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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 1-14 and 16) in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (US 2019/0267216) in view of Hirochi et al (US 2019/0393056).
With respect to Claim 1, Kaneko et al (paragraphs 83-87) discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
Setting a plurality of correction coefficients for correcting an output level of a microwave (paragraph 83):
Storing , in a memory, in which the plurality of correction coefficients are in (a) are written (paragraph 83);
Acquiring one or more correction coefficients periodically from a start of outputting of the microwave (paragraph 84);
Calculating a correction value for an output preset level of the microwave from the one or more correction coefficients acquired in c) (paragraph 85-86);
Correction the output preset level of the microwave by using the correction value calculated in d) (paragraph 87); and
Processing a substrate by supplying the microwave into a process chamber with the output preset level of the microwave corrected in e) (Figure 8). See paragraphs 83-87, and Figure 8 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 98-101.
However, Kaneko et al does not disclose “ a plurality of correction tables” used to store the correction coefficients and acquiring “from at least one correction table among the plurality of correction tables”.
Hirochi et al also pertains to microwave substrate processing and discloses the use of correction tables to store information to control microwave output in a process. See paragraphs 62, 69-73 and 92.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the tables of Hirochi et al, in the method of Kaneko et al, for their known benefit in the art of storing information in microwave processing of substrates. The use of known components, tables, for their known benefit in the art, storing information, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons as discussed with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, Hirochi et al disclose the use of non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing programs in a process controller. See paragraph 63 of Hirochi et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of Hirochi et al, in the method of Kaneko et al, for its known benefit in the art of storing programs in a process controller.
Claims 2-3 and 7-14 arere rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (US 2019/0267216) in view of Hirochi et al (US 2019/0393056) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Emmons et al (20140358140) and Nakayama et al (2018/0090397).
Kaneko et al and Hirochi et al are relied upon as discussed above.
However, neither reference discloses the calculation of the slope of the microwave power, and the determination of process recipes between different chambers and modules.
Emmons et al discloses the calculation of slope to calculate power in microwave devices. See paragraphs 151- 153.
Nakayama et al pertains to semiconductor processing involving microwaves and discloses process recipes are selected for individual chambers and process modules. See paragraphs 57, 74, and 99-102.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to calculate the slope and compare recipes between different apparatus in the process of Kaneko et al and Hirochi et al, for their known benefit in the art of calculating power and optimizing the processes, as disclosed by the Emmons et al and Nakayama et al references. The use of known calculations and comparisons, for their known benefit of optimizing a process, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references make obvious “wherein the plurality of correction coefficients comprises a first correction coefficient for a slope of the output level of the microwave and a second correction coefficient for an offset value of the output level of the microwave, and wherein the plurality of correction tables comprises an inter-apparatus machine difference correction table configured such that the first correction coefficient and the second correction coefficient are capable of being set”, in light of the disclosures of Emmons and Nakayama et al as discussed above.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references make obvious “wherein the inter-apparatus machine difference correction table is configured such that the first correction coefficient and the second correction coefficient commonly shared by entire apparatus are capable of being set in (a) in the inter-process module correction table”, in light of the disclosures of Emmons and Nakayama et al as discussed above.
With respect to Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 2. Moreover, selection of additional correction coefficients would be obvious as a duplication of a process. See in re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 8, the selection of known values to a respective table would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the disclosures of Emmons and Nakayama et al as discussed above.
With respect to Claims 9-10 and 13, the claim limitations as the cited references disclose correction coefficients, power and time, and the setting of the values in tables would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 11, and the limitation “wherein the at least one correction table among the plurality of correction tables is capable of being designated as a combination information of a recipe defining processing conditions of the substrate, the Examiner notes that any set of data is “capable” of being combined.
With respect to Claims 12 and 14, the Examiner takes Official Notice that assigning value to zero or clearing elapsed time when process is not performed is well known in the art, and would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9-10 require a fifth correction coefficient and depend on Claims which do not require a third and fourth correction coefficient. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
November 21, 2025
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812