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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 19, and 20 have been amended, claims 9-15 have been canceled, and claims 21-24 have been newly added. Applicant's amendments to the claims are acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 16-24 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I and Sub-species I (Figs. 1-4) in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Newly added claim 21, which depends from previously withdrawn claim 19, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, and election having been made without traverse in the amendment filed on 11/11/2025. Accordingly, claims 19-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Newly added claims 22-24, which depend from claim 1, are directed to the elected Species I and Sub-species I (Figs. 1-4) and are therefore examined herein.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 16-18 and 22-24 have been fully considered in examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments on pages 7-12, Ushikawa (US5378283A) teaches recovering, cleaning, and re-supplying the discharged inert gas to reduce inert gas consumption (Fig. 1, gas circulating cleaning system 40, gas cleaning filter 43, gas return pipe 44), but returns the cleaned inert gas to the load lock chamber 11 rather than to the processing chamber. Yamagishi (US7021881B2) cures this deficiency, teaching that an inert gas supplied to the transfer chamber is flowed from the transfer chamber into the reaction (processing) chamber in which the substrate is processed, to reduce gas consumption (Yamagishi, claims 3, 10; Summary).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 24, the term “a reactant gas different the source gas” is grammatically incomplete and render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how the reactant gas relates to the source gas. For examination purposes, the term is interpreted as “a reactant gas different from the source gas.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushikawa (US5378283A), and further in view of Yamagishi (US7021881B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, treating device of a closed system structure) comprising:
at least one processing chamber in which a substrate is processed (process tube 1 serving as a treatment chamber, in which semiconductor wafers W are subjected to a required treatment);
a processing gas supplier connected to the at least one processing chamber and configured to supply a processing gas to the at least one processing chamber (gas feed pipe 5, through which fresh treatment gases are fed into the process tube 1);
a transfer chamber communicable with the at least one processing chamber (robot chamber 25 and/or cassette chamber 27, communicable with the process tube 1 through the load lock chamber 11 and gate valve 14);
a first inert gas supplier configured to supply an inert gas to the transfer chamber (gas feed pipes 28 and/or 29, supplying N₂ gas to the robot chamber 25 and/or cassette chamber 27);
a first exhauster configured to discharge an atmosphere from the transfer chamber (exhaust pipes 30 and/or 31, branched exhaust pipes 33, 34, 35, valves, and vacuum pump 32, discharging the atmosphere from the respective chambers); and
a second inert gas supplier connected to the at least one processing chamber and configured to supply the inert gas discharged by the first exhauster to the at least one processing chamber (gas circulating cleaning system 40, which lets out the inert gas, removes impurities by the gas cleaning filter 43, and returns the cleaned inert gas via the gas return pipe 44; Ushikawa thus teaches a second inert gas supplier that recovers, cleans, and re-supplies the discharged inert gas so as to reduce the consumption amount of the inert gas, see Col. 2 and Abstract).
Ushikawa teaches recovering, cleaning, and re-supplying the discharged inert gas for the express purpose of reducing the consumption amount of the inert gas. However, Ushikawa does not expressly disclose that the recovered inert gas is supplied to the at least one processing chamber in which the substrate is processed; rather, Ushikawa returns the cleaned inert gas to the load lock chamber 11.
Yamagishi, in the same field of endeavor (semiconductor processing apparatus having a load lock chamber, a transfer chamber, and a reaction chamber that processes a substrate), teaches supplying an inert gas to the transfer chamber and flowing that inert gas from the transfer chamber into the reaction chamber (processing chamber) in which the substrate is processed (Yamagishi, claims 3, 10, 23-24; "introducing an inactive gas into the transfer chamber ... flowing the inactive gas from the transfer chamber to the reaction chamber during the wafer processing operation"). Yamagishi teaches this configuration in order to reduce gas consumption and to prevent reaction gas from flowing into the transfer chamber (Yamagishi, Summary; "reduce the volume of the reaction chambers to reduce gas consumption").
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Ushikawa to supply the recovered inert gas to the processing chamber, as taught by Yamagishi, because both references seek to reduce inert gas consumption in a substrate processing apparatus having a transfer chamber communicable with a processing chamber, and directing the recovered inert gas to the processing chamber, and doing so combines known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of reusing the inert gas. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a filter disposed downstream of the first exhauster, wherein the first exhauster communicates with the second inert gas supplier via the filter (Fig. 1, gas cleaning filter 43 having an entrance 43a connected to the gas outlet pipe 41, and a gas return pipe 44 connecting the exit of the filter 43, such that the let-out inert gas is cleaned by the filter and re-supplied).
