple zone heaters of Toyoda would allow for improved control of the wafer temperature in response to changing process conditions (Toyoda, [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “controls the temperature adjusting part so that the temperature of the substrate or the processing space is constantly maintained while a pressure of the processing space is changed” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Modified Izumoto comprises a heating means (Toyoda, rectifying heater 271) and a pumping means (Toyoda, vacuum pump 223) controlled by a controller (Toyoda, controller 260, Fig. 5), thus contains all necessary elements needed to perform the intended use. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 02/02/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kudoh, teach the claim limitations “the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. Specifically, that “Kudoh neither provides a configuration for supplying purge gas into the processing space…” and that if Kudoh is applied “only a ‘gas passage’ for the purpose of buffering/blocking for the processing gas to remain in the processing space is presented at the side, that is, at the edge of the substrate support section, and it would be difficult to derive a configuration of a gas supply part (400) that supplies gas to the processing space at a position adjacent to the substrate support (200) as in the presently claimed invention”.
The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. As mentioned in the Rejections section above, the limitation “the gas supply part being configured to supply, to the processing space, a process gas transferred from outside through a gas supply passage formed to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to communicate with the processing space” 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 does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The apparatus of Kudoh teaches a gas passage 71 formed in a vertical direction through the sidewall part 21, which is adjacent to, and in communication with, the processing space where mounting board 4 holds the substrate (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0050]-[0053). Similar to the instant invention, the outlet of gas passage 71 sits higher than the plane of mounting board 4 and is adjacent to the processing space. The gas passage is in communication with an external gas supply source and a control unit is in communication with valves disposed between the gas source and gas line, thereby being capable of meeting the structural limitations of the claim as currently written.
In the Applicant’s reply, the applicant asserts that the combination of references Izumoto with Toshima differ from “…the presently claimed invention's requirement of a radially outward sealing surface on the bottom surface (120) and the resulting sealed processing space (S2) in terms of the contact surface/sealing formation method” because Izumoto’s sealing is based on upper cover/sidewall contact. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. Claim 1 recites the limitation “an inner lid part which is installed to be vertically movable in the inner space and of which a portion is in close contact with the bottom surface adjacent to the installation groove through descending to divide the inner space into a sealed processing space in which the substrate support is disposed and a sealed non-processing space, which is the remaining space excluding the processing space”. Izumoto teaches wherein chamber cover 122 moves down vertically to contact upper portion of chamber sidewall 214, creating an inner sealed space 120 via contact of the bottom surface of cover 122 and top surface of chamber sidewall 214 and seal 231, and where chamber body 121 includes chamber sidewall 214, center portion 211, inner sidewall 212, and base part 213 which hold the substrate support 141 (Izumoto, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, [0030]-[0031]). Toshima teaches wherein the lower surface of inner chamber 22 is in close contact with the upper surface of the bottom plate portion via O-ring 216 (Toshima, [0033]). Therefore, when substituting the lower chamber assembly of Toshima with the chamber assembly of Izumoto, one would maintain the associated contact surface wherein the top lid creates a seal with the bottom chamber assembly via a seal member.
In the Applicant’s reply, the Applicant asserts that “…the combination of the references is unreasonable since Toshima has a configuration that supplies gas from the top, and the aforementioned Kudoh also has a configuration that supplies process gas to the processing space from the top. Therefore, there is a difference in that even with these combinations, only a configuration that supplies gas to the processing space from the top is derived, which is inherently different from the claimed invention that supplies gas from the bottom”. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. One would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Izumoto to incorporate the gas supply parts of Kudoh as doing so would enable a gas to be supplied to the edges of the wafer in addition to the center, potentially improving in-plane uniformity (Kudoh, [0075]). Regarding the distinction of “supplying process gas” or a specific process gas, the claims as currently written would still be considered as intended use and the apparatus of Kudoh is capable of meeting the limitations of the claim, as detailed 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 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
Prosecution Insights