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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (US 8349085) in view of Hama et al. (US 5525159), Hao et al. (US 20020100555), and Ha et al. (US 20090165722), with Tanaka (US 20050051520), An et al. (US 20090258142), and Morishima et al. (US 20190108984) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Tahara teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (case-like external chamber 13) comprising a chamber body (body of chamber 13) which has an opened upper portion, in which an installation groove (enclosure base 18) is defined at a central side of a bottom surface thereof, and which comprises a gate (port 15) for loading/unloading a substrate is disposed at one side thereof and a top lid (top lid of chamber 13) coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define a sealed inner space (space ES); a substrate support (stage heater 17, including pusher pins 21) installed to be inserted into the installation groove of the chamber body in a shape corresponding to the installation groove, and having a top surface (the pusher pins 21 support the wafer W from the back surface) on which the substrate is seated; an inner lid (enclosure 19) 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 (enclosure 19 is vertically moved by rod 20 to abut the enclosure base 18 to define a space IS) to divide the sealed inner space into a sealed processing space (space IS), in which the substrate support is disposed, and other non-processing space (space ES); a first pressure adjusting part (process-gas supply unit 23 and process-gas exhaust unit 24) communicating with the processing space to adjust a pressure of the processing space (process-gas supply unit 23 can supply a process gas into the space IS and can therefore change the pressure within the space IS); and an inner lid driving part (rod 20) installed so as to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part (enclosure 19 is vertically moved by rod 20); wherein the chamber body is configured such that the gate for loading/unloading the substrate is exposed to the non-processing space in a state in which the inner lid part descends (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the port 15 is communication with the space ES even when the enclosure 19 is in a closed position) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 4 lines 20-62].
Tahara does not specifically disclose a second pressure adjusting part communicating with the non-processing space to adjust a pressure of the non-processing space independently of the processing space; and a controller configured to control the pressure adjusting of the processing space and the non-processing space through the first pressure adjusting part and the second pressure adjusting part.
Hama teaches a second pressure adjusting part (pump 138, exhaust opening 136, and head 122; the pump 138 is fluidly connected to the upper chamber 18) communicating with the non-processing space to adjust a pressure of the non-processing space independently of the processing space (the controller 142 controls the amount of gases exhausted by the exhaust pump 138) [Fig. 1 & Col. 7 lines 9-17]; and a controller (pressure controller 142) configured to control the pressure adjusting of the processing space and the non-processing space through the first pressure adjusting part and the second pressure adjusting part (the pump 138 of the upper chamber 18 and those of the process chamber 16 are connected to a pressure controller 142) [Fig. 1 & Col. 7 lines 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tahara to include pressure adjusting parts for an upper chamber, as in Hama, to help ensure the pressure difference between chambers stay within a predetermined range, thereby preventing a large load being applied on lids separating the chamber [Hama - Col. 7 lines 9-16, Col. 8 lines 10-17].
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose and an inner lid driving part installed to pass through a top surface of the process chamber so as to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part, wherein the inner lid driving part comprises: a plurality of driving rods, one end of each of which passes through the top surface of the process chamber and is coupled to the inner lid part; at least one driving source connected to the other ends of the plurality of driving rods and configured to drive the driving rods in a vertical direction.
Hao teaches and an inner lid driving part installed to pass through a top surface of the process chamber so as to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part, wherein the inner lid driving part comprises: a plurality of driving rods (positioning members 812 and 810), one end of each of which passes through the top surface of the process chamber and is coupled to the inner lid part (confinement ring 130 and upper electrode 104); at least one driving source (motor 161) connected to the other ends of the plurality of driving rods and configured to drive the driving rods in a vertical direction (the motor 161 can move the positioning members 812 to vertically move the upper electrode 104 and confinement ring 130) [Fig. 2, 6 & 0058, 0062, 0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Tahara to include a plurality of rods, as in Hao, to provide finer control over vertical positioning [Hao - 0009, 0025, 0067].
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose bellows installed to surround the driving rods between the top surface of the process chamber and the inner lid part.
Ha teaches and bellows (bellows 146) installed to surround the driving rods (screws 144) between the top surface of the process chamber and the inner lid part [Fig. 3 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rods of Modified Tahara to include bellows, as in Ha, to maintain airtightness [Ha - 0024]. It is also noted that bellows can help protect lifting arrangements from too much force, as disclosed by Tanaka (US 20050051520) [Tanaka - 0062]. Furthermore, bellows covering lifting mechanisms is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by An et al. (US 20090258142) and Morishima et al. (US 20190108984) [An - 0030; Morishima - 0041].
Regarding Claim 2:
Tahara teaches wherein the first pressure adjusting part comprises: a first gas supply part (process-gas supply unit 23) configured to supply the process gas to the processing space; and a first gas exhaust part (process-gas exhaust unit 24) configured to exhaust the processing space [Fig. 1 & Col. 40-50].
Tahara does not specifically disclose the second pressure adjusting part comprises: a second gas exhaust part connected to a gas exhaust hole defined in one surface of the process chamber to exhaust the non-processing space; and a second gas supply part connected to a gas supply hole defined in the other surface of the process chamber to communicate with the non-processing space so as to supply a filling gas to the non-processing space.
Hama teaches and the second pressure adjusting part comprises: a second gas exhaust part (pump 138) connected to a gas exhaust hole (exhaust opening 136) defined in one surface of the process chamber to exhaust the non-processing space (the upper chamber 18 can be made vacuum via exhaust opening 136 and exhaust pump 138) [Fig. 1 & Col. 7 lines 9-13]; and a second gas supply part (head 122) connected to a gas supply hole defined in the other surface of the process chamber to communicate with the non-processing space so as to supply a filling gas to the non-processing space (head 122 can supply a gas to upper chamber 18) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 63-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tahara to include pressure adjusting parts for an upper chamber, as in Hama, to help ensure the pressure difference between chambers stay within a predetermined range, thereby preventing a large load being applied on lids separating the chamber [Hama - Col. 7 lines 9-16, Col. 8 lines 10-17].
Regarding Claim 6:
Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller maintains the pressure of the non-processing space to a vacuum pressure while the substrate processing is performed through the second pressure adjusting part.
Hama teaches wherein the controller maintains the pressure of the non-processing space to a vacuum pressure while the substrate processing is performed through the second pressure adjusting part (the upper chamber 18 is made vacuum by the pump 138) [Fig. 1 & Col. 7 lines 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tahara to include pressure adjusting parts for an upper chamber, as in Hama, to help ensure the pressure difference between chambers stay within a predetermined range, thereby preventing a large load being applied on lids separating the chamber [Hama - Col. 7 lines 9-16, Col. 8 lines 10-17].
Regarding Claim 7:
Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller maintains the pressure of the non-processing space to a pressure lower than that of the processing space while the substrate processing is performed through the second pressure adjusting part.
Hama teaches wherein the controller maintains the pressure of the non-processing space to a pressure lower than that of the processing space while the substrate processing is performed through the second pressure adjusting part (the upper chamber 18 is made vacuum by the pump 138, whilst the pressure of the lower chamber is set to pressures between 0.001 Torr and 0.0001 Torr) [Fig. 1 & Col. 7 lines 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tahara to include pressure adjusting parts for an upper chamber, as in Hama, to help ensure the pressure difference between chambers stay within a predetermined range, thereby preventing a large load being applied on lids separating the chamber [Hama - Col. 7 lines 9-16, Col. 8 lines 10-17].
Regarding Claim 9:
Tahara teaches wherein the first pressure adjusting part comprises a first gas supply part (process-gas supply unit 23) installed to communicate with the processing space so as to supply the process gas to the processing space and installed adjacent to an edge of the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the process-gas supply unit 23 is disposed adjacent to the stage heater 17) [Fig. 1 & Col. 40-50].
Regarding Claim 10:
Tahara teaches wherein the first pressure adjusting part comprises a first gas supply part (process-gas supply unit 23) installed to communicate with the processing space so as to supply the process gas to the processing space, and the first gas supply part comprises: a gas injection part (gas supply hole 23c) installed on an edge of the installation groove to inject the process gas (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the process gas supply hole 23c is installed on an edge of enclosure base 18); and a gas supply passage provided to pass through a bottom surface of the process chamber so as to supply the process gas to the gas injection part from the outside (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the gas supply hole 23c passes through a bottom surface of the chamber 13) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 51-60].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (US 8349085) in view of Hama et al. (US 5525159), Hao et al. (US 20020100555), and Ha et al. (US 20090165722), with Tanaka (US 20050051520), An et al. (US 20090258142), and Morishima et al. (US 20190108984) as evidentiary references, and further in view of Yagi et al. (US 6074202).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller supplies a purge gas through the first gas supply part and exhaust the purge gas through the second gas exhaust part in a state in which the inner lid part ascends to allow the processing space and the non-processing space to communicate with each other.
In summary, Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose flowing a purge gas through two chambers while they are in fluid communication with each other. Yagi teaches flowing a purge gas through two chambers while they are in fluid communication with each other (both the lad-lock chamber 3 and the transfer chamber 3 are purged by nitrogen) [Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 22-33, Col. 5 lines 1-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Modified Tahara to include instructions for flowing a purge gas through two chambers while they are in fluid communication, as in Yagi, to prevent particle contamination [Yagi - Col. 2 lines 22-33, Col. 5 lines 1-12].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller controls, before the inner lid part ascends, at least one of the first pressure adjusting part or the second pressure adjusting part so that the pressures of the processing space and the non-processing space are the same.
In summary, Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose setting the pressures of two chambers to be the same prior to opening a partition between them, Yagi teaches setting the pressures of two chambers to be the same prior to opening a partition between them (before the gate valves are opened, the chambers are set so that the pressures are the same) [Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 12-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Modified Tahara to include instructions for flowing a purge gas through two chambers while they are in fluid communication, as in Yagi, to prevent particle contamination [Yagi - Col. 2 lines 22-33, Col. 5 lines 1-12].
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (US 8349085) in view of Hama et al. (US 5525159), Hao et al. (US 20020100555), and Ha et al. (US 20090165722), with Tanaka (US 20050051520), An et al. (US 20090258142), and Morishima et al. (US 20190108984) as evidentiary references, and further in view of Devine et al. (US 20090325386).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller changes the pressure of the processing space, in which the substrate is seated to perform the substrate processing, between a first pressure higher than a normal pressure and a second pressure lower than the normal pressure through the first pressure adjusting part.
Devine teaches wherein the controller changes the pressure of the processing space, in which the substrate is seated to perform the substrate processing, between a first pressure higher than a normal pressure and a second pressure lower than the normal pressure through the first pressure adjusting part (as evidenced by Fig. 9, pressure in the processing region repeatedly cycles between a normal pressure, a first pressure higher than the normal pressure, and a second pressure lower than the normal pressure) [Fig. 9 & 0073-0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Tahara to include a conductance valve with instructions to cycle between pressures, as in Devine, since the pressure variations can improve the exchange of gas required for processes to occur [Devine - 0075].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Tahara does not specifically disclose wherein the controller sequentially and repeatedly changes the pressure of the processing space several times from the first pressure to the second pressure and then to first pressure through the first pressure adjusting part so as to perform the substrate processing.
Devine teaches wherein the controller sequentially and repeatedly changes the pressure of the processing space several times from the first pressure to the second pressure and then to first pressure through the first pressure adjusting part so as to perform the substrate processing (as evidenced by Fig. 9, pressure in the processing region repeatedly cycles between a normal pressure, a first pressure higher than the normal pressure, and a second pressure lower than the normal pressure) [Fig. 9 & 0073-0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Tahara to include a conductance valve with instructions to cycle between pressures, as in Devine, since the pressure variations can improve the exchange of gas required for processes to occur [Devine - 0075].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Tahara et al. (US 8349085), Hao et al. (US 20020100555), Ha et al. (US 20090165722), Tanaka (US 20050051520), An et al. (US 20090258142), Morishima et al. (US 20190108984), Yagi et al. (US 6074202), and Devine et al. (US 20090325386) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights