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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite an apparatus with structural limitations and material worked upon by the apparatus. While there is nothing wrong with claiming the material worked upon, such limitations are only given weight to the extent that they limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115. See In re Rishoi (94 USPQ 71), In re Smith (3 USPQ 315), and In re Young (25 USPQ 69).
In Rishoi, a film of liquid was claimed as part of an apparatus, it being clear that the liquid film is only present during use of the apparatus. It was held that the liquid film is not a structural limitation and therefore cannot impart patentability to those claims which are otherwise unpatentable. It was further stated that there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works.
In Smith, a particular web material having an extra length of carbons was claimed as part of an apparatus. The web material is worked upon by the apparatus. The court considered the possibility of combining the specified web with an old machine to provide a patentable combination, but it was held that a person may not patent a combination of a device and material upon which the device works, nor limit other persons from the use of similar material by claiming a device patent.
In Young, a concrete structure upon which an apparatus works was claimed as part of the apparatus. It was held that the inclusion of the material worked upon may not lend patentability to the apparatus.
In view of the cited cases and MPEP 2115, the claimed material worked upon has only been given weight to the extent that such limitations indicate structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Additionally, the claims recite functional limitations. These limitations are interpreted consistent with MPEP 2114 – “‘[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528”. Additionally, “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647”.
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 1-19 and 21 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates and while the substrate is in the load-lock module”. It’s not clear if “a plurality of substrates is inclusive of the substrate previously recited. Additionally, does “the substrate in the load lock module” refer to the previously recited single substrate or the plurality of substrates?
Claims 3 and 13 recite “wafers of a lot”. Are these “wafers” inclusive of the wafer included in the substrate previously recited?
In claim 8, “a vacuum module” does not properly refer back to the previously recited vacuum module.
In claim 21, is “a first substrate” the same or different than the substrate previously recited?
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, 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.
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) 1-4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyasu (US 5900103) in view of Fu (US 2007/0190266).
As to claim 1, Tomoyasu discloses a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a load lock chamber 43 switchable between an atmospheric pressure state and a vacuum pressure state (fig 1, 3, C5, L10-19); and a substrate processing apparatus (fig 1, 3) configured to transfer a substrate to and from the load lock chamber (figs 1, 3, C5, L9-19), and to perform a plasma process on a surface of the substrate in a plasma chamber 2 under a vacuum atmosphere (figs 1, 3, C6, L3-57), wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises: a substrate stage 3/4/5/11 (fig 1) disposed within the plasma chamber and configured to support the substrate (fig 1, 3, 6); a plasma gas supply 35/36/37 configured to supply a plasma gas into the plasma chamber; a steam supply configured to supply a water vapor into the plasma chamber (water can be supplied through 738C, C17, L17 – C18, L69, fig 35-40, line 57 of C18 discloses water and said water is heated and thus vaporized into gas); and a plasma generator (C5, L19-21) configured to generate a plasma in the plasma chamber (figs 1, 3, 6-8, 18, 35-40, associated text, C5, L10 – C6, L66, C17, L17 – C18, L69).
Tomoyasu does not disclose the steam supply is configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates and while the substrate is in the load lock chamber or a vacuum transfer module
Fu discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a plasma chamber (para 8), wherein a steam supply (fig 4, para 22) is configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates (fig 2, 3 5, abstract, para 8-10, 20-24), and before the substrate is loaded into the chamber (fig 2, 3 5, abstract, para 8-10, 20-24, para 23-24, water vapor capable of being supplied before a substrate is loaded into chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Tomoyasu such that the steam supply is configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates, and before the substrate is loaded into the chamber as taught by Fu above as such a modification protects the walls of the chamber.
Since the load lock chamber of Tomoyasu is separate from and adjacent the chamber and for the purpose of holding substrates, the modified apparatus is capable of holding a substrate in the load lock chamber during supplying of water vapor.
As to claim 2, the substrate and wafer are material to be worked upon and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus. See claim interpretation above. Nonetheless, Tomoyasu as modified by Fu is capable of processing a wafer, and further capable of the steam supply supplying the water vapor into the plasma chamber before wafers of a lot are sequentially plasma-process (Fu, para 20-24).
As to claim 3, Fu discloses the steam supply supplies the water vapor into the plasma chamber before the plasma is generated in the plasma chamber (para 20-24)
As to claim 4, Tomoyasu discloses the steam supply and plasma supply are capable of supplying the water vapor and plasma simultaneously (C18, L34-65, fig 35-30).
As to claim 21, Fu discloses the steam supply supplies the water vapor into the plasma chamber before plasma processing of a first substrate in a batch (fig 2, 3 5, abstract, para 8-10, 20-24).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyasu and Fu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinagawa et al. (US 5832177).
As to claim 5, Tomoyasu discloses a steam supply source configured to supply water vapor (C18, L48-59), a steam supply line connected 740 to the steam supply source and configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber (figs 35-40, C17, L10 – C18, L59).
Tomoyasu does not disclose a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of the water vapor. Shinagawa discloses a steam supply source configured to supply steam to a plasma chamber (C5, L1 – C6, L30), and a flow rate controller 11 configured to adjust a supply flow rate of the water vapor (fig 3, C7, 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Tomoyasu and Fu such that steam supply comprises a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of the water vapor as taught by Shinagawa as such enables control of the amount of steam supplied (see summary of invention in Fu).
As to claim 6, Shinagawa discloses the steam supply further comprises: a heater jacket 26a/26c that surrounds at least a portion of the steam supply line (fig 5).
As to claim 7, Shinagawa discloses the steam supply further comprises:
a temperature sensor 22a that detects a temperature of the water vapor in the steam supply source; and a pressure sensor (C5, L15-30) that detects a pressure of the water vapor in the steam supply source.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyasu and Fu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2008/0260938).
As to claim 8, Ikeda discloses a substrate transfer device 702 configured to transfer a substrate under an atmospheric pressure (para 126), a load-lock chamber 705 capable of transferring the substrate between the substrate transfer device and a substrate processing apparatus 712 (fig 8, para 126-132); a vacuum transfer module 709 configured to transfer a substrate between a load lock chamber 705 and a substrate processing apparatus 712 under the vacuum atmosphere (fig 8-9, para 128-133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tomoyasu and Fu such that a vacuum transfer module is configured to transfer the substrate between the load lock chamber and the substrate processing apparatus under the vacuum atmosphere as taught by Ikeda above as such a modification enables efficient transfer while preventing water and oxygen from entering the processing apparatus (para 126, 132)
As to claim 9. Ikeda discloses the vacuum transfer module comprises a transfer arm 725 (fig 9, para 123) configured to transfer the substrate.
As to claim 10, Ikeda discloses the vacuum transfer module maintains the vacuum pressure state and is in communication with the load lock chamber (para 132, fig 9)
Claim(s) 11-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyasu in view of Fu and further in view of Ikeda.
As to claim 11, Tomoyasu discloses plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a substrate processing apparatus (figs 1, 3) configured to perform a plasma process on a surface of the substrate in a plasma chamber under a vacuum atmosphere; a load lock chamber 43 configured to transfer the substrate to the substrate processing apparatus (figs 1, 3, 6-8, 18, 35-40, associated text, C5, L10 – C6, L66, C17, L17 – C18, L69), the load lock chamber being switchable between an atmospheric pressure state and a vacuum pressure state C5, L10-19); and a steam supply configured to supply a water vapor into the plasma chamber (See discussion of claim 1 above for detailed citations figs 1, 3, 6-8, 18, 35-40, associated text, C5, L10 – C6, L66, C17, L17 – C18, L69).
Tomoyasu does not disclose the steam supply is configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates and while the substrate is in the load lock chamber or a vacuum transfer module.
Fu discloses a plasma processing apparatus as detailed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Tomoyasu such that the steam supply is configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber prior to plasma processing of a plurality of substrates, and before the substrate is loaded into the chamber as taught by Fu above as such a modification protects the walls of the chamber.
The modified apparatus is capable of holding a substrate in the load lock chamber during supplying of water vapor as detailed in claim 1 above.
Tomoyasu does not disclose a substrate transfer device configured to transfer a substrate under an atmospheric pressure, wherein the load-lock chamber is capable of transferring the substrate between the substrate transfer device and the substrate processing apparatus; and a vacuum transfer module configured to transfer the substrate between the load lock chamber and the substrate processing apparatus under the vacuum atmosphere.
Ikeda discloses an apparatus as detailed in the discussion of claims 8-10 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tomoyasu and Fu such that a substrate transfer device configured to transfer a substrate under an atmospheric pressure, wherein the load-lock chamber is capable of transferring the substrate between the substrate transfer device and the substrate processing apparatus; and a vacuum transfer module configured to transfer the substrate between the load lock chamber and the substrate processing apparatus under the vacuum atmosphere as such a modification enables efficient transfer while preventing water and oxygen from entering the processing apparatus (para 126, 132)
As to claim 12, Ikeda discloses the apparatus wherein when the load lock chamber is in the vacuum pressure state, the vacuum transfer module is depressurized to a vacuum state and is in communication with the load lock chamber (para 132).
As to claims 13 and 14, Tomoyasu as modified by Fu discloses the limitations of the claims for the reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 3-4 above.
As to claim 15, Tomoyasu discloses the steam supply supplies the water vapor into the plasma chamber when plasma is generated in the plasma chamber (C18, L34-65, fig 35-30).
As to claim 19, Tomoyasu discloses a cleaning apparatus configured to clean the surface of the substrate after the substrate has been plasma processed by the substrate processing apparatus (C11, L45- C12, L18).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyasu, Fu and Ikeda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shinagawa et al. (US 5832177).
As to claim 16, Tomoyasu discloses a steam supply source configured to supply water vapor (C18, L48-59), a steam supply line connected 740 to the steam supply source and configured to supply the water vapor into the plasma chamber (figs 35-40, C17, L10 – C18, L59).
Shinagawa discloses an apparatus as detailed above (discussion of claims 5-7). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Tomoyasu, Fu and Ikeda such that steam supply comprises a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of the water vapor as taught by Shinagawa as such enables control of the amount of steam supplied (see summary of invention in Fu).
As to claim 17, Shinagawa discloses the steam supply further comprises: a heater jacket 26a/26c that surrounds at least a portion of the steam supply line (fig 5).
As to claim 18, Shinagawa discloses the steam supply further comprises:
a temperature sensor 22a that detects a temperature of the water vapor in the steam supply source; and a pressure sensor (C5, L15-30) that detects a pressure of the water vapor in the steam supply source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights