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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 213, 214, 215. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
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:
Adjusting valve (damper, butterfly valve, or the like, para. [0054]) in at least claims 1-17.
First exhaust apparatus (axial fan, fan, or the like, para. [0056]) in at least claims 1-17.
Second exhaust apparatus (blower, para. [0048]) in at least claims 8-9.
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 § 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 3-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3-8, 11 recite the limitation "wherein the controller is configured to be capable of" in the claims. It is unclear if the controller is configured to do the limitations, or is capable of doing the limitations, as Applicant has placed both disparate terms in the claims. Examiner interprets as "wherein the controller is capable of." Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20150370245 to Sugishita.
Claim 1: Sugishita discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process vessel (360 [outer tube], Fig. 2, 10) in which a substrate (12 [wafer]) is processed (para. [0038-0039]); an outer vessel (300-1/300-2) configured to cover an outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 360, Fig. 2); a gas flow path (352 [cooling gas flow path], Fig. 2-3) provided between the outer vessel (300-1/300-2) and the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer circumference of 360 [outer tube]); an exhaust path (354 [exhaust path]) in communication with the gas flow path (352, para. [0046]); an adjusting valve (359 [shutters]) configured to be capable of adjusting a conductance of the exhaust path (354, para. [0047]); a first exhaust apparatus (356 [cooling gas exhaust device]) provided on the exhaust path (354) downstream of the adjusting valve (359); a pressure sensor (31 [pressure sensor], Fig. 10) configured to measure an inner pressure of the outer vessel (para. [0127-0129]); and a controller (400 [process control unit]) configured to be capable of adjusting an exhaust volume flow rate of the first exhaust apparatus by controlling the first exhaust apparatus (356) based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor (31, para. [0125-0129]).
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20150370245 to Sugishita.
Claims 14, 16: Sugishita discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus and/or a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by using a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a process vessel (360 [outer tube], Fig. 2, 10) in which a substrate (12 [wafer]) is processed (para. [0038-0039]); an outer vessel (300-1/300-2) configured to cover an outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 360, Fig. 2); a gas flow path (352 [cooling gas flow path], Fig. 2-3) provided between the outer vessel (300-1/300-2) and the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer circumference of 360 [outer tube]); an exhaust path (354 [exhaust path]) in communication with the gas flow path (352, para. [0046]); an adjusting valve (359 [shutters]) configured to be capable of adjusting a conductance of the exhaust path (354, para. [0047]); a first exhaust apparatus (356 [cooling gas exhaust device]) provided on the exhaust path (354) downstream of the adjusting valve (359); a pressure sensor (31 [pressure sensor], Fig. 10) configured to measure an inner pressure of the outer vessel (para. [0127-0129]); by a computer, to perform: (a) heating the process vessel (para. [0039]); (b) transferring a substrate into the process vessel (para. [0039]); and (c) processing the substrate in the process vessel heated in (a), wherein, in (a), an exhaust volume flow rate of the first exhaust apparatus (356) is adjusted based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor (31, para. [0125-0129]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190032217 to Yoshino in view of US 20150370245 to Sugishita.
