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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶98, specifically at line 24 of p.33, “bright” should be corrected to –brought--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Enhanced” is interpreted according to the specification at ¶84 and ¶90 as an increase in flow rate, either starting from a state of no flow, or moving from a lower flow to a higher flow.
In claims 1, 11, and 20, the “gas” from the gas supplier is interpreted not to be required to be the same as the treatment gas from the gas discharger.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 3 “straightening member” in 3-6 and 13-16 is interpreted as solid body that is L-shaped in cross section.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/326266 in view of Otsuka (US 2021/0118707). The correspondence is summarized in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant 18040669
Copending 18326266
A thermal treatment apparatus for thermally treating a substrate on which a coating film of a resist has been formed and the coating film has been subjected to an exposure treatment, the thermal treatment apparatus comprising:
a hot plate configured to support and heat the substrate;
a chamber configured to house the hot plate, the chamber having a ceiling forming thereunder a treatment space in which the thermal treatment is performed, and facing the substrate on the hot plate;
a gas discharger provided at the ceiling and configured to discharge a treatment gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from above;
a gas supplier configured to supply gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from a lateral side of the substrate on the hot plate and a lower portion of the treatment space;
a central exhauster configured to exhaust the treatment space in the chamber from a position close to a center of the substrate on the hot plate in top view on the ceiling;
a peripheral exhauster configured to exhaust the treatment space from a side closer to a peripheral edge portion of the substrate on the hot plate than the central exhauster in top view on the ceiling; and
a controller,
wherein the controller conducts a control so that the discharge by the gas discharger, the supply of the gas by the gas supplier, and the exhaust by the peripheral exhauster are continued during the thermal treatment and the exhaust by the central exhauster is enhanced from a middle of the thermal treatment.
A heat treatment apparatus configured to heat-treat a substrate having a metal-containing resist film formed thereon,
the heat treatment apparatus comprising:
a heat plate configured to support and heat the substrate;
a chamber in which the heat plate is accommodated and a processing space in which a heat treatment is performed is formed; …
14. The heat treatment apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising:
a central exhaust unit configured to evacuate the inside of the processing space from a position of a ceiling portion of the chamber on a center side of the substrate on the heat plate, when viewed from above;
a peripheral exhaust unit configured to evacuate the inside of the processing space from a position of the ceiling portion on a peripheral side of the substrate on the heat plate as compared to the central exhaust unit, when viewed from above; and
a controller, wherein the supply mechanism comprises another gas supply provided at the ceiling portion and configured to supply a gas toward the substrate on the heat plate, wherein the another gas supply comprises: a first discharge hole located above a peripheral portion of the substrate on the heat plate; a second discharge hole located above a central portion of the substrate on the heat plate; and a gas distribution space in which the gas introduced into the another gas supply is distributed into the first discharge hole and the second discharge hole, and wherein the controller performs a control such that, during the heat treatment, a supply from the another gas supply and an evacuation by the peripheral exhaust unit are carried on and an evacuation by the central exhaust unit is enhanced from a middle of the heat treatment, and performs a control such that a flow rate of the gas supplied to the gas distribution space is increased in a period during which the evacuation by the central exhaust unit is enhanced.
10
14
Otsuka (US 2021/0118707) teaches:
a gas supplier configured to supply gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from a lateral side of the substrate on the hot plate and a lower portion of the treatment space;
Specifically, Otsuka teaches a gap aligned with a periphery of a substrate, which gap provides “a gas flow mainly directed from the outer peripheral side toward the inner peripheral side (central side)” (¶94) to effectively discharge the sublimate (¶102).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Copending apparatus to have a gap to provide a inwardly directed flow, as taught by Otsuka, to obtain the benefit of effectively discharging the substrate.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “enhanced from a middle of the thermal treatment.” It is not clear whether this is referring to a time or a position. The central exhaust is aligned with the center of the thermal treatment area, so the center of a region is a reasonable interpretation. It may refer to the middle of a duration of the thermal treatment. Further, the scope of “from a middle” is unclear. From the specification at ¶88, “the percentage of a period during which the exhaust by the central exhauster 317 is performed is 1/20 to 1/2 of a total time of the PEB treatment.” 1/20th or 5% differs substantially from the strictest interpretation of the middle of a time period, i.e. ½ or 50%. It is unclear whether the enhancement has to occur at the “middle” or merely after the “middle.” Applicant may wish to amend the limitation to read “enhanced after a midpoint of a thermal treatment time.” This would cover any enhancement starting in the last 50% of the thermal treatment time. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as “enhanced at some point during a thermal treatment time.”
Claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation “a large-diameter part.”
The term “large” in claims 8 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how large the diameter must be. It appears that the Applicant is attempting the claim the feature as shown in Fig 4 that the cross-sectional area of a suction flow path is enlarged in the metal member.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka (US 2021/0118707).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses:
A thermal treatment apparatus for thermally treating a substrate on which a coating film of a resist has been formed and the coating film has been subjected to an exposure treatment (¶52), the thermal treatment apparatus comprising:
a hot plate (22, ¶64, see Fig 3) configured to support and heat the substrate;
a chamber (40, ¶67) configured to house the hot plate, the chamber having a ceiling (42, ¶68) forming thereunder a treatment space (S) in which the thermal treatment is performed, and facing the substrate (W) on the hot plate;
a gas discharger (50, 52, ¶71) provided at the ceiling and configured to discharge a treatment gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from above;
a gas supplier (gap between side wall 44 and hot plate 22, see Fig 3, gap is present in closed state, ¶69) configured to supply gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from a lateral side of the substrate on the hot plate and a lower portion (adjacent plate 22) of the treatment space (¶82, ¶94. Since the gas is exhausted through the central exhauster, it is moving across the substrate; ¶102 “in the vicinity of the surface of the wafer W, a gas flow directed from the outer peripheral side of the wafer W toward the inner peripheral side (central side) thereof is formed”);
a central exhauster (80, 82, ¶77) configured to exhaust the treatment space in the chamber from a position close to a center of the substrate on the hot plate in top view on the ceiling;
a peripheral exhauster (72, see Fig 4, ¶76) configured to exhaust the treatment space from a side closer to a peripheral edge portion of the substrate on the hot plate than the central exhauster in top view on the ceiling; and
a controller, wherein the controller conducts a control so that the discharge by the gas discharger (Fig 7, S11, gas ejection is on throughout because there is no step for turning it off) the supply of the gas by the gas supplier (¶102 “in the second state, in the vicinity of the surface of the wafer W, a gas flow directed from the outer peripheral side of the wafer W toward the inner peripheral side (central side) thereof is formed”), and the exhaust by the peripheral exhauster (Fig 7, S12, outer peripheral exhaust is on throughout because there is no step for turning it off) are continued during (at least part of) the thermal treatment (thermal treatment starts at S17, ¶99; ends at S21, ¶103) and the exhaust by the central exhauster is enhanced from a middle of the thermal treatment (Fig 7. central exhaust is off for steps S17 and S18 and turns on at S19, ¶100-¶101; for a related embodiment at time t2 in the graph of Fig 21).
In the embodiment of Fig 3, the first predetermined time is set “to such an extent that the film on the wafer W solidifies at a predetermined level” (¶100). The second predetermined time is set so that “the film on the wafer W solidifies to a level desired in the heat process” (¶102). This meets the current interpretation of “from a middle” and, if narrowed in future prosecution, can be optimized to provide a more specific time.
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka discloses:
the resist is a metal-containing resist (the substrate and the resist film are not part of the invention, but rather an intended use).
