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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite calculating and acquiring and models. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they only require and currently include what could be construed as a generic controller element performing the calculating and acquiring and using models. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while claim 1 may have some structure, the structure might not be considered significantly more if they are merely well known, understood, routine, and conventional (WURC). Considering Campbell below teaches most of claim 1, it seems the structure might be WURC. The secondary reference Kasai was only used to teach temperature-film thickness models, which appears to be part of the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculating and acquiring. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they only require and currently include what could be construed as mental steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not qualify how calculating and acquiring is any more than data collection and inference; which are mental processes. It is suggested to relate these features to the controller.
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 1-9 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 1, line 16, “the temperature adjustment furnace” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 25-26, the phrase “the controller sets a process region to be applied to the substrate processing on the plurality of substrates, based on the comparison.” is unclear. How is the process region set? Is “the comparison” is referring to the comparison between the “acquired film thickness” and “the target film thickness”?
Claim 2, line 3, is indefinite because the phrase “in advance” is unclear.
Claim 3, line 5, is indefinite because “fine” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 4, line 5, is indefinite because “the allowable range” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4, is indefinite because “fine” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 7, line 2, is indefinite because “the allowable range” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, lines 22 and 23, is indefinite because it is unclear how the setting is occurring.
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.
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) 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2002/0085212 A1) in view of Kasai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0278699 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Campbell et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraph 0018) comprising: a processing container configured to perform a substrate processing for forming a film on a plurality of substrates (Paragraph 0021); a temperature controller configured to adjust a temperature of the plurality of substrates accommodated in the processing container, for each of a plurality of zones set in advance (Paragraph 0023); and a controller configured to control an operation of the temperature controller, wherein the temperature controller includes at least one of a ceiling heater configured to heat the processing container from a ceiling and a lower heater configured to heat a lower portion of the processing container or a portion below the processing container (Paragraph 0024), the controller holds at least one of an upper-portion temperature model of a film thickness change amount based on a temperature change of the ceiling heater and a lower-portion temperature model of a film thickness change amount based on a temperature change of the lower heater, in association with the ceiling heater and the lower heater of the temperature adjustment furnace (Paragraph 0033, 0034 – model correlating temperature to deposition rate which in turn correlates to the film thickness based on deposition rate); the controller calculates a temperature condition for each of the plurality of
zones to uniformize a film thickness among the plurality of substrates during the
substrate processing, by using the upper-portion temperature model and/or the lower portion
temperature model (Paragraph 0034, 035 – achieving film thickness uniformity),
the controller acquires the film thickness of the plurality of substrates when the
substrate processing is performed under the calculated temperature condition (Paragraph 0027 – using an ellipsometer), and compares the acquired film thickness with a target film thickness (Paragraph 0032 – target film thickness; Paragraph 0033, 0034), and when the acquired film thickness falls outside an allowable range of the target film thickness, the controller sets a process region to be applied to the substrate processing on the plurality of substrates, based on the comparison (Paragraph 0027, 0032 – controlling temperature to control deposition rate to achieve the target thickness)
The difference between Campbell et al. and claim 1 is that temperature-film thickness models are not discussed.
Regarding temperature-film thickness models (Claim 1), Campbell et al. teach a model that relate temperature and deposition rate that allows for a target thickness to be deposited. (See Campbell et al. discussed above) However this appears to be indirect correlation between temperature and film thickness. Kasai et al. teach using a temperature-film thickness model, thermal model and a controller that stores the models to deposit films at a desired thickness. (Paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0056, 0062-0068, 0073-0078, 0087; Figs. 4, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the controller calculates an initial temperature condition for each of the plurality of zones based on a thermal model held in advance, and when the acquired film thickness deviates from the target film thickness based on the initial temperature condition, the controller optimizes the temperature condition by using the held upper-portion temperature model and/or lower-portion temperature model.
Regarding claim 2, Kasai et al. teach the controller calculates an initial temperature condition for each of the plurality of zones based on a thermal model held in advance (Paragraph 0049, 0054) when the acquired film thickness deviates from the target film thickness based on the initial temperature condition, the controller optimizes the temperature condition by using the held upper-portion temperature model and/or lower-portion temperature model. (Paragraph 0054, 0056, 0062, 0067, 0077-0093)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in optimizing the temperature condition, the controller calculates an adjustment knob change amount that minimizes an evaluation function having the upper-portion temperature model and/or the lower-portion temperature model, a residual between the acquired film thickness and the target film thickness, a fine-tuning coefficient, and the adjustment knob change amount.
Regarding claim 3, Kasia et al. teach wherein in optimizing the temperature condition, the controller calculates an adjustment knob change amount (Paragraph 0078 – adjustment processing) that minimizes an evaluation function having the upper-portion temperature model and/or the lower-portion temperature model, a residual between the acquired film thickness and the target film thickness (Paragraph 0074), a fine-tuning coefficient (paragraph 0076), and the adjustment knob change amount (Paragraph 0078 – adjustment processing).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the controller calculates a predicted film thickness of the plurality of substrates based on the calculated adjustment knob change amount, and compares the predicted film thickness with the target film thickness, thereby determining whether the predicted film thickness falls outside the allowable range of the target film thickness.
Regarding claim 4, Kasai et al. teach wherein the controller calculates a predicted film thickness of the plurality of substrates based on the calculated adjustment knob change amount, and compares the predicted film thickness with the target film thickness, thereby determining whether the predicted film thickness falls outside the allowable range of the target film thickness. (Paragraph 0073-076)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the controller holds in advance a model of a temperature condition obtained by adding the upper portion temperature model and/or the lower-portion temperature model to a thermal model for regulating a temperature of each of the plurality of zones, and the controller optimizes the temperature condition for each of the plurality of zones based on the model of the temperature condition.
Regarding claim 5, Kasai et al. teach wherein the controller holds in advance a model of a temperature condition obtained by adding the upper portion temperature model and/or the lower-portion temperature model to a thermal model for regulating a temperature of each of the plurality of zones, and the controller optimizes the temperature condition for each of the plurality of zones based on the model of the temperature condition. (Paragraphs 0049-0054, 0073-0076)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in optimizing the temperature condition, the controller calculates an adjustment knob change amount that minimizes an evaluation function having the upper-portion temperature model and/or the lower-portion temperature model, a residual between the acquired film thickness and the target film thickness, a fine-tuning coefficient, and the adjustment knob change amount.
Regarding claim 6, Kasia et al. teach wherein in optimizing the temperature condition, the controller calculates an adjustment knob change amount (Paragraph 0078 – adjustment processing) that minimizes an evaluation function having the temperature condition, a residual between the acquired film thickness and the target film thickness (Paragraph 0074), a fine-tuning coefficient (Paragraph 0076), and the adjustment knob change amount (Paragraph 0078 – adjustment processing).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in setting the process region, the controller extracts a substrate existing outside the allowable range of the target film thickness, by performing a linear interpolation based on the acquired film thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Kasai et al. teach wherein in setting the process region, the controller extracts a substrate existing outside the allowable range of the target film thickness, by performing a linear interpolation based on the acquired film thickness. (Paragraph 0075 – linear programming)
Regarding claim 9, Campbell et al. teach a temperature regulation method (Fig. 3) comprising:
providing a substrate processing apparatus including a processing container configured to perform a substrate processing for forming a film on a plurality of substrates (Paragraph 0021), and a temperature controller configured to adjust a temperature of the plurality of substrates accommodated in the processing container, for each of a plurality of zones set in advance (Paragraph 0023), the temperature controller including at least one of a ceiling heater configured to heat the processing container from a ceiling and a lower heater configured to heat a lower portion of the processing container or a portion below the processing container (Paragraph 0033, 0034 – model correlating temperature to deposition rate which in turn correlates to the film thickness based on deposition rate);
calculating a temperature condition for each of the plurality of zones to uniformize a film thickness among the plurality of substrates during the substrate processing, by using at least one of an upper-portion temperature model of a film thickness change amount based on a temperature change of the ceiling heater and a lower-portion temperature model of a film thickness change amount based on a temperature change of the lower heater, in association with the ceiling heater and the lower heater of the temperature adjustment furnace (Paragraph 0033, 0034)
acquiring the film thickness of the plurality of substrates when the substrate
processing is performed under the temperature condition calculated in the calculating,
and comparing the film thickness acquired in the acquiring with a target film thickness(Paragraph 0032 – target film thickness; Paragraph 0033, 0034);
and
when the film thickness acquired in the acquiring falls outside an allowable
range of the target film thickness, setting a process region to be applied to the substrate
processing on the plurality of substrates, based on the comparing (Paragraph 0027, 0032 – controlling temperature to control deposition rate to achieve the target thickness).
The difference between Campbell et al. and claim 1 is that temperature-film thickness models are not discussed.
Regarding temperature-film thickness models (Claim 1), Campbell et al. teach a model that relate temperature and deposition rate that allows for a target thickness to be deposited. (See Campbell et al. discussed above) However this appears to be indirect correlation between temperature and film thickness. Kasai et al. teach using a temperature-film thickness model, thermal model and a controller that stores the models to deposit films at a desired thickness. (Paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0056, 0062-0068, 0073-0078, 0087; Figs. 4, 6)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kasai et al. is that it allows for improving accuracy of film thickness of a target film thickness. (Paragraph 0078)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Campbell et al. by utilizing the features of Kasai et al. is that it allows for improving accuracy of film thickness of a target film thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 (via dependence on claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach wherein the controller controls a temperature of the ceiling heater based on a ceiling plate ratio, which is a ratio between a power fed to a side heater heating a zone closest to the ceiling heater among the plurality of zones and a power fed to the ceiling heater, and the upper-portion temperature model is information representing the film thickness change amount when the ceiling plate ratio is changed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 3, 2026