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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugishita et al. (WO 2018/100826 [PgPub US 20190276938 A1]1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190393059 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Sugishita et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a reaction tube 11 in which a process chamber configured to process a substrate 1 1is formed (Sugishita Figs. 1-2, 8A & Abstract2);
a heater structure 40 that is installed outside the reaction tube and includes a heater configured to heat the substrate (Sugishita Figs. 1-2, 8A & Abstract);
a cooler including a cooling valve 102 configured to supply a cooling medium to a space between the heater structure and the reaction tube (Sugishita Figs. 1-2, 8A & Abstract, ¶s 30-31, 57, 59, 71, 74, 88 & 102 – Note: From the referenced paragraphs the substrate processing apparatus, the "exhaust" and "cooling air" can be understood as the same gas flow (Element 90) performing two sequential roles. The process begins when cooling air is supplied through inlet pipes (101) and controlled by a valve (102) to regulate the temperature of specific zones within the furnace. This cooling gas is then ejected through "rapid cooling holes" (110) directly toward the reaction tube to absorb heat. Once the air has performed this cooling function, it is directed into an exhaust path (17), formed by a circular gap between the inner and outer tubes (13, 12), where it essentially becomes the exhaust gas. Finally, this gas is pulled out of the system through an exhaust pipe (18) by external "exhaust facilities," with the control valve (102) continually adjusting the flow to compensate for any fluctuations in the factory's exhaust suction to ensure temperature stability. );
an exhaust fan configured to supply the cooling medium to the cooler (Sugishita Figs. 1-2, 8A & Abstract); and
a cooling controller 64/300
As mapped and addressed above, Sugishita discloses a cooling controller 300 and a temperature controller 64 configured to regulate a cooling valve 102 to adjust the flow of a cooling medium in the space between a heater and a reaction tube. While Sugishita describes using these components for thermal management control, it primarily focuses on reactive feedback control and is silent upon the specific capability of model prediction control (MPC) as recited in the further “configured to” claim language.
The specific language at issue is: “a cooling controller configured to: acquire a prediction model that includes information of the exhaust fan, a final target temperature that is a future target, and an opening state of the cooling valve and estimates a predicted temperature that predicts at least one selected from the group of a temperature of the heater and a temperature of the process chamber; acquire the at least one selected from the group of the temperature of the heater and the temperature of the process chamber, the opening state of the cooling valve, and the information of the exhaust fan; and regulate the opening state of the cooling valve to minimize an error between a predicted temperature column calculated according to the prediction model and a target temperature column calculated from a rate of change from a present target temperature to the final target temperature when the change occurs.” This language is not understood to require any further structure or hardware apart from the control functionality already present in the prior art.
Zhang, however, teaches an advanced model-based control system for substrate processing temperature control that utilizes a "predicting module" 304 to estimate future states and minimize error. Crucially, Zhang at paragraph [0037]3 explicitly states that the proposed model-based predictive signals are used to control the system "instead of waiting for feedback to control the system." Zhang further emphasizes that this predictive approach "improves the system response" over traditional feedback (e.g. Sugishita et al.) by decreasing rise time and minimizing overshoots. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify the controller of Sugishita by incorporating the predictive logic taught by Zhang, as Zhang explicitly teaches that predictive control is a superior replacement for the reactive feedback control such as used in Sugishita. The motivation for this combination is to achieve these known benefits of Model Predictive Control (MPC) using the sensors and actuators already present in the Sugishita apparatus.
Additionally, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the "configured to" limitations of Claim 1 do not impart a clear or explicit patentable structural distinction over the prior art under MPEP § 2114. As demonstrated by the combination of Sugishita and Zhang, the apparatus of Sugishita already possesses the full structural capability, including processors, memory, and data input/output paths, to collect and manipulate the required data. Zhang explicitly teaches that such controllers are capable of being programmed or "configured" to perform predictive modeling. Since the physical hardware required to execute the algorithm is already disclosed in Sugishita, and the use of MPC specifically to replace feedback control is disclosed in Zhang, the transition to the claimed predictive control represents a mere software optimization. Such a functional change in the instructions executed by a processor does not result in a new physical structure of the apparatus itself. Therefore, because the hardware is structurally capable of performing the claimed functions and the specific programming logic is taught by Zhang as a direct improvement over feedback control, the "configured to" language is an obvious modification that does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art combination. It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to replace the feedback controller of Sugishita with a model predictive based controller as taught by Zhang, since the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
CLAIM 2. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooling controller includes a temperature history storage configured to store the at least one selected from the group of the temperature of the heater and the temperature of the process chamber, an exhaust history storage configured to store an on/off signal of the exhaust fan, and a valve opening state history storage configured to store opening state information to be output to the cooling valve, and wherein the temperature history storage, the exhaust history storage, and the valve opening state history storage are configured to store data for a certain period of time respectively (Zhang et al. ¶109-110- Controllers have “various integrated circuits, logic, memory, and/or software”. Further “The computer may enable remote access to the system to monitor current progress of fabrication operations, examine a history of past fabrication operations, examine trends or performance metrics from a plurality of fabrication operations, to change parameters of current processing, to set processing steps to follow a current processing, or to start a new process.” - As understood for MPC, it is a understood requirement for history storage of temperatures, exhaust states, and valve openings in order to generate predicative models of such. The recited functions represent a mere change in instructions executed by a processor rather than a modification to the physical structure of the apparatus. Because the underlying hardware in Sugishita possesses the full structural capacity to be programmed with the logic taught by Zhang, the functional language lacks structural distinction over Sugishita as modified by Zhang.)
CLAIM 3. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooling controller further includes a creator configured to acquire the prediction model and acquire past temperature data of the at least one selected from the group of the temperature of the heater and the temperature of the process chamber, past on/off data of the exhaust fan, and past opening state data of the cooling valve, and calculate an individual input response characteristics matrix and an individual zero response characteristics vector (Zhang et al. ¶109-110- Controllers have “various integrated circuits, logic, memory, and/or software”. Further “The computer may enable remote access to the system to monitor current progress of fabrication operations, examine a history of past fabrication operations, examine trends or performance metrics from a plurality of fabrication operations, to change parameters of current processing, to set processing steps to follow a current processing, or to start a new process.” - As understood for MPC, it is a understood requirement for history storage of temperatures, exhaust states, and valve openings in order to generate predicative models of such. The recited functions represent a mere change in instructions executed by a processor rather than a modification to the physical structure of the apparatus. Because the underlying hardware in Sugishita possesses the full structural capacity to be programmed with the logic taught by Zhang, the functional language lacks structural distinction over Sugishita as modified by Zhang.)...
CLAIM 4. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the prediction model is an equation that calculates the predicted temperature and is expressed by the following
PNG
media_image4.png
593
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The recited equation appears to be a standard linear empirical prediction model form commonly used in the field of process control systems. Therefore, its inclusion in the claim language represents a functional limitation that does not provide an explicit structural distinction over prior art general-purpose computer hardware. The equation itself is considered an abstract idea, and applying it to a generic processor is a known application, lacking the necessary structural limitation to further distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. Under guidance of MPEP § 2114, an apparatus claim is distinguished from the prior art by structure, not by function alone. Since the prior art apparatus already includes a processor and memory and is structurally capable of being programmed to perform these mathematical calculations, the functional recitation of the algorithm does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.
CLAIM 5. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the reference temperature y0 is a temperature within a range of 20 degrees C. or higher and 30 degrees C. or lower, and wherein the values n and m are the number of demanded past data (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 6. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the creator is configured to create an equation expressed by the following Equation 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
367
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
d wherein Szr in Equation 3 is an individual zero response characteristics vector, Ssr is an individual input response characteristics matrix, and ŷ(t) is a predicted temperature vector (The equation provided represents standard matrix mathematics solving linear empirical equations, which constitutes a functional limitation that does not provide an explicit structural distinction under MPEP § 2114. Implementing this conventional math on an existing general-purpose processor in the prior art would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the "configured to" language is an obvious modification representing a mere software optimization of an existing machine.).
CLAIM 7. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the individual zero response characteristics vector Szr indicates an amount of change in the predicted temperature vector that changes under an influence by the past temperature and past opening state, and the individual input response characteristics matrix Ssr indicates an amount of change in the predicted temperature vector that changes under an influence by the opening state calculated at a present time (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 8. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the cooling controller further includes a target temperature column creator configured to calculate an individual target temperature column vector S.sub.tg shown by the following Equation 4, wherein the target temperature column creator is configured to calculate the individual target temperature column vector S.sub.tg from a target temperature, the present target temperature, and the rate of change from the present target temperature to the final target temperature when the change occurs:
PNG
media_image6.png
122
302
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein time t and the number of rows in Equation 4 correspond to the time (t) and the number of rows in Equation 3 (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 9. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the target temperature column creator calculates a ramping temperature deviation between the target temperature and the present target temperature and divides an absolute value of the ramping temperature deviation by the rate of change, wherein when the rate of change is zero, the target temperature column creator calculates a reference set value by the following formula: Reference set value=present target temperature+ramping temperature deviation×(1-exp(elapsed time÷(ramping time÷time constant))), wherein when the rate of change is other than zero, the target temperature column creator calculates the reference set value by the following formula: Reference set value=present target temperature+ramping temperature deviation×(1-exp(elapsed time÷ramping time)), and wherein the target temperature column creator calculate the individual target temperature column vector S.sub.tg according to the reference set value (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 10. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the cooling controller further includes an integrated characteristics creator configured to create a predetermined equation from the individual input response characteristics matrix S.sub.sr, the individual zero response characteristics vector S.sub.zr, and the individual target temperature column vector S.sub.tg, and wherein the integrated characteristics creator is configured to transform the individual input response characteristics matrix S.sub.sr into an individual input response characteristics matrix S.sub.dsr expressed by the following equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
251
243
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 11. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the integrated characteristics creator is configured to arrange the individual zero response characteristics vector Szr, the individual input response characteristics matrix Sdsr, and the individual target temperature column vector Stg in an entirety of cooling zones to be controlled, respectively, and create a predicted temperature column including an integrated input response characteristics matrix Udsr and an integrated zero response characteristics vector Uzr and a target temperature column including an integrated target temperature vector Utg, respectively (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 12. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the cooling controller further includes a calculator configured to create an evaluation function indicating a square of the error between the target temperature column and the predicted temperature column, and calculate a predetermined simultaneous equation to minimize the evaluation function, and wherein the calculator is configured to acquire the opening state of the cooling valve included in a solution of the predicted temperature column by solving the predetermined simultaneous equation (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art.)
CLAIM 13. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, wherein the cooling controller is configured to include an opening state signal supplier configured to update the opening state of the cooling valve, which is acquired from the calculator, in a predetermined control cycle (The recited functional language "configured to include an opening state signal supplier" describes a standard operational step and does not add a unique structural limitation. The prior art controller already includes the necessary hardware (processor, memory, I/O ports, valve actuator) to perform this basic signal acquisition and updating function in a conventional manner. Therefore, this functional language fails to provide an explicit structural distinction over the prior art under guidance of MPEP § 2114.)
CLAIM 14. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heater structure is divided into a plurality of control zones ( control zones -- U1, U2, CU, C, CL, L1 and L2)4, and is provided with a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of each of the control zones (cooling zones -- U1, U2, CU, C, CL, L1 and L2) in the vertical direction), and wherein the cooler is divided into a plurality of cooling zones, each of which being provided with the cooling valve (Sugishita Fig. 1-2 & 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
350
276
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
540
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 15. Sugishita et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus of claim 14, wherein the prediction model is configured to predict a predicted temperature of the at least one selected from the group of the temperature of the heater in each of the cooling zones and the temperature of the process chamber and corresponds to each temperature zone (The recited functional language regarding the predictive model is not understood to impart any additional structural detail or physical limitations to the controller beyond the standard processing hardware already disclosed in Sugishita. Under MPEP § 2114, since the prior art apparatus is structurally capable of performing these functions, the functional recitation does not distinguish the apparatus from the prior art. It is further noted, that this is the understood function of a prediction model.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
12/30/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Note: For the convenience of the reader and ease of reference to specific paragraph numbers, citations herein refer to the parallel U.S. Patent Application Publication, as the WIPO document lacks paragraph enumeration.
2 Sugishita et al. Abstract -- According to one aspect of the present invention, provided are the following: a heater unit that heats a substrate placed on a boat; a temperature control unit that controls the heater unit so as to maintain a predetermined temperature; a valve control unit that adjusts an opening degree of a control valve for adjusting the flow rate of a gas supplied to a reaction tube; and a control unit that instructs execution of a process containing a temperature raising step for raising the temperature to a predetermined temperature at a predetermined temperature raising rate, a processing step for processing the substrate at the predetermined temperature, and a temperature lowering step for lowering the temperature from the predetermined temperature at a predetermined temperature lowering rate. Also provided is a configuration in which the heating by the heater unit and the cooling by the gas supplied from the control valve are performed in parallel so as to track the predetermined temperature raising rate and predetermined temperature lowering rate.
3 Zhang et al. -- ¶ [0037] The present disclosure proposes using a plant model and Smith predictor, which is a type of predictive controller for systems with large time delays, to control one or more parameters associated with a plant (e.g., coolant supply temperature, coolant flow rate, etc.). The plant model can be estimated based on a control system used to control a plant parameter (e.g., the coolant supply temperature). Based on the plant model, Smith predictor can be used to control the plant parameter. The systems and methods of the present disclosure use predicted control signals generated based on the plant model and Smith predictor to control the system (e.g., control the substrate temperature) instead of waiting for feedback to control the system. The proposed model based Smith predictor control improves the system response. Specifically, the rise time of the controlled parameter is decreased, and disturbances are compensated to minimize overshoots in the controlled parameter. The systems and methods of the present disclosure can estimate a highly accurate plant model, which increases the efficacy of the Smith predictor.
4 Sugishita – ¶[0062] The heat insulating structure 42 used in the heating device 40 having a plurality of control zones (U1, U2, CU, C, CL, L1, L2 in this embodiment) has a side wall portion 43 formed in a cylindrical shape. The side wall 43 is formed in a multi-layer structure, and a partition 105 for separating the side wall 43 into a plurality of cooling zones (U1, U2, CU, C, CL, L1, L2) in the vertical direction; A cylindrical space between the side wall inner layer 44 and the side wall outer layer 45, which is composed of a space between the partition portions 105 adjacent in the vertical direction, and a plurality of layers of the side wall portions 43 for each cooling zone. Provided in the outer sidewall layer 45 disposed outside the gas inlet passage 107 communicating with the annular buffer 106 and the inner sidewall layer 44 disposed in the inner side of the plurality of layers of the sidewall portion 43 for each zone. Cooling in communication with buffer 106 The same interval in the circumferential direction and the vertical direction of the sidewall inner layer 44 so that the cooling air 90 is blown out from the cooling gas passage 108 to the space 75 for each cooling zone, and the space 75 provided inside the sidewall inner layer 44. It is the structure provided with the opening hole 110 provided by.