Regarding claim 11, Otsuka discloses:
A thermal treatment method for thermally treating a substrate on which a coating film of a resist has been formed and the coating film has been subjected to an exposure treatment (¶56-¶58), the thermal treatment method comprising:
mounting the substrate (W) on a hot plate (22, ¶64) configured to support and heat the substrate; and
thermally treating the substrate on the hot plate, the thermally treating comprising:
(A) discharging a treatment gas toward the substrate (from 50 at 54, ¶71) on the hot plate from a ceiling (42, ¶68) of a chamber (40, ¶67) which houses the hot plate facing the substrate on the hot plate and forming thereunder a treatment space (S, ¶69) in which the thermal treatment is performed;
(B) supplying gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from a lateral side (at gap between side wall 44 and hot plate 22, see Fig 3, gap is present in closed state, ¶69) of the substrate on the hot plate and a lower portion of the treatment space (¶82, ¶94. Since the gas is exhausted through the central exhauster, it is moving across the substrate; ¶102 “in the vicinity of the surface of the wafer W, a gas flow directed from the outer peripheral side of the wafer W toward the inner peripheral side (central side) thereof is formed”);
(C) exhausting the treatment space in the chamber from a position close to a center of the substrate on the hot plate in top view on the ceiling (80, 82, ¶77); and
(D) exhausting the treatment space from a side closer to a peripheral edge portion of the substrate (72, see Fig 4, ¶76) on the hot plate than in the (C) in top view on the ceiling, wherein during the thermal treatment, the (A) is continuously performed (Fig 7, S11, gas ejection is on throughout because there is no step for turning it off) and the (B) (¶102 “in the second state, in the vicinity of the surface of the wafer W, a gas flow directed from the outer peripheral side of the wafer W toward the inner peripheral side (central side) thereof is formed”) and the (D) (Fig 7, S12, outer peripheral exhaust is on throughout because there is no step for turning it off) are continuously performed to form a rising flow around the substrate on the hot plate, and the exhaust in the (C) is enhanced (Fig 7. central exhaust is off for steps S17 and S18 and turns on at S19, ¶100-¶101; for a related embodiment at time t2 in the graph of Fig 21) from a middle of the thermal treatment.
Regarding claim 20, Otsuka discloses:
A computer-readable storage medium storing a program (¶50) running on a computer of a controller configured to control a thermal treatment apparatus (¶84-¶85) in order to cause the thermal treatment apparatus to execute [the method of claim 1].
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US 2021/0118707) in view of Sano (US 2018/0164689).
Regarding claim 12, Otsuka does not disclose:
the resist is a metal-containing resist.
Otsuka teaches that the resist is a photosensitive film formed by applying a liquid (¶52). Otsuka discloses recovering the sublimate (¶31-¶33).
Sano teaches a photolithography process for manufacturing a semiconductor device, including applying a resist solution to form a resist film (¶3), wherein the resist contains a metal. The resist containing a metal has the advantages of high-resolution property, high etching resistance, and high sensitivity to exposure (¶4), with the design consideration that the sublimate must be collected (¶5).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Otsuka by using a resist that contains metal, as taught By Sano, to obtain the benefits of high-resolution property, high etching resistance, and high sensitivity to exposure. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because the method of Otsuka includes collecting the sublimate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The nearest prior art is considered to be Otsuka, as applied to the rejections above.
Regarding claim 3, Otsuka discloses:
the gas supplier has:
a gas flow path provided in a manner to surround a side surface of the hot plate (gap between 44 and 22 appears to be annular, based on the shape of 44 as shown in Fig 4); and
Otsuka does not disclose:
a straightening member configured to cause gas rising along the gas flow path to go toward the substrate on the hot plate.
The straightening member is interpreted as solid body that is L-shaped in cross section. Otsuka lacks such a piece capable of performing the function. In particular, the junction between 44 and 42 is somewhat L-shaped, but exhaust holes 72 interfere with the function of “caus[ing] gas rising along the gas flow path to go toward the substrate on the hot plate.”
Claim 13 is similar to claim 3. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 depend from these claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art does not disclose a resinous pad in the position as claimed. The “hot plate has a suction hole for sucking the substrate to the hot plate” so the hot plate is configured to support the substrate directly. On the other hand, the resinous pad is connected to the hot plate via a metal member, and thus does not interface with the substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
303
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujino (KR 20080058147) discloses a resinous pad 18a interfacing directly with the substrate to accommodate deformation of the substrate. According to the instant specification, by separating the resinous pad from the hot plate the temperature of the suction gas is reduced at the resinous pad and “it is possible to suppress a deterioration risk due to high temperature of the resinous pad” (¶57). Claims 8-9 and 18 depend from claims 7 and 17.
Regarding claim 10, Otsuka discloses:
gas discharger has:
a first discharge hole (54, see Figs 3-4) located above the peripheral edge portion of the substrate on the hot plate;
a second discharge hole (54, see figs 3-4) located above a central portion of the substrate on the hot plate; and
a gas distribution space (interior of 52, see Fig 3) in which the supplied treatment gas is distributed to the first discharge hole and the second discharge hole
Otsuka does not disclose:
the controller conducts a control so that a flow rate of the treatment gas to be supplied to the gas distribution space is increased during a period during which the exhaust by the central exhauster is enhanced.
While not explicitly stated, it appears that the flow rate of treatment gas is relatively constant (¶3-¶94, ¶99-¶102). According to the instant specification at ¶91, “Increasing the supply flow rate of the treatment gas to the gas distribution space 313 of the shower head 311 during the central exhaust enhancement period can suppress the suction of the gas from the treatment space K1 through the discharge holes 312 at the peripheral edge portion, namely, a reverse flow of the gas into the shower head 311.”
Claim 19 is similar to claim 10.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
688
1280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1390
1476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim (JP 2018-137308, with reference to the JPlat-Pat translation supplied by the Applicant) discloses:
A thermal treatment apparatus for thermally treating a substrate on which a coating film of a resist has been formed and the coating film has been subjected to an exposure treatment, the thermal treatment apparatus comprising:
a hot plate (mounting table 26, ¶42) configured to support and heat the substrate;
a chamber (processing container 20, ¶41) configured to house the hot plate, the chamber having a ceiling (a top plate portion 22 constituting a ceiling portion, ¶41) forming thereunder a treatment space (24) in which the thermal treatment is performed, and facing the substrate on the hot plate;
...
a gas supplier (bottom structure 21) configured to supply gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from a lateral side (from 31, see arrows in Fig 6) of the substrate on the hot plate and a lower portion of the treatment space (at 45, see Fig 6);
a central exhauster (central exhaust port 29) configured to exhaust the treatment space in the chamber from a position close to a center of the substrate on the hot plate in top view on the ceiling;
a peripheral exhauster (at 27/28) configured to exhaust the treatment space from a side closer to a peripheral edge portion of the substrate on the hot plate than the central exhauster in top view on the ceiling; and
a controller, wherein the controller conducts a control so that… the supply of the gas by the gas supplier, and the exhaust by the peripheral exhauster (see Fig 9 “exhaust (outer circumference),” ¶61 “in conjunction with the start of operation of the heat treatment unit U 2, the exhaust control unit 104 opens the valve V 1, and controls the flow rate adjusting unit 52 to set the flow rate of the exhaust gas from the outer peripheral exhaust opening 27 to a predetermined amount… the exhaust control unit 104 continuously causes the exhaust gas from the peripheral exhaust port 27 to be exhausted”) are continued during the thermal treatment (from t5 to t8, see Fig 9) and the exhaust by the central exhauster is enhanced from a middle of the thermal treatment (see Fig 9 from t7 to end, ¶72).
Kim does not disclose:
a gas discharger provided at the ceiling and configured to discharge a treatment gas toward the substrate on the hot plate from above;
wherein the controller conducts a control so that the discharge by the gas discharger… [is] continued during the thermal treatment
Mizuta (US 20160172218)
Aoki (US 2007/0169373) teaches a center exhaust mode to form gas flows from the periphery of a wafer toward the center so that sublimed substances are not deposited on the wafer (Fig 10B, ¶83). Although this is bad for heat uniformity, it is not detrimental to coating quality if it is in second mode exclusive of downward flow of treatment gas from the ceiling (Fig 10A, ¶83). Thus, Aoki teaches a similar structure for the ceiling, but explicitly teaches away from (¶76, ¶84) the “controller conducts a control so that the discharge by the gas discharger… [is] continued during the thermal treatment” together with “the exhaust by the central exhauster is enhanced from a middle of the thermal treatment.”
Sano (US 2018/0164689) is similar to Aoki, where the ceiling center exhaust is used at a separate time from the ceiling gas discharge (see Fig 8, ¶85-¶87).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761