Regarding claim 3, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches that the processing gas supplier is configured to alternately supply at least two types of processing gases that process the substrate in a state where there is a substrate in the at least one processing chamber (Col. 4, line 48 – Col. 5, line 6; depending on the kind of treatment, the treating device functions as a CVD apparatus, and treatment gases such as SiH₄, or NH₄ and SiH₂Cl₂ for silicon nitride film formation, are fed), and the second inert gas supplier is configured to supply the inert gas when the processing gases supplied to the at least one processing chamber from the processing gas supplier are discharged (gas circulating cleaning system 40 continuously cleans and recirculates the inert gas to maintain a high-purity inert gas ambient atmosphere during the treatment operations).
To the extent Ushikawa does not expressly disclose supplying the recovered inert gas to the at least one processing chamber, Yamagishi teaches flowing the inert gas from the transfer chamber into the reaction chamber in which the substrate is processed (Yamagishi, claims 3, 10), and it would have been obvious to combine the references for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a cleaning gas supplier connected to the at least one processing chamber and configured to supply a cleaning gas to the at least one processing chamber, wherein the cleaning gas is different from the inert gas (Col. 2, lines 48-56, N₂ gas is fed through the gas feed pipe 5 to purge the interior of the process tube 1; depending on the treatment, gases other than N₂ may be fed for cleaning/treatment), wherein the cleaning gas supplier is configured to supply the cleaning gas to the at least one processing chamber in a state where there is no substrate in the at least one processing chamber (Col. 2, line 62 – Col. 3, line 2, purging the process tube 1 in an unloading/no-substrate state), and the second inert gas supplier is configured to supply the inert gas to the at least one processing chamber in parallel with supplying of the cleaning gas to the at least one processing chamber by the cleaning gas supplier (Col. 3, lines 15-23, maintaining the recirculated inert gas atmosphere in parallel with chamber purging).
As applied to claim 1, Yamagishi teaches supplying the inert gas discharged from the transfer chamber to the processing chamber, and the combination is maintained for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second inert gas supplier comprises an inert gas supply pipe connected to the at least one processing chamber, and an inert gas replenisher, connected to the inert gas supply pipe, capable of replenishing the inert gas to the inert gas supply pipe (Fig. 1; the inert gas in the load lock chamber is repeatedly cleaned and recirculated by the gas circulating cleaning system 40, and Ushikawa teaches that gas feed pipes 12, 28, 29 supply make-up N₂ gas to maintain the ambient pressure, thereby replenishing the recirculated inert gas).
As applied to claim 1, Yamagishi teaches connection of such a supply pipe to the processing chamber, and the combination is maintained for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first exhauster comprises an inert gas exhaust pipe configured to discharge the inert gas (Fig. 1; gas outlet pipe 41 having one end connected to a lower portion of a side wall of the load lock chamber 11 and the other end connected to the entrance 43a, discharging the inert gas).
Regarding claim 22, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Ushikawa further teaches that loading and unloading of the wafer boat 6 into and out of the process tube 1 is conducted in an N₂ ambient atmosphere prior to the treatment (Col. 2). Yamagishi teaches supplying the inert gas to the processing (reaction) chamber during operation. The combination teaches that the second inert gas supplier is configured to supply inert gas to the at least one processing chamber during a substrate loading and heating step, which is a process prior to a treatment of the substrate in the at least one processing chamber, and it would have been obvious for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, in order to reuse the inert gas and reduce its consumption amount during the loading/heating step.
Regarding claim 23, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing gas supplier alternately supplies at least two types of processing gases that process the substrate in a state where the substrate is in the at least one processing chamber (Ushikawa, Col. 4, line 48 – Col. 5, line 6, alternate supply of treatment gases such as NH₄ and SiH₂Cl₂), and the second inert gas supplier supplies the inert gas while the supply of the at least two types of processing gases from the processing gas supplier is stopped (the recirculated inert gas of system 40 is supplied for purging when the processing gas supply is stopped; as combined with Yamagishi, supplied to the processing chamber).
It would have been obvious for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing gas supplier comprises a source gas supplier and a reactant gas supplier (Ushikawa, Col. 4, line 48 – Col. 5, line 6, teaches a CVD apparatus supplying SiH₂Cl₂ as a source gas and NH₄ as a reactant gas for silicon nitride film formation), the source gas supplier is configured to supply a source gas to the at least one processing chamber in a state where the substrate is in the at least one processing chamber, the reactant gas supplier is configured to supply a reactant gas different [from] the source gas to the at least one processing chamber in a state where the substrate is in the at least one processing chamber, and the second inert gas supplier supplies the inert gas to the at least one processing chamber between the supply of source gas and the supply of reactant gas (Ushikawa teaches purging with N₂ between gas supplies; as combined with Yamagishi, the recovered inert gas is supplied to the processing chamber between the alternately supplied processing gases).
It would have been obvious for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, in order to reuse the inert gas during the purge between source and reactant gas supply and thereby reduce its consumption amount.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushikawa (US5378283A) in view of Yamagishi (US7021881B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi (US20220316067A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ushikawa teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second inert gas supplier configured to supply the inert gas a pressure of the at least one processing chamber reaches a pressure for processing the substrate in the at least one processing chamber (Col. 2, line 48 - Col. 3, line 23, & Fig. 1, the supply and exhaust amounts of N2 purge gas are controlled by the pressure switch PS and controller 51 to maintain the N2 ambient pressure in each chamber at a suitable positive pressure, describing post-process chamber environment control).
But Ushikawa does not specify the second inert gas supplier configured to supply, before a substrate is processed, the inert gas until a pressure of the at least one processing chamber reaches a pressure for processing the substrate in the at least one processing chamber, or until the pressure of the at least one processing chamber reaches a pressure at which a substrate can be unloaded after the substrate is processed in the at least one processing chamber.
However, Wakabayashi teaches the inert gas supplier configured to supply, before a substrate is processed, the inert gas until a pressure of the at least one processing chamber reaches a pressure for processing the substrate in the at least one processing chamber, or until the pressure of the at least one processing chamber reaches a pressure at which a substrate can be unloaded after the substrate is processed in the at least one processing chamber (Para [0047-0049], step S11 describing the process of raising pressure and stabilizing substrate temperature before ALD film formation begins.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a treating device of the closed system structure in which semiconductor wafers of Ushikawa (US5378283A) and further integrating the substrate processing method and system disclosed by Wakabayashi (US20220316067A1). The combination of these familiar elements can reduce the amount of raw material and raw material container, as described in paragraph [0073] of Wakabayashi.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushikawa (US5378283A) in view of Yamagishi (US7021881B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US20040105738A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 respectively, but does not specify the at least one processing chamber comprises a plurality of processing chambers, wherein the second inert gas supplier is capable of supplying the inert gas to the plurality of processing chambers, configured to supply the inert gas to a processing chamber in operation, and configured not to supply the inert gas to a processing chamber not in operation.
However, Ahn teaches the at least one processing chamber comprises a plurality of processing chambers (Fig. 5, substrate processing section 102 provides a plurality of processing chambers 128a-128c),
wherein the second inert gas supplier is capable of supplying the inert gas to the plurality of processing chambers, configured to supply the inert gas to a processing chamber in operation, and configured not to supply the inert gas to a processing chamber not in operation (Para [0045-0046], describes contamination controlling system 130 including a gas supply inlet 132 and circulating tube for purging a substrate transfer chamber with an inert gas such as nitrogen, wherein the flow rate of the purge gas is controlled by a mas flow controller 136 and selectively delivered to the active chamber, as it would enable the implantation of selective inert as supply to maintain high-purity conditions only in the chamber in operation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a treating device of the closed system structure in which semiconductor wafers of Ushikawa (US5378283A) and further integrating the substrate processing apparatus and method of processing substrate while controlling for contamination in substrate transfer module disclosed by Ahn (US20040105738A1). The combination of these familiar elements can decrease the amount of the purging gas being supplied into the substrate transferring chamber 110 when the measured moisture concentration is lower than the allowable value set by the operator by the controller 144 controls the MFC 136, as described in paragraph [0066] of Ahn.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushikawa (US5378283A) in view of Yamagishi (US7021881B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US20060071184A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 respectively, but does not teach the first exhauster or the second inert gas supplier comprises a detector configured to detect a concentration of impurities.
However, Nakamura teaches the first exhauster or the second inert gas supplier comprises a detector configured to detect a concentration of impurities (Fig. 1, fist detector 220 and second detector 250).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a treating device of the closed system structure in which semiconductor wafers of Ushikawa (US5378283A) and further integrating the method for fabricating gas exposure system disclosed by Nakamura (US20060071184A1). The combination of these familiar elements can reduce cost incurred in exchanging optical elements and pipelines to which the impurities have adhered, as described in paragraph [0090] of Nakamura.
Regarding claim 17, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi and Nakamura teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second inert gas supplier does not supply the inert gas in a case where the concentration detected by the detector is a predetermined value or more (Para [0044], determines whether the impurity concentration sent from the first and second detector s 220 and 250 is permissible or equal to or less than a predetermined value, and switches the valves if it is impermissible.).
Regarding claim 18, Ushikawa in view of Yamagishi and Nakamura teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second inert gas supplier does not supply the inert gas in a case where the concentration detected by the detector is a predetermined value or more, and supplies the inert gas from an inert gas replenisher capable of replenishing the inert gas (0058], the second switch mechanism switching the channel to the different channel via when the shut-off valve shuts off the channel.).
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 JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at (571) 271-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JAHAE KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights