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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/31/23, 8/23/24 and 4/18/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaue 2012/0170999.
In Re Claim 1, Sakaue teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a plurality of process chambers (4a, 4b, 4c, Fig. 1) in which a substrate transferred thereinto is processed, wherein a plurality of processes respectively set in advance for the plurality of process chambers are performed on the substrate; a transfer chamber (hexagonal vacuum transfer chamber, 6) provided adjacent to the plurality of process chambers and maintained in a decompressed state; a waiting chamber (load lock, 8) capable of communicating with the transfer chamber in the decompressed state, provided with a plurality of supports (52) capable of supporting a plurality of substrates after a process set for a first process chamber among the plurality of process chambers is completed, and configured such that an inert gas (Nitrogen N2, Fig. 2) is supplied for every predetermined number of substrates among the plurality of substrates respectively supported by the plurality of supports. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 2, Sakaue teaches wherein an exhaust port (40) through which the inert gas is exhausted is provided on a bottom surface of the waiting chamber or on a lower portion of a side surface of the waiting chamber.
In Re Claim 3, Sakaue teaches wherein the plurality of processes respectively set for the plurality of process chambers are different from one another. (4a, 4b are single wafer chambers, 4C is a batch type chambers, Paragraph 26)
In Re Claim 5, Sakaue teaches wherein the plurality of process chambers comprise one or more single wafer type process chambers (4a, 4b) and one or more batch type process chambers (4C). (Paragraph 26)
In Re Claim 6, Sakaue teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: performing a plurality of processes (Paragraph 26) respectively set in advance for a plurality of process chambers (4a to 4c) on a substrate (W) transferred thereinto; and supplying an inert gas (Nitrogen N2, Fig. 2) for every predetermined number of substrates among a plurality of substrates respectively supported by a plurality of supports of a waiting chamber after a process set for a first process chamber among the plurality of process chambers is completed, (Paragraph 54-55) wherein the waiting chamber communicates with a transfer chamber (6) in a decompressed state, and the transfer chamber is provided adjacent to the plurality of process chambers and maintained in the decompressed state. (Paragraph 54 and 55)
In Re Claim 7, Sakaue teaches wherein in supplying the inert gas, the inert gas is exhausted through an exhaust port (40) on a bottom surface of the waiting chamber or on a lower portion of a side surface of the waiting chamber while the plurality of substrates are supported in the waiting chamber. (Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 8, Sakaue teaches wherein the plurality of processes respectively set for the plurality of process chambers are different from one another. (4a, 4b are single wafer chambers, 4C is a batch type chambers, Paragraph 26)
In Re Claim 10, Sakaue teaches wherein a single wafer type process or a batch type process is performed in the plurality of process chambers. (4a, 4b) and one or more batch type process chambers (4C). (Paragraph 26)
In Re Claim 11, Sakaue teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Paragraph 34) storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer, to perform: performing a plurality of processes (Paragraph 26) respectively set in advance for a plurality of process chambers (4a-4c) on a substrate (W) transferred thereinto; and supplying an inert gas (Nitrogen N2, Fig. 2) for every predetermined number of substrates among a plurality of substrates respectively supported by a plurality of supports of a waiting chamber after a process set for a first process chamber among the plurality of process chambers is completed, (Paragraph 54, 55) wherein the waiting chamber communicates with a transfer chamber in a decompressed state, and the transfer chamber is provided adjacent to the plurality of process chambers and maintained in the decompressed state. (Paragraph 54, 55)
In Re Claim 12, Sakaue teaches wherein in supplying the inert gas, the inert gas is exhausted through an exhaust port (40) on a bottom surface of the waiting chamber or on a lower portion of a side surface of the waiting chamber while the plurality of substrates are supported in the waiting chamber. (Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 13, Sakaue teaches wherein the plurality of processes respectively set for the plurality of process chambers are different from one another. (4a, 4b are single wafer chambers, 4C is a batch type chambers, Paragraph 26)
In Re Claim 15, Sakaue teaches wherein a single wafer type process or a batch type process is performed in the plurality of process chambers. (4a, 4b are single wafer chambers, 4C is a batch type chambers, Paragraph 26)
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) 4, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaue and in view of Weaver et al. 2021/0090917.
In Re Claims 4, 9 and 14, Sakaue teaches apparatus, method and medium of Claims 1, 6 and 11 as discussed above.
Sakaue does not teach wherein the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber is transferred into a second process chamber among the plurality of process chambers, and a process set for the second process chamber is performed on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber; transferring the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber into a second process chamber among the plurality of process chambers, and performing a process set for the second process chamber on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber; wherein the program causes the substrate processing apparatus to further perform: transferring the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber into a second process chamber among the plurality of process chambers, and performing a process set for the second process chamber on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber.
However, Weaver et al. teach wherein the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber (124) is transferred into a second process chamber (106) among the plurality of process chambers, and a process set for the second process chamber is performed on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber; (Fig. 1) transferring the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber (124) into a second process chamber (106) among the plurality of process chambers, and performing a process set for the second process chamber on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber; (Fig. 1) wherein the program (190) causes the substrate processing apparatus to further perform: transferring the substrate in stand-by in the waiting chamber (124) into a second process chamber (106) among the plurality of process chambers, and performing a process set for the second process chamber on the substrate transferred into the second process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to transfer the substrate from the standby waiting chamber into a second process chamber in the apparatus/method/medium of Sakaue as taught by Weaver et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to transfer a cooled down substrate to the second process chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hara et al., Kim et al. and Lee teach a waiting standby chamber to hold a plurality of substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652