Claim 1: Yoshino discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process vessel (203 [process container], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (200 [wafer]) is processed (para. [0018]); an outer vessel (223 [shielding plate]) configured to cover an outer circumference of the process vessel (203, para. [0040]);
Yoshino does not disclose a gas flow path provided between the outer vessel and the outer circumference of the process vessel; an exhaust path in communication with the gas flow path; an adjusting valve configured to be capable of adjusting a conductance of the exhaust path; a first exhaust apparatus provided on the exhaust path downstream of the adjusting valve; a pressure sensor configured to measure an inner pressure of the outer vessel; and a controller configured to be capable of adjusting an exhaust volume flow rate of the first exhaust apparatus by controlling the first exhaust apparatus based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Sugishita discloses a gas flow path (352 [cooling gas flow path], Fig. 2-3) provided between the outer vessel (300-1/300-2) and the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer circumference of 360 [outer tube]); an exhaust path (354 [exhaust path]) in communication with the gas flow path (352, para. [0046]); an adjusting valve (359 [shutters]) configured to be capable of adjusting a conductance of the exhaust path (354, para. [0047]); a first exhaust apparatus (356 [cooling gas exhaust device]) provided on the exhaust path (354) downstream of the adjusting valve (359); a pressure sensor (31 [pressure sensor], Fig. 10) configured to measure an inner pressure of the outer vessel (para. [0127-0129]); and a controller (400 [process control unit]) configured to be capable of adjusting an exhaust volume flow rate of the first exhaust apparatus by controlling the first exhaust apparatus based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor (31, para. [0125-0129]), for the purpose of preventing the thickness of the film on the wafer from being non-uniform (para. [0124, [0131]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Sugishita with motivation to prevent preventing the thickness of the film on the wafer from being non-uniform.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Yoshino in view of Sugishita discloses further comprising a plasma generator (212/274/273, Fig. 1, Yoshino) provided along the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer of 203, Fig. 1) between the outer vessel (223) and the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 203), constituted by an electrode (212 [resonance coil]) to which a high frequency power is supplied (para. [0020]), and configured to plasma-excite a gas supplied into the process vessel (203, para. [0020]), wherein the electrode (212) is constituted by a coil (212) wound around the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 203, para. [0020]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150370245 to Sugishita as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 20190032217 to Yoshino as evidenced by US 20050188923 to Cook.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sugishita does not disclose further comprising a plasma generator provided along the outer circumference of the process vessel between the outer vessel and the outer circumference of the process vessel, constituted by an electrode to which a high frequency power is supplied, and configured to plasma-excite a gas supplied into the process vessel, wherein the electrode is constituted by a coil wound around the outer circumference of the process vessel.
However Yoshino discloses a plasma generator (212/274/273, Fig. 1) provided along the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer of 203, Fig. 1) between the outer vessel (223) and the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 203), constituted by an electrode (212 [resonance coil]) to which a high frequency power is supplied (para. [0020]), and configured to plasma-excite a gas supplied into the process vessel (203, para. [0020]), wherein the electrode (212) is constituted by a coil (212) wound around the outer circumference of the process vessel (outer 203, para. [0020]). This is evidenced by Cook which teaches that atomic species for etching or other processing can be generated by a variety of methods, including via plasma source, or thermally using a hot filament heater, for the purpose of generating ions of excited atoms/molecules to enhance the atomic species generation rate (para. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Yoshino as evidenced by Cook with motivation to generate ions of excited atoms/molecules to enhance the atomic species generation rate.
Claim(s) 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150370245 to Sugishita as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Sugishita does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further capable of controlling the first exhaust apparatus such that a differential pressure between the pressure measured by the pressure sensor (31) and an atmospheric pressure is adjusted to a predetermined differential pressure value.
However Sugishita teaches controlling the first exhaust apparatus (356, Fig. 2, Sugishita) such that the pressures are regulated and adjusted as they can vary (para. [0127-0129]) for the purpose of making the film thickness of the wafer uniform even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility (para. [0124]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate controlling the apparatus with motivation to make the film thickness of the wafer uniform even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility.
Claims 4-9: The apparatus of Sugishita does not explicitly disclose (claim 4) wherein a predetermined opening degree is set in the adjusting valve in accordance with the predetermined differential pressure value; (claim 5) wherein the predetermined opening degree is set in the adjusting valve in accordance with the predetermined differential pressure value and an exhaust volume flow rate of a second exhaust apparatus connected to a downstream side of the exhaust path; (claim 6) wherein the predetermined opening degree is set to be smaller than a reference degree at which a differential pressure between a pressure measured by the pressure sensor when the first exhaust apparatus is not operated and the atmospheric pressure is equal to the predetermined differential pressure value;
(claim 7) wherein the controller is further capable of controlling an opening degree of the adjusting valve to the predetermined opening degree in accordance with the predetermined differential pressure value; (claim 8) wherein the controller is capable of controlling the opening degree of the adjusting valve to the predetermined opening degree in accordance with the predetermined differential pressure value and an exhaust volume flow rate of a second exhaust apparatus connected to a downstream side of the exhaust path; (claim 9) wherein the predetermined opening degree is set to be smaller than a reference degree at which a differential pressure between a pressure measured by the pressure sensor when the first exhaust apparatus is not operated and the atmospheric pressure is equal to the predetermined differential pressure value.
Sugishita discloses a second exhaust apparatus (355 [exhaust unit with blower], para. [0047]) and the adjusting valve (359) are in the vicinity of the second exhaust apparatus (355) where the adjusting valves (359) are controlled by a shutter control unit for the purpose of opening or closing the cooling gas flow path (352) and the exhaust path (354) (para. [0047]). Sugishita also teaches that cooling performance varies with the change in exhaust pressure, which then affects the thickness uniformity of a film on a wafer (para. [0122]) which can be adjusted by the controller (400, para. [0122-0131]), for the purpose of preventing the film from being non-uniform due to the change in the flow rate of the cooling medium flowing through the cooling gas flow path, even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility connected to the exhaust hole (para. [0131]).
It is noted that the limitations above are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, with the controller (400, Fig. 10) controlling the structures (at least 356, 359, 355) depending on the pressure(s) of the facility(ies). The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the operations options as taught by Sugishita with motivation to open or close the cooling gas flow path (352) and the exhaust path and/or prevent the film from being non-uniform due to the change in the flow rate of the cooling medium flowing through the cooling gas flow path, even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility connected to the exhaust hole.
Claims 10-11: The apparatus of Sugishita discloses (claim 10) further comprising a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the process vessel (322-1-322-1 [external temperature sensors], Fig. 3, para. [0041]).
However the modified apparatus does not explicitly disclose (claim 10) wherein the predetermined differential pressure is set based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor; (claim 11) wherein the controller is further capable of controlling the first exhaust apparatus such that the differential pressure between the pressure measured by the pressure sensor and the atmospheric pressure is adjusted to the predetermined differential pressure value which is set based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor.
Yet Sugishita teaches in another embodiment to adjust the target pressure setting value in the exhaust path based on the pressure value detected by the pressure sensor and the temperature different between two points near the wafer(s) (para. [0134-0138]), for the purpose of realizing a target temperature distribution by setting the exhaust pressure corresponding to the target temperature distribution value, even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility connected to the exhaust hole (para. [0143]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the operation of options as taught by Sugishita with motivation to realize a target temperature distribution by setting the exhaust pressure corresponding to the target temperature distribution value, even if there is a variation or a change in the exhaust pressure of the facility connected to the exhaust hole.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100119351 to Liu.
Claims 12, 13: The apparatus of Sugishita discloses (claim 13) wherein the exhaust path (354, Fig. 3, Sugishita) is connected to an upper surface of the outer vessel (upper surface of 32).
The apparatus of Sugishita does not disclose (claim 12) wherein the pressure sensor is provided in the outer vessel between the gas flow path and the exhaust path; (claim 13) and the pressure sensor is provided vertically below the exhaust path within the outer vessel.
However Liu teaches that pressure sensors may be located proximal or distally external to a tool (outer chamber of 14) or that multiple pressure sensors can be placed in multiple areas for the purpose of detecting the ambient pressure substantially continuously as a real-time pressure obtained (para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of placement of the pressure sensors as taught by Liu with motivation to detect the ambient pressure substantially continuously as a real-time pressure obtained.
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishita as applied to claims 14, 16 above, and further in view of US 20190032217 to Yoshino as evidenced by US 20050188923 to Cook.
Claims 15, 17: The apparatus and/or method of Sugishita does not disclose wherein (c) comprises plasma-exciting a gas supplied into the process vessel.
Yoshino discloses wherein (c) comprises plasma-exciting a gas supplied into the process vessel (203, para. [0020]). This is evidenced by Cook which teaches that atomic species for etching or other processing can be generated by a variety of methods, including via plasma source, or thermally using a hot filament heater, for the purpose of generating ions of excited atoms/molecules to enhance the atomic species generation rate (para. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Yoshino as evidenced by Cook with motivation to generate ions of excited atoms/molecules to enhance the atomic species generation rate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6015465 discloses a process chamber (25, Fig. 1) having an inductor antenna (85) which is between the outside of the process chamber (25) and a vapor chamber (100) with a temperature control system (10) which regulates the temperature around the antenna (85). US 6598559 discloses a process chamber ceiling (45 of 25, Fig. 3) that has its temperature regulated by a temperature control system (gas circulating system [115]), with an inductor antenna (80) surrounding the ceiling (45) and the antenna (80) surrounded by a top enclosure (110).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718