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 § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al (US 9,865,452) in view of Takahashi et al (US 9,818,630).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi discloses a semiconductor device manufacturing method, comprising:
loading a first substrate and a second substrate into a substrate processing apparatus, wherein the first substrate is loaded into a first chamber and the second substrate is loaded into a second chamber on the first chamber; and
processing the loaded first substrate in the first chamber and the loaded second substrate in the second chamber,
wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises:
the first and second chambers (one and two of 16, Fig.8);
a first pipe (42) through which flows a first processing solution to the first chamber to process the first substrate (W);
a second pipe (42) through which flows a second processing solution to the second chamber to process the second substrate (W); and
a temperature adjusting pipe (81) configured to surround at least a part of the first pipe, through which flows a temperature adjusting solution to adjust a temperature of the first processing solution (Col.8, lines 30+).
Oishi does not further specifically disclose wherein a length of the first pipe is shorter than a length of the second pipe.
Takahashi teaches substrate processing apparatus includes a first reaction chamber including: a first heating unit, a first processing space, and a first transfer space disposed under the first processing space, a second reaction chamber including: a second heating unit, a second processing space, and a second transfer space disposed under the second processing space wherein when lengths of the pipes 310 a through 310 d of the process modules PM1 through PM4 are different according to installation environments such as cleanliness in a clean room, the states of the thermal media supplied into the process modules PM1 through PM4 can be substantially uniformized without being affected by a difference in length (Abstract, Col.20, lines 56+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Oishi in view of Takahashi to have a length of the first pipe be shorter than a length of the second pipe in order to allow for installation in a small working space. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art {please see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)}. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses a temperature of the temperature adjusting solution is lower than the temperature of the first processing solution (via 81).
Regarding claim 5, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses the substrate processing apparatus further comprises: a flow meter (46) connected to the temperature adjusting pipe and configured to measure a flow rate of the temperature adjusting solution (Col.9, lines 46+).
Regarding claim 6, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses the temperature of the first processing solution is adjusted by controlling the flow rate of the temperature adjusting solution (via 46).
Regarding claim 7, Oishi discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a first chamber (one of 16, Fig.7) configured to process a first substrate (W);
a second chamber (two of 16, Fig.7) disposed on the first chamber, the second chamber being configured to process a second substrate (W);
a first pipe (42) configured to supply a first processing solution to the first chamber to process the first substrate;
a second pipe (42) configured to supply a second processing solution supplied to the second chamber to process the second substrate; and
a temperature adjusting pipe (81) surrounding at least a part of the first pipe (42, Fig.7) and configured to flow a temperature adjusting solution to adjust a temperature of the first processing solution (Col.8, lines 30+).
Oishi does not further specifically disclose wherein a length of the first pipe is smaller than a length of the second pipe.
Takahashi teaches substrate processing apparatus includes a first reaction chamber including: a first heating unit, a first processing space, and a first transfer space disposed under the first processing space, a second reaction chamber including: a second heating unit, a second processing space, and a second transfer space disposed under the second processing space wherein when lengths of the pipes 310 a through 310 d of the process modules PM1 through PM4 are different according to installation environments such as cleanliness in a clean room, the states of the thermal media supplied into the process modules PM1 through PM4 can be substantially uniformized without being affected by a difference in length (Abstract, Col.20, lines 56+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Oishi in view of Takahashi to have a length of the first pipe be shorter than a length of the second pipe in order to allow for installation in a small working space. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art {please see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)}. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 8, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses wherein a temperature of the temperature adjusting solution is lower than the temperature of the first processing solution (via 81).
Regarding claim 10, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses a flow meter connected to the temperature adjusting pipe and configured to measure a flow rate of the temperature adjusting solution (46).
Regarding claim 11, Oishi, as modified above, further discloses
a flow control valve (46) provided with the temperature adjusting pipe; and
a controller configured to control the control valve to adjust the flow rate of the temperature adjusting solution to adjust the temperature of the first processing solution (18).
Regarding claim 14, Oishi, as modified above, does not specifically disclose the temperature adjusting pipe includes a first portion surrounding the first pipe having a length in the range of 450 mm to 550mm. This would be however, an optimum value for the length in the system. Nevertheless, this additional limitation is obvious as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results. Furthermore, using a length in the range of 450 mm to 550mm would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as size of space, liquid delivery requirements, ease of use, etc.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al (US 9,865,452) in view of Takahashi et al (US 9,818,630), as applied above, and further in view of Nakamori et al (US Pub App 2012/0164339).
Regarding claim 9, Oishi, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose a temperature sensor connected to the temperature adjusting pipe and configured to measure the temperature of the temperature adjusting solution.
Nakamori teaches
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Oishi in view of Nakamori to have a temperature sensor connected to the temperature adjusting pipe and configured to measure the temperature of the temperature adjusting solution in order to improve the accuracy of the system.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al (US 9,865,452) in view of Takahashi et al (US 9,818,630), as applied above, and further in view of Park et al (US Pub App 2020/0066565).
Regarding claim 15, Oishi, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose the first portion is disposed in a helical shape that wraps around at least a part of the first pipe.
Park teaches a fixing plate wherein a wafer is fixed wherein a cooling channel (14a) may have a concentrical or helical pipe structure with respect to a central axis of the cooling plate (14) (Para.38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Oishi in view of Park to use a helical shape that wraps around at least a part of the first pipe in order to improve the efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 12-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention as set forth in claims 3 and 12 and subsequent dependent claims. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a first support unit disposed in the first chamber and configured to support the first substrate and rotate the first substrate; a second support unit disposed in the second chamber and configured to support the second substrate and rotate the second substrate and a cooling flow path configured to supply a cooling fluid to cool the first and second support units, wherein the temperature adjusting pipe is connected to the cooling flow path.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention as set forth in claim 16 and subsequent dependent claims. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious a substrate processing apparatus, comprising a first chamber configured to process a first substrate, wherein the first chamber includes a first support unit configured to support the first substrate and rotate the first substrate, a second chamber disposed on the first chamber, the second chamber configured to process a second substrate, wherein the second chamber includes a second support unit configured to support the second substrate and rotate the second substrate, a valve box disposed under the first chamber, a first pipe extending from the valve box to the first chamber to supply a first processing solution to the first chamber to process the first substrate, wherein at least a part of the first pipe is disposed in the valve box; a second pipe through extending to the second chamber to supply a second processing solution to the second chamber to process the second substrate, a cooling flow path configured to supply a cooling fluid to cool the first and second support units and a temperature adjusting pipe connected to the cooling flow path and having a first portion surrounding at least a part of the first pipe, the temperature adjusting pipe configured to flow a temperature adjusting solution to adjust the temperature of the first processing solution in the first pipe, the first portion of the temperature adjusting pipe is wrapped around at least a part of the first pipe, and a length of the first pipe is shorter than a length of the second pipe.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung, Yang, Li, Yamazaki, Ohuchida, Uozumi, Inaba, Matsumoto, Fujihara, Demura, Lee, Kobayashi, Sugishita, Iwao, Oishi, Iwasaki, Shite, Sawashima, Hinode, Ishii, Ogawa, Nakashima, Sugawara, Miura, Magara, Kimura, Yamagushi, Fujishima and Kikuchi further disclose elements of a substrate processing apparatus or method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652