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
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 27, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the analog control module is detachably coupled to one or more external devices by serial interface coupling” in claim 1, “plasma generator, solenoid valve, flow valve, and barometer” and “plurality of instructions” in claim 3, and “a mechanical arm, which uses a servo motor as a driving power source, and the control host receives feedback signals from the mechanical arm in real time.” in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
“a plurality of operating units coupled to at least one of the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module, respectively, to control the plurality of working chambers for processing the materials by the main control module, the analog control module and the digital control module”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“a plurality of operating units coupled to at least one of the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module, respectively, to control the plurality of working chambers for processing the materials by the main control module, the analog control module [[and]] or the digital control module”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “main control module”, “control host”, and “operating units” in claim 1.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200013654 A1 to Matsuhashi et al (hereinafter Matsuhashi) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160343580 A1 to Hudson et al (hereinafter Hudson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240112893 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100234969 A1 to Inoue et al (hereinafter Inoue) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200081423 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuhashi teaches semiconductor machine system (1), comprising: a plurality of working chambers (PM1-PM1), wherein the plurality of working chambers process materials separately; and a control host (4) coupled to the plurality of working chambers, which comprises: a main control module (101) coupled to the plurality of working chambers(PM1-PM1). (See Matsuhashi, Figs. 1-4, Abstract, paragraphs 13, 20-25, 50, 55-56, 60-62.)
Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach an analog control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers, wherein the main control module and the analog control module are coupled to each other.
Hudson is directed to a substrate processing system.
Hudson teaches the system controller (650) may include multiple processors (652) . (See Hudson, Abstract, paragraphs 49, 97, 129, and 146.)
Hudson teaches a mass flow controller may have analog input connections. (See Hudson, paragraphs 129 and 146.) Examiner is considering a mass flow controller with analog input connections to be equivalent to an analog control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an analog control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers, wherein the main control module and the analog control module are coupled to each other, because Hudson teaches processor with this structure is an effective ways to measure and control the properties of each chamber. (See Hudson, Abstract, paragraphs 49, 97, 129, and 146.)
Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a digital control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers, wherein the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module are coupled to each other.
Wang is directed to a substrate processing system.
Wang teaches a digital processor may be used to control the temperature in a process module of a substrate processing system. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 32 and 65-66 and Figs. 1-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a digital control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers, an analog control module (CPU) coupled to the plurality of working chambers, wherein the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module are coupled to each other, because Wang teaches this controller structure can facilitate receiving instructions, issue instructions, and control operations. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 32 and 65-66 and Figs. 1-10.)
Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the analog control module is detachably coupled to one or more external devices by serial interface coupling.
Inoue is directed to a processing system.
Inoue teaches the analog control module is detachably coupled to one or more external devices by serial interface coupling. (See Inoue, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7 and 186.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the analog control module is detachably coupled to one or more external devices by serial interface coupling, because Inoue teaches this is an art recognized equivalent way of connecting these devices. (See Inoue, Abstract, paragraphs 5-7 and 186.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a plurality of operating units coupled to at least one of the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module, respectively, to control the plurality of working chambers for processing the materials by the main control module, the analog control module and the digital control module.
Clark is directed to a substrate processing system.
Clark teaches a plurality of operating units (200) coupled to at least one of the main control module (208) , the analog control module, and the digital control module, respectively, to control the plurality of working chambers (210-220) for processing the materials by the main control module (208), the analog control module ( one of 202, 204, 206) and the digital control module( one of 202, 204, 206) . ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 106-108.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a plurality of operating units coupled to at least one of the main control module, the analog control module, and the digital control module, respectively, to control the plurality of working chambers for processing the materials by the main control module, the analog control module and the digital control module, because Clark teaches this arrangement can facilitate correction in the processing sequence. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 106, 114, 124, 142, 144, 330, and 337, Fig. 5B.)
Regarding claim 2, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the plurality of working chambers comprises at least one of a wafer transfer chamber; wherein the main control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control.
Clark is directed to an integrated processing modules with heterogeneous platform.
Clark teaches the plurality of working chambers comprises at least one of a wafer transfer chamber (304a , 512) ; wherein the main control module (active interdiction system) is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 114, 124, 142, 144, 330, and 337, Fig. 5B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plurality of working chambers comprises at least one of a wafer transfer chamber,; wherein the main control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, because Clark teaches this would enable the data to be analyzed by the active interdiction control system and determine if correct processing action is necessary( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99, 103-105, 108-118, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, and 337, Figs. 1-37.)
Regarding claim 2, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the analog control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control.
Hudson teaches a mass flow controller may have analog input connections. (See Hudson, Abstract, paragraphs 129 and 146.) Examiner is considering a mass flow controller with analog input connections to be equivalent to an analog control module coupled to the plurality of working chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the analog control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control, because this would enable the gas flow the process chamber to be controlled. (See Hudson, Abstract, paragraphs 129 and 146.)
Regarding claim 2, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the digital control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control.
Wang teaches a digital processor may be used to control the temperature in a chamber of a wafer processing system. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 32 and 65-66 and Figs. 1-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the digital control module is coupled to at least one of the wafer transfer chamber, respectively, for control., because Wang teaches this controller structure can facilitate receiving instructions, issue instructions, and control operations. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 32 and 65-66 and Figs. 1-10.)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200013654 A1 to Matsuhashi et al (hereinafter Matsuhashi) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160343580 A1 to Hudson et al (hereinafter Hudson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240112893 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100234969 A1 to Inoue et al (hereinafter Inoue) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200081423 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190103293 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120118857 A1 to Tyler et al (hereinafter Tyler).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the plurality of operating units further comprises: a RF plasma unit, which comprises a plasma generator and a control circuit; a gas control unit, which comprises a solenoid valve, a flow valve, and a barometer; and a main control unit, which comprises a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the RF plasma unit, the gas control unit, and the plurality of working chambers.
Kim is directed to a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device.
Kim teaches the plurality of operating units further comprises: a RF plasma unit (2000), which comprises a plasma generator (2020) and a control circuit (1420); and a main control unit (1130), which comprises a processor (1000) and a storage device (memory 1160), wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the RF plasma unit (2000) and the gas control unit (2010) . (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 3-9, 17, 20-22, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 35-38, 40-49, 51-61, 63-66, 70-85, and 88-89.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plurality of operating units further comprises: a RF plasma unit, which comprises a plasma generator and a control circuit ; and a main control unit, which comprises a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the RF plasma unit and the gas control unit, because Kim teaches this arrangement would enable maximum output in plasma formation for manufacturing a semiconductor device. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 3-9, 17, 20-22, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 35-38, 40-49, 51-61, 63-66, 70-85, and 88-89.)
Regarding claim 3, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a main control unit, which comprises a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the plurality of working chambers.
Clark teaches a main control unit, which comprises a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the RF plasma unit (1076) , the gas control unit (gas supplies in paragraph 100), the plurality of working chambers (paragraph 76). ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99-100, 103-105, 108-118, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, 194-195, and 337, Figs. 1-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a main control unit, which comprises a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is coupled to the processor and stores a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the plurality of working chambers, because Clark teaches process chambers are integrated with metrology sensors to enable measurements to detect non-conforming workpiece attributes and to perform corrective processing in upstream working chambers to address defects and variations. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99, 103-105, 108-118, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, and 337, Figs. 1-37.)
Regarding claim 3, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach: a gas control unit, which comprises a solenoid valve and a flow valve.
Tyler is directed to a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device.
Tyler teaches a gas control unit , which comprises a solenoid valve (315) and a flow valve (312). (See Tyler, Abstract, paragraphs 78-79, 84-87, 95, 101, 123-124, and Figs. 1-17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a gas control unit, which comprises a solenoid valve, a flow valve, , because Tyler teaches process chambers are integrated with metrology sensors to enable measurements to detect non-conforming workpiece attributes. (See Tyler, Abstract, paragraphs 78-79, 84-87, 95, 101, 123-124, and Figs. 1-17.)
Regarding claim 3, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a gas control unit comprises a barometer.
Clark teaches a gas control unit comprises a barometer. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99-100, 103-105, 108-118, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, 194-195, and 337, Figs. 1-37.) Examiner is considering a pressure sensor to be equivalent to a barometer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a gas control unit comprises a barometer, because Clark teaches process chambers are integrated with metrology sensors to enable measurements to detect non-conforming workpiece attributes and to perform corrective processing in upstream working chambers to address defects and variations. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 322, 343, 373, 378, 381, 387, Figs. 1-37.)
Regarding claim 4, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach the main control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit , the main control unit, and the gas control unit, respectively, the analog control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit and the gas control unit, respectively, and the digital control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit, the main control unit, and the gas control unit.
Clark teaches the main control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit, the main control unit, and the gas control unit, respectively, the analog control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit (paragraphs 100, 121, 194-195, 230-231) and the gas control unit, respectively, and the digital control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit, the main control unit, and the gas control unit. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99-100, 103-105, 108-118, 121, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, 194-195, 230-231, and 337, Figs. 1-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the main control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit , the main control unit, and the gas control unit, respectively, the analog control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit and the gas control unit, respectively, and the digital control module is coupled to the RF plasma unit, the main control unit, and the gas control unit, because Clark teaches process chambers are integrated with metrology sensors to enable measurements to detect non-conforming workpiece attributes upstream of defects and process variations to provide time for correction. ( See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 30-32, 38-41, 76, 85, 95, 99-100, 103-105, 108-118, 123-124, 129-132, 139, 142, 144, 194-195, and 337, Figs. 1-37.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200013654 A1 to Matsuhashi et al (hereinafter Matsuhashi) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160343580 A1 to Hudson et al (hereinafter Hudson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240112893 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100234969 A1 to Inoue et al (hereinafter Inoue) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100292809 A1 to Kobayashi et al (hereinafter Kobayashi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220013383 A1 to Savandaiah et al (hereinafter Savandaiah).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a mechanical arm, which uses a servo motor as a driving power source, and the control host receives feedback signals from the mechanical arm in real time.
Kobayashi is directed to a processing system for a substrate.
Kobayashi teaches a mechanical arms (11a-b, 25a-25b, 27a-b) and the control host (603) receives feedback signals in real time. ( See Kobayashi , Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 63 Figs. 1-11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a mechanical arm and the control host receives feedback signals from the mechanical arm in real time, because Kobayashi teaches feedback would enable decisions about processes in consideration of the load conditions of the entire factory to be made which a person ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be useful to improve yields, efficiency, and reduce backlogs. ( See Kobayashi, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 63 Figs. 1-11.)
Regarding claim 5, Matsuhashi does not explicitly teach a mechanical arm, which uses a servo motor as a driving power source
Savandaiah is directed to a processing system for a substrate.
Savandaiah teaches a mechanical arm, which uses a servo motor as a driving power source. ( See Savandaiah , Abstract, paragraph 71, Figs. 3A-7B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a mechanical arm, which uses a servo motor as a driving power source, because Savandaiah teaches a servo motor is an art recognized equivalent form of actuator for a support arm. ( See Savandaiah , Abstract, paragraph 71, Figs. 3A-7B.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717