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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 17 March 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recitation “at least two lateral extensions in the reaction chamber laterally extending from the central processing portion” has been interpreted as set forth in Figs. 1-3 and the accompanying text, wherein essentially, the reaction chamber has a central processing portion (70, 71) with a central processing volume that is located inside the central processing portion and lateral extensions (135a, 135b) extending from the central processing portion, wherein each of the central processing portion and the two lateral extensions can be at least fairly be interpreted and described with language such as the reaction chamber “including”, “having” or “comprising” the central processing portion and the lateral processing extensions. Nevertheless, Examiner admits that Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer within reason. Additionally, Examiner notes that the lateral extensions are broadly and generally considered to be readable on an outer bounding structure (e.g. walls) thereof and/or an inner volume thereof. Applicant is invited to clarify if necessary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,258,173 to Kirimura et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/00265725 to Tsuji et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0290175 to Paranjpe et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0342560 to Malinen et al.
Regarding claim 1: Kirimura et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising a reaction chamber (Fig. 4, multiple structures, e.g.: C, CL, CR); a central processing volume (inside C) within a vertically oriented central processing portion (C) of the reaction chamber configured to expose (i.e. capable of exposing) at least one substrate to self-limiting surface reactions in the central processing volume; an exhaust connection (portion between central processing volume and a vacuum exhaust device 18) within the central processing portion); and at least two lateral extensions (CL and CR, including outer bounding walls and/or inside volumes thereof) in the reaction chamber laterally extending from the central processing portion, wherein a horizontal width of the at least two horizontal extensions in a substrate moving direction (i.e. overall combined width) is greater than that of the central processing portion; and an actuator (M, P1, 100) capable of/configured to move at least one substrate (10) between at least one of the at least two lateral extensions and the central processing volume, wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to process (i.e. capable of processing) at least one substrate within the central processing volume, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to evacuate process fluid through the exhaust connection within the central processing portion. Regarding intended use recitations of a claim of which the prior art is considered to be capable, the courts have ruled 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In particular, it is noted that during an intended use of Kirimura et al., simultaneous processing of a plurality of substrates in the apparatus will be dependent on at least the desired processing method intended to be used and the dimensions of the substrates to be processed and dimensions of the apparatus, wherein the dimensions of the substrate are not considered a limitation of the claimed apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kirimura et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to process a plurality of substrate simultaneously, wherein the at least one of the substrates is configured to be processed within the central processing volume and the remaining number of said substrates is/are configured to be processed within one of the at least two lateral extensions, wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to evacuate process fluid (i.e. capable of evacuating process fluid) from the at least two lateral extensions through the exhaust connection within the central processing portion.
In Figs. Tsuji et al. teach providing a reaction chamber comprising, inter alia, a central processing volume (e.g. Fig. 7, 13) and at least two lateral extensions (Fig. 7, 12), wherein the substrate processing apparatus/reaction chamber is configured to process a plurality of substrate simultaneously, wherein at least one of the substrates is configured to be exposed/processed (e.g., deposition) within the central processing volume and the remaining number of said substrates is/are configured to be processed (capable of being processed) (e.g., heating) within one of the at least two lateral extensions sized to hold at least one substrate and substrate holder wherein the configuration is provided for the purpose of, inter alia, reducing consumption of reactive gases and raising throughput (also see, e.g., paras. 1, 15-17, 47, 58 and 88 and 118).
Examiner also notes that the number of substrates processed in any area of the substrate processing apparatus will be dependent on the size of substrates and the configuration of a substrate supporting part (11 in Kirimura and 5 in Tsuji et al.)
Additionally, with respect to using the actuator to reversibly move at least one substrate between at least one of the least two lateral extensions and the central processing volume, Paranjpe et al. teach selection of an optimal operating mode, including transfer between different zones of an apparatus using bi-directional transfer of substrates, based on the desired process and throughput (see, e.g., para. 52). Paranjpe et al. further discloses using a substrate holder carrying a plurality of substrates to increase throughput.
In Fig. 11, thereof, Malinen et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus comprising a reaction chamber having a central processing volume/central processing portion (1110 and inside volume) with an exhaust connection (1112) and at least two lateral extensions (e.g., 1161 and 1120 on either side of the central processing volume/central processing region in the reaction chamber; i.e., bounding structures and/or inside volume at opposite lateral sides of the central processing volume/central processing portion), wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to evacuate (i.e. capable of evacuating) process fluids from the at least two lateral extensions through the exhaust connection with the central processing portion with use of shielding gas that creates a slight overpressure thereby encouraging glow towards the exhaust connection for the purpose of preventing process gas from exiting the reaction chamber by shielding with the pressurized shielding gas (see, e.g., paras. 66, 68, 75-76, 79, 86, 91). Also see, Figs. 5-6. Also see below regarding intended use.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substate processing apparatus of Kirimura et al. substrate processing apparatus is configured to process a plurality of substrate simultaneously, wherein the at least one of the substrates is configured to be processed within the central processing volume and the remaining number of said substrates is/are configured to be processed within one of the at least two lateral extensions, wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to evacuate process fluid (i.e. capable of evacuating process fluid) from the at least two lateral extensions through the exhaust connection within the central processing portion in order to reduce consumption of reactive gases and raise throughput and preventing process gas from exiting the reaction chamber by shielding with the pressurized shielding gas as taught by Tsuji et al. and Malinen et al.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substate processing apparatus of Kirimura et al. having the actuator capable of/configured to reversibly move at least one substrate between at least one of the at least two lateral extensions and the central processing volume in order to provide an optimized process and throughput as taught by Paranjpe et al.
Note with respect to intended uses of the claimed invention (e.g., exposure and processing of the substrate(s), as well as the number substrates processed, a particular evacuation flow: “configured to” and “capable of” are not equivalent to a processing method for performing the intended use/use. Additionally, the courts have ruled expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claim 2, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose during an intended use of using the claimed apparatus, the apparatus is (configured to) capable of maintaining the at least one substrate stationary during the exposure to self-limiting reactions, while positioned in the central processing volume by stopping the motor. Again, regarding intended use recitations of a claim of which the prior art is considered to be capable, the courts have ruled 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus may further comprise a source of energy (17) capable of exposing the at least one substrate to additional energy in the form of plasma or radiation in the central processing volume.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Kirimura et al., as detailed above, in the substrate processing apparatus, a process sequence, including process cycles that may be performed in the central processing volume and at least one of the at least two lateral extensions. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. when combined with the teachings of Paranjpe et al., disclose an intended use of the apparatus wherein the actuator is configured to/capable of moving the at least one substrate from a first lateral extension of the at least two lateral extensions to the central processing volume, from the central processing volume to a second lateral extension of the at least two lateral extensions, and back from the second lateral extension of the at least two lateral extensions to the first lateral extension of the at least two lateral extensions via the central processing volume. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus is capable of purging both the central processing volume and the at least two lateral extensions by a single processing step using (e.g., using 12 and 18). Note: in Kirimura et al., there are no physical closures to prevent purge gas introduced in one portion of the apparatus from moving to another part of the apparatus. Additionally, see Malinen et al. as relied upon above. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus may further comprise an outer chamber (e.g., C3 and C5 in Fig. 3) at least partly surrounding the reaction chamber. Also see, e.g., column 8, row 41 through column 10, rows 60 and column 14, rows 26-41.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus may further comprise a narrow passage (opening connecting the at least to lateral extensions and the central processing volume) at an interface between the central processing volume and at least one of the at least two lateral extensions. Also see 1161 and 1161’ in Malinen et al.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus is further capable of comprising a top-to-bottom flow in the central processing volume and exhaust of gases from the central processing volume arranged beneath the at least one substrate. See, e.g., Fig. 4. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the central processing portion comprises an upwards directed continuation vertically extending above the at least two lateral extensions, enclosing he central processing volume within. See, e.g., Fig. 4. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 11, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the central processing portion comprises a downwards directed continuation vertically extending below the at least one substrate and the at least two lateral extensions. See, e.g., Fig. 4 and annotated figure above. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. the exhaust connection extends downwards from a lower portion of the downwards directed continuation. See, e.g., Fig. 4 and annotated figure above. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Kirimura et al., Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus may further comprise a vacuum pump (18) or a vacuum pump assembly connected to the exhaust connection. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 14, modified Kiriumura et al. fail to explicitly disclose the height of the upwards directed continuation is at least 50% higher than the height of the at least two lateral extensions.
Although the specification of Kirimura et al. fails to explicitly teach that the height of the upwards directed continuation is at least 50% higher than the height of the at least two lateral extensions, this appears to be the case based on Fig. 4, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide the dimensions ratio as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Kirimura et al., in Kirimura et al. the at least two lateral extensions extend horizontally from the central processing portion. See, e.g., Fig. 4. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Kirimura et al., in Kirimura et al. the apparatus may further comprise a substrate support (11) to carry the at least one substrate.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Kirimura et al., Paranjpe et al. disclose the apparatus is capable of/configured to control the transport of the at least one substrate independently of the transport of the remaining number of substrates simultaneously residing within the reaction chamber by using separate substrate supports (see, e.g., para. 6).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Kirimura et al., Paranjpe et al. disclose the apparatus may further comprise a linear actuator as the actuator (104), configured to actuate (i.e. capable of actuating) reversible linear movement of the at least one substrate.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Kirimura et al., in Kirimura et al. disclose the apparatus is further capable of a direct fluid connection from a lateral extension of the at least two lateral extensions to the downwards directed continuation, wherein the direct fluid connection is capable of bypassing the at least one substrate (i.e. a path for flow below the at least one substrate is provided towards the downwards direction continuation). See, e.g., Fig. 4. Also see Malinen et al. as relied upon above.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Kirimura et al., in Kirimura et al. the apparatus further comprises at least one sealed opening (at left G and right G) configured to allow (i.e. capable of allowing) entry and exit of the at least one substrate into and from the reaction chamber, without exposing a reaction chamber inner volume to a surrounding intermediate space (e.g., C3 and C5 in Fig. 3). Also see, e.g., column 8, row 41 through column 10, rows 60 and column 14, rows 26-41.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections of claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new and modified grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument for which a modified or new rejection has not been set forth.
Regarding clarity of the claims, Examiner notes and appreciates claim amendments to clarify certain ones of the claim limitations previously rejected under 35 USC 112 and also notes that while other ones of claim limitations could definitely be streamlined to more clearly and specifically set forth the claimed invention, they are not necessarily unclear after additional Examiner investigation and Applicant clarifications. Thus, no rejections under 35 USC 112 remain at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5776254 discloses an inline deposition chamber for processing a plurality of substrates therein at a single time. US Patent Pub. 2002/0033133 discloses a substrate holder for a plurality of substrates in an inline apparatus, wherein the substrates are arranged in a direction perpendicular to a transfer direction within the apparatus.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights