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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claim Objections
. Claim 1 recites the limitation “when the processing target is unloaded from the processing container, monitor the processing container in which the processing target remains due to an unloading error based on a monitoring condition of the protection function for the processing target.” This claim is objected to because the wafer cannot simultaneously be unloaded from the chamber and inside the chamber at the same time. Furthermore, there has been no positively recited step to remove the wafer from the chamber. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. (US 20150097676) and Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kanno ‘450 teaches a heat treatment apparatus comprising: a processing container (vacuum container 11) configured to accommodate a processing target (wafer W); a heater (heater 33) configured to heat the processing target accommodated in the processing container; and a controller (controller 7) including a non-transitory memory and a processor coupled to the memory (a program is installed in the control device 7 from a storage medium such as a hard disk, compact disk, magneto-optical disk, memory card, or flexible disk. The program may be installed in the control device 7 from a storage medium of an information processing apparatus communicably connected via a network), the controller being configured to store, in the memory, a set temperature of the heater (controller 7 includes heater controller 72 which performs temperature control) [Fig. 1, 6-7 & 0027, 0052, 0066-0070], control heating by the heater according to a set temperature of the heater (controller 7 includes heater controller 72 which performs temperature control) [Fig. 1, 6-7 & 0027, 0052, 0066-0070].
Kanno ‘450 does not specifically disclose a set temperature of a protection function for the processing target, and an upper limit temperature when the processing target is unloaded from the processing container monitor the processing container in which the processing target remains due to an unloading error based on a monitoring condition of the protection function for the processing target, the monitoring condition including a temperature condition that is satisfied when the set temperature of the heater is equal to or higher than the upper limit temperature of monitoring the processing container; and when determined that the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition including the temperature condition has been satisfied in advance, dynamically change the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function for the processing target in response to a determination result based on the conditional upper limit time and the monitoring condition including the temperature condition.
Lui teaches a set temperature of a protection function for the processing target and an upper limit temperature (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range after a predetermined of time has passed during monitoring) [Fig. 5B & 0041-0047], monitor the processing container in which the processing target remains due to an unloading error based on a monitoring condition of the protection function for the processing target, the monitoring condition including a temperature condition that is satisfied when the set temperature of the heater is equal to or higher than the upper limit temperature of monitoring the processing container; and when determined that the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition including the temperature condition has been satisfied in advance, dynamically change the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function for the processing target in response to a determination result based on the conditional upper limit time and the monitoring condition including the temperature condition.(operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range after a predetermined of time has passed during monitoring) [Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kanno’450 to monitor temperature if it falls outside a certain range, as in Liu, to prevent wafer breakage due to thermal stress [Liu - 0014]. It is noted that a set temperature that a heater is directed to reach would need to change in order to maintain a substrate within a desired temperature range (for example, if a heater is set to heat a substrate to 50 degrees Celsius, but the substrate needs to be at 40 degrees Celsius, the set temperature of the heater would need to be corrected to maintain the desired 40 degrees Celsius).
Modified Kanno ‘450 does not specifically disclose a conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container; determine whether the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition including the temperature condition has been satisfied in advance.
Kanno teaches and a conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container; determine whether the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition including the temperature condition has been satisfied in advance (the output of the thermometer 34 is sent to a computing unit, the computing unit computes a measurement limit time for beginning measurement, based on a predetermined algorithm, from an output value of the thermometer 34, and measuring begins at individual measurement sites after the measurement limit time has elapsed) [Kanno - Fig. 2 & Abstract, 0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Kanno'450 to include instructions for an upper limit time, as in Kanno'814 to maximize throughput [Kanno'814 - 0041, 0052]. Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) also discloses that an upper limit time would be beneficial for safety reasons [Ishikawa - Col. 3 lines 5-9].
It is further noted that the limitation “in which the processing target remains due to an unloading error,” is an intended result of a step positively recited. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As such, the combination of references need only be capable of performing the intended results. It is noted that any chamber would be capable of having an unloading error.
Regarding Claim 10:
Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to notify an operator that the set temperature of the heater has changed to the set temperature of the protection function.
Liu teaches wherein the controller is further configured to notify an operator that the set temperature of the heater has changed to the set temperature of the protection function (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range) [Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kanno’450 to monitor temperature if it falls outside a certain range, as in Liu, to prevent wafer breakage due to thermal stress [Liu - 0014].
Regarding Claim 11:
Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to initialize an elapsed time measured for determining whether the conditional upper limit time of monitoring elapses in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, at a start of the heat treatment based on the wafer processing information.
Liu teaches wherein the controller is configured to initialize an elapsed time (temperature is measured for a set predetermined amount of time) measured for determining whether the conditional upper limit time of monitoring elapses in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, at a start of the heat treatment based on the wafer processing information. (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range within a predetermined time) [Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kanno’450 to monitor temperature if it falls outside a certain range, as in Liu, to prevent wafer breakage due to thermal stress [Liu - 0014].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. (US 20150097676) and Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Burkhart et al. (US 6075375).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches, wherein, when the protection function is capable of being set to be valid or invalid, and the protection function is set to be valid, the controller is configured to monitor the processing container based on the monitoring condition (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range after a predetermined of time has passed during monitoring) [Liu - Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose the monitoring condition further includes a condition that is satisfied when one or more processing targets are accommodated in the processing container
Burkhart teaches the monitoring condition further includes a condition that is satisfied when one or more processing targets are accommodated in the processing container (wafer 202 is positioned upon pedestal 104; its presence is detected by electrode pairs 108) [Fig. 1 & Col. 5 lines 46-53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno’450 with a means to monitor wafer presence, as in Burkhart, to be able to detect wafer alignment and wafer warping [Burkhart - Col. 9 lines 22-26].
It’s also noted that the limitation “when the protection function is capable of being set to be valid or invalid, and the protection function is set to be valid,” is a contingent limitation and requires only that the prior art teaches a structure capable of performing the contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04 II). Kanno’450 has a controller and is therefore capable of allowing or not allowing a process to be performed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. (US 20150097676) and Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Burkhart et al. (US 6075375) and Budiarto et al. (US 20150203966).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches, wherein, when the protection function is capable of being set to be valid or invalid, and the protection function is set to be valid, the controller is configured to monitor whether a condition that the set temperature of the heater included in the monitoring condition is equal to or higher than an upper limit temperature of monitoring the processing container (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range after a predetermined of time has passed during monitoring) [Liu - Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose the monitoring condition further includes: a condition that is satisfied when one or more processing targets are accommodated in the processing container,
Burkhart teaches the monitoring condition further includes: a condition that is satisfied when one or more processing targets are accommodated in the processing container (wafer 202 is positioned upon pedestal 104; its presence is detected by electrode pairs 108) [Fig. 1 & Col. 5 lines 46-53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno’450 with a means to monitor wafer presence, as in Burkhart, to be able to detect wafer alignment and wafer warping [Burkhart - Col. 9 lines 22-26].
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose a condition that is satisfied when a heat treatment is not being executed based on wafer processing information Budiarto teaches a condition that is satisfied when a heat treatment is not being executed based on wafer processing information (the time at which plasma processing begins is recorded and measured) [Fig. 3 & 0047-0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno with a means to monitor whether wafer processing has begun, as in Budiarto, to enable more accurate parameter control and measurement [Budiarto - 0047-0050].
It’s also noted that the limitation “when the protection function is capable of being set to be valid or invalid, and the protection function is set to be valid,” is a contingent limitation and requires only that the prior art teaches a structure capable of performing the contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04 II). Kanno’450 has a controller and is therefore capable of allowing or not allowing a process to be performed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. (US 20150097676), Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), Burkhart et al. (US 6075375), and Budiarto et al. (US 20150203966), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Numakura et al. (US 20200194296).
The limitations of claim 3 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches the controller is configured to further monitor the processing container based on the monitoring condition, and the monitoring condition further includes a condition that is satisfied when the operation mode of the processing container is the normal mode (the time at which plasma processing begins is recorded and measured) [Budiarto - Fig. 3 & 0047-0050].
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose wherein, when an operation mode of the processing container includes a normal mode and a maintenance mode.
Numakura teaches wherein, when an operation mode of the processing container includes a normal mode and a maintenance mode (operators can switch respective modules and chambers from a maintenance mode to normal processing modes) [Fig. 1 & 0217],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno to have a maintenance mode, as in Numakura, to allow for routine maintenance of a module [Numakura - 0111, 0134, 0217].
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. (US 20150097676), Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), Burkhart et al. (US 6075375), Budiarto et al. (US 20150203966), and Numakura et al. (US 20200194296), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Frankel et al. (US 5968587)
The limitations of claim 4 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose, wherein, when the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, the controller is configured to lower the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function according to a set value of a ramping temperature control of the protection function.
Frankel teaches, wherein, when the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, the controller is configured to lower the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function according to a set value of a ramping temperature control of the protection function (heater control subroutine 167 employs a temperature ramp control program to control power to heater 25) [Fig. 1E & Col. 20 lines 38-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno with a means to control temperature ramping, as in Frankel, to protect components from thermal shock and to improve heater efficiency [Frankel - Fig. 1E & Col. 20 lines 38-41 & Col. 22 lines 60-67].
It’s also noted that the limitation “when the upper limit time of monitoring elapses while the monitoring condition is being satisfied,” is a contingent limitation and requires only that the prior art teaches a structure capable of performing the contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04 II). Kanno has a controller and is therefore capable of performing a process whenever necessary and for however long is necessary.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches wherein the controller is further configured to notify an operator that the set temperature of the heater has changed to the set temperature of the protection function (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range) [Liu - Fig. 5B & 0047].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches wherein the controller is configured to initialize an elapsed time measured for determining whether the conditional upper limit time of monitoring has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, at a start of the heat treatment based on the wafer processing information (the output of the thermometer 34 is sent to a computing unit, the computing unit computes a measurement limit time for beginning measurement, based on a predetermined algorithm, from an output value of the thermometer 34, and measuring begins at individual measurement sites after the measurement limit time has elapsed) [Kanno ‘450 - Fig. 2 & Abstract, 0021].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Kanno’450 teaches when an operation mode of the processing container includes a normal mode and a maintenance mode (operators can switch respective modules and chambers from a maintenance mode to normal processing modes) [Numakura - Fig. 1 & 0217], the controller is configured to further monitor the processing container based on the monitoring condition, and the monitoring condition further include a condition that is satisfied when the operation mode of the processing container is the normal mode (the time at which plasma processing begins is recorded and measured) [Budiarto - Fig. 3 & 0047-0050].
It’s also noted that the limitation “when an operation mode of the processing container includes a normal mode and a maintenance mode,” is a contingent limitation and requires only that the prior art teaches a structure capable of performing the contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04 II). Kanno’450 has a controller and is therefore capable of performing a process whenever necessary and for however long is necessary; Numakura also teaches controlling an apparatus using a maintenance mode and a normal mode.
Regarding Claim 14:
Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose, wherein the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container is set as a time duration from when the monitoring condition is satisfied to when a lowering of the set temperature of the heater starts.
Liu teaches wherein the conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container is set as a time duration from when the monitoring condition is satisfied to when a lowering of the set temperature of the heater starts (operation 540 sends out a notification for corrective action if temperature is lower/higher than a predetermined alarm range after a predetermined of time has passed during monitoring) [Fig. 5B & 0041-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kanno’450 to monitor temperature if it falls outside a certain range, as in Liu, to prevent wafer breakage due to thermal stress [Liu - 0014].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno (US 20160177450) in view of Liu et al. and Kanno et al. (US 20150371814), with Ishikawa et al. (US 4894518) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Frankel et al. (US 5968587).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Kanno’450 does not specifically disclose wherein, when the conditional upper limit time of monitoring has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, the controller is configured to lower the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function according to a set value of a ramping temperature control of the protection function.
Frankel teaches wherein, when the conditional upper limit time of monitoring has elapsed in a state where the monitoring condition has been satisfied in advance, the controller is configured to lower the set temperature of the heater to the set temperature of the protection function according to a set value of a ramping temperature control of the protection function (heater control subroutine 167 employs a temperature ramp control program to control power to heater 25) [Fig. 1E & Col. 20 lines 38-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Kanno’450 with a means to control temperature ramping, as in Frankel, to protect components from thermal shock and to improve heater efficiency [Frankel - Fig. 1E & Col. 20 lines 38-41 & Col. 22 lines 60-67].
It’s also noted that the limitation “when the upper limit time of monitoring elapses while the monitoring condition is being satisfied,” is a contingent limitation and requires only that the prior art teaches a structure capable of performing the contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04 II). Kanno’450 has a controller and is therefore capable of performing a process whenever necessary and for however long is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 14 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 and 14 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container,” because Kanno et al. (US 20150371814) is merely a measuring duration of a sensor, but is irrespective of another condition. In response, the examiner would like to note that even a predetermined and set amount of time is not unconditional or irrespective of other conditions. The only way for a set time to be unconditional is if that time was set completely at random. Furthermore, Kanno ‘814 explicitly discloses that its upper limit time is determined from an output value from a thermometer [Kanno ‘814 - Abstract]. Therefore, its upper limit time is conditional at least based on other measurements in a system.
Regardless, it is noted that the examiner does not consider the applicant’s arguments as being commensurate in scope with the claims in light of the disclosure as a whole. Specifically, the applicant remarks that the “conditional upper limit time” that is measured only when the monitoring condition is satisfied. However, the conditional upper limit time being only measured when the monitoring condition is satisfied is not a limitation that is present in the claims. Furthermore, there is no description in the specification for what “conditional” is referring to, as that phrase is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, there has been no special meaning ascribed to “conditional” in the claims or in the specification.
Furthermore, in light of the applicant’s disclosure, the “conditional upper limit time” seems to merely be a set amount of time until a set temperature of the heater is changed [IA – Fig. 6 & 0063]. Claim 1 also states “the controller being configured to….store….a conditional upper limit time of monitoring the processing container.” The controller does not positively recite a step wherein the time is being calculated and stored. In addition to there being no special definition or description being ascribed to “conditional,” the applicant is assigning more meaning and patentable weight to “conditional” than what is explicitly disclosed in the specification and the claims. Should the applicant feel that their algorithm for having a conditional upper limit time is set/calculated differently from the prior art, then the claim limitations requires a positively recited controller step wherein that upper limit time is calculated, set, or determined.
The examiner has also acknowledged the applicant’s argument for a rejoinder, however this argument is moot until such time if/when a claim is found to be allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights