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Applicant’s arguments regarding election/restriction are persuasive, therefore, the restriction has been withdrawn and claims 1-20 have been examined here.
Claim Objection
Claims 7 and 14 have been objected for claim language “wherein a ratio of the atmospheric pressure change to a corresponding pressure adaptation value of the acceptable process recipe is less than a constant”. Examiner suggests the applicant to clarify “constant”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew et al. (US 2003/0094136, hereinafter Bartholomew) in view of Liu (CN 104751261, hereinafter Liu).
With respect to claim 1, Bartholomew discloses a method for manufacturing wafers (Para 0002), comprising: forming, according to a first control parameter, a first oxidation layer on each wafer of a first batch of wafers arranged in a process tube under a first atmospheric pressure (Para 0008-0009; and 0038) wherein the first oxidation layer has a first thickness (Para 0009 – oxide film thickness); detecting a second atmospheric pressure in the process tube (Para 0009 – 1000; 0012 - pressure difference between the initial and later pressures); determining an atmospheric pressure change between the second atmospheric pressure and the first atmospheric pressure (Para 0008); selecting, according to a corresponding ratio of each of a plurality of
process recipes, an acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process
recipes (Para 0037; changes in recipe are due to pressure change and it implies that optimal recipe is selected from different options), wherein the corresponding ratio of each of the plurality of process recipes is associated with the atmospheric pressure change and a corresponding pressure adaptation value of each of the plurality of process recipes, wherein the acceptable process recipe corresponds to a second
thickness (Abstract and Para 0009; 0047); determining a thickness difference between the second thickness and the first thickness (Para 0013; 0047-0049; difference can be determined by (max-min)); generating a second control parameter according to the atmospheric pressure change (Para 0012-0014), the thickness difference (Para 0014 &0047), and the first control parameter (Para 0048-0049 & 0053); and forming a second oxidation layer on each wafer of the second batch of wafers arranged in the process tube under the second atmospheric pressure according to the second control parameter (Para 0037-0040; 0056 &0058).
Bartholomew does not explicitly disclose that the second atmospheric pressure is detected in response to receiving a process request corresponding to a second batch of
wafers.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses that the second atmospheric pressure is detected in response to receiving a process request corresponding to a second batch of
wafers (Page 10; Para 02; Page 16; Para 01). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartholomew’s device by having Liu’s disclosure in order to maintain consistency in wafer processing by adjusting processing conditions according to the changing processing conditions.
With respect to claim 2, Bartholomew discloses wherein selecting, according to the corresponding ratio of each of the plurality of process recipes, the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes comprises:
determining a plurality of pressure adaptation values corresponding to the
plurality of process recipes according to a plurality of target thicknesses (Para 0005; 0009 and 0047; 0053) and a plurality of factor values (Para 0037-0038), wherein the plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0036-0037 & 0058).
With respect to claim 4, Bartholomew discloses wherein generating the second control parameter according to the atmospheric pressure change, the thickness difference, and the first control parameter comprises: generating a control parameter change according to the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference (Para 0007-0009); and generating the second control parameter according to the first control parameter and the control parameter change (Para 0011-0012 and 0014).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bartholomew/Liu in view of Dekraker (US 2018/0025904, hereinafter Dekraker).
With respect to claim 6, Bartholomew/Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Bartholomew/Liu does not explicitly disclose after determining the atmospheric pressure change, determining that the atmospheric pressure change is greater than a threshold value to perform the selecting, according to the corresponding ratio of each of the plurality of process recipes, the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes.
In an analogous art, Dekraker discloses after determining the atmospheric pressure change (Para 0044), determining that the atmospheric pressure change is greater than a threshold value to perform the selecting (Para 0132), according to the corresponding ratio of each of the plurality of process recipes, the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes (Para 0035 and 0119). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartholomew/Liu’s device by having Dekraker’s disclosure in order to achieve the optimal results by adjusting the processing parameters according to changes in the pressure.
Claim 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US 2014/0287598, hereinafter Hirose) in view of Garza et al. (US 2005/0095800, hereinafter Garza).
With respect to claim 7, Hirose discloses a method for manufacturing wafers (Para 0002), comprising: heating a process tube according to a control parameter (Para 00074); detecting an atmospheric pressure change in the process tube (Para 0037; 0075 and 0082); selecting an acceptable process recipe among a plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and a plurality of pressure adaptation values corresponding to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0126; 0138 and 0255); updating the control parameter according to the atmospheric pressure change (Para 0035; and 0082); and heating the process tube according to a updated control parameter (Para 0078 and 0081-0082 and 0096 and 0157).
Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of the
atmospheric pressure changes to a corresponding pressure adaptation value of the
acceptable process recipe is less than a constant.
In an analogous art, Garza discloses wherein a ratio of the
atmospheric pressure change to a corresponding pressure adaptation value of the
acceptable process recipe is less than a constant (Para 0008; 0013; 0063-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose’s device by having Garza’s disclosure in order to maintain consistency in wafer processing by adjusting processing conditions according to the changing processing conditions.
With respect to claim 14, Hirose discloses a wafer manufacturing system (Fig. 1), comprising: a process tube (203) at least one heating device (207) configured to heat the process tube to a temperature (Para 00074); a temperature controller (Para 0082; 0096; and 0215), electrically connected to the at least one heating device and configured to control, according to a plurality of control parameters, the temperature of the process tube through the at least one heating device (Para 0078); an atmospheric pressure sensor (245), connected to the process tube (Fig. 1, Para 0075) and configured to detect an atmospheric pressure change in the process tube (Para 0037; 0075 and 0082); and a controller (241), electrically connected to the atmospheric pressure sensor and the temperature controller (Para 0031, 0035); wherein the controller is configured to select an acceptable process recipe among a plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and a plurality of pressure adaptation values corresponding to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0126; 0138 and 0255); and configured to generate a first control parameter of the plurality of control parameters, according to the atmospheric pressure change (Para 0035; and 0082).
Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of the atmospheric pressure changes to a corresponding pressure adaptation value of the acceptable process recipe is less than a constant.
In an analogous art, Garza discloses wherein a ratio of the atmospheric pressure change to a corresponding pressure adaptation value of the acceptable process recipe is less than a constant (Para 0008; 0013; 0063-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose’s device by having Garza’s disclosure in order to maintain consistency in wafer processing by adjusting processing conditions according to the changing processing conditions.
With respect to claims 8 and 15, Hirose discloses wherein selecting the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and the plurality of pressure adaptation values comprises: determining the plurality of pressure adaptation values corresponding to the
plurality of process recipes according to a plurality of target thicknesses and a
plurality of factor values (Para 0080-0082; 0096; 0103), wherein the plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0148-0149; and 0255).
With respect to claim 9, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and the plurality of pressure adaptation values comprises: comparing the ratio of the atmospheric pressure change to the corresponding pressure adaptation value of the acceptable process recipe with the constant.
In an analogous art, Garza discloses selecting the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and the plurality of pressure adaptation values comprises: comparing the ratio of the atmospheric pressure change to the corresponding pressure adaptation value of the acceptable process recipe with the constant (Para 0008; 0013; 0063-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose’s device by having Garza’s disclosure in order to maintain consistency in wafer processing by adjusting processing conditions according to the changing processing conditions.
With respect to claim 10, Hirose discloses before detecting the atmospheric pressure change in the process tube, forming a first oxidation layer on each wafer of a first batch of wafers arranged in the process tube under a first a pressure, wherein the first oxidation layer has a first thickness (Para 0103 and 0107; 0181); and after heating the process tube according to the updated control parameter (Para 0078 and 0081-0082 and 0096 and 0157), forming a second oxidation layer on each wafer of a second batch of wafers arranged in the process tube under a second pressure according to the acceptable process recipe (Para 0229), wherein the second oxidation layer has a second thickness different the first thickness (Para 0148; 0151; 0169; 0209; 0223).
With respect to claim 16, Hirose discloses the wafer manufacturing system of claim 14, wherein the controller is further configured to: select the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change (Para 0126; 0138; select a process recipe) and the plurality of pressure adaptation values and a plurality of thickness tolerance values corresponding to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0151 and 0255).
With respect to claim 17, Hirose discloses the wafer manufacturing system of claim 14, wherein the controller is further configured to: send a second control parameter of the plurality of control parameters to the temperature controller for forming a first oxidation layer to have a first thickness on a wafer in the process tube under a first atmospheric pressure (Para 0102-0103); and send the first control parameter of the plurality of control parameters to the temperature controller for forming a second oxidation layer to have a second thickness on the wafer in the process tube under a second atmospheric pressure (Para 0106-0108); wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different from each other by a thickness difference (Para 0209).
Claims 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose/Garza in view of Bartholomew.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, Hirose/Garza does not explicitly disclose wherein updating the control parameter according to the atmospheric pressure change comprises: generating a control parameter change according to the atmospheric pressure change and a thickness difference between the second thickness and the first
thickness; and updating the control parameter according to the control parameter change.
In an analogous art, Bartholomew discloses wherein updating the control parameter according to the atmospheric pressure change comprises:
generating a control parameter change according to the atmospheric pressure
change and a thickness difference between the second thickness and the first
thickness; (Para 0007-0009); and updating the control parameter according to the control parameter change (Para 0011-0012 and 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose/Garza’s device by having Bartholow’s disclosure in order to reduce variations in wafer processing to maintain the consistency.
With respect to 19. Hirose/Garza does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the control parameter change according to a plurality of factor values, the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference, wherein the plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes.
In an analogous art, Bartholomew discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the control parameter change according to a plurality of factor values (Para 0008-0009; 0012), the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference (Para 0009; 0037-0038; 0047), wherein the plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes (Para 0040, 0043).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose/Garza’s device by having Bartholow’s disclosure in order to reduce variations in wafer processing to maintain the consistency.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hirose/Garza in view of Dekraker.
With respect to claim 13, Hirose/Garza does not explicitly disclose
before selecting the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process
recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and the plurality of pressure
adaptation values, determining whether the atmospheric pressure change is less than
a threshold value.
In an analogous art, Dekraker discloses before selecting the acceptable process recipe among the plurality of process recipes according to the atmospheric pressure change and the plurality of pressure adaptation values, determining whether the atmospheric pressure change is less than a threshold value (Para 0132 and 0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartholomew/Liu’s device by having Dekraker’s disclosure in order to achieve the optimal results by adjusting the processing parameters according to changes in the pressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 12 and 20 are 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.
With respect to claim 3, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “determining the corresponding ratio of each of the plurality of process recipes to be a ratio of the atmospheric pressure change to a product of the corresponding pressure adaptation value and a corresponding thickness tolerance value of each of the plurality of process recipes” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 5, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “wherein generating the control parameter change according to the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference comprises: generating the control parameter change according to a plurality of factor
values, the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference, wherein the
plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the
atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes;
wherein the first oxidation layer and the second oxidation layer are gate oxide
layers, each of which is arranged between a gate and a substrate” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 12, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “generating the control parameter change according to a plurality of factor values, the atmospheric pressure change and the thickness difference, wherein the plurality of factor values are thickness changes that are associated with the atmospheric pressure change and correspond to the plurality of process recipes; wherein the first oxidation layer and the second oxidation layer are gate oxide layers, each of which is arranged between a gate and a substrate” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 20, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “ the controller is further configured to determine whether the atmospheric pressure change is less than a threshold value; in response to the atmospheric pressure change being larger than or equal to the threshold value, the controller is further configured to send the first control parameter, associated with the acceptable process recipe, to the temperature controller; and in response to the atmospheric pressure change being less than the threshold value, the controller is further configured to send one of the plurality of control parameters to the temperature controller” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5716. 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, Fairbanks Brent can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899