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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant states that Sugimoto teaches of synchronized or linked movement, not sequential movement. While the Examiner does agree that Sugimoto teaches of synchronized movement between the supporting pins 13 and the gas supply unit 39, Sugimoto does not teach that the substrate and the supply unit are moved synchronously. Looking to figures 1 and 3 of Sugimoto, the lifts pins 13 in their fully retracted position are below the upper surface of stage 1 on which the substrate rests. Therefore, when both the pins and the supply unit are moved simultaneously, the supply unit and the substrate would move sequentially as the pins would need to cover the distance between the top of the pin and the upper surface of stage 1 before engaging the substrate. Therefore, the combined teachings of Tahara in view of Sugimoto still teach of all the limitations of claim 1. Looking to the cited paragraphs of [0005] and [0013]-[0017] of Sugimoto that Applicant states recite the synchronized movement, no such synchronization is taught. It appears in the cited paragraphs that the reduction of turbulence is provided by the additional movement of the surrounding member 3, not of any form of synchronized movement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 20080179006 A1) in view of Sugimoto (JP H10242024 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tahara teaches of:
A vacuum heat treatment apparatus comprising:
a vacuum chamber (¶ [0029], In FIG. 1, the substrate processing apparatus 10 is disposed adjacent to a load lock chamber 11 as a transfer chamber used for transferring a semiconductor wafer (hereinafter simply referred to as "wafer") W. This load lock chamber 11 has a transfer arm 12, described later, on which the wafer W is mounted to transfer it, and a space LS therein maintained under vacuum.);
a stage disposed in the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, 17);
a heater provided in the stage (¶ [0031], The internal chamber 14 includes a stage heater 17 (at least one another component), which is a disc member disposed on the lower part of the space ES, containing a heater (not shown) (heating unit) and functioning as a mounting stage on which a wafer W is mounted, an enclosure base 18 (at least one another component), which is an annular ring member, disposed so as to stand on the bottom of the external chamber 13 and surround the periphery of the stage heater 17, and an enclosure 19 (movable component), which is a circular lid-like member, disposed so as to cover the stage heater 17 and enclosure base 18.);
a partition member configured to partition a part of an internal space of the vacuum chamber to form a gas processing space between itself and the substrate placing surface of the stage (Fig. 1, 18 and 19 form a partition member that partitions the substrate into a gas processing space); and
a gas supply configured to supply gas to the gas processing space (Fig. 1, 23a supplies gas to the gas processing space).
Tahara fails to explicitly teach:
a stage disposed in the vacuum chamber and having a substrate placing surface on which a substrate is placed
a vertical driving mechanism configured to sequentially lift the partition member and the substrate.
Sugimoto teaches of:
a stage disposed in the vacuum chamber and having a substrate placing surface on which a substrate is placed (Fig. 1, the stage, referred to as the substrate mounting plate 1, of Sugimoto positions the substrate W on a substrate placing surface formed by small diameter balls; ¶ [0019], This substrate mounting plate 1 has a built-in heating means such as a heater (not shown), and further has very small diameter balls (not shown) embedded in its upper surface for holding the substrate W at a very small distance (e.g., 0.15 mm).)
a vertical driving mechanism configured to sequentially lift the partition member and the substrate (Figs. 1-3, see lift mechanism of Sugimoto connected to pins 13 and 39, 13 and 39 are lifted synchronously, however, pins 13 must first travel from their fully retracted position, see Fig. 2, to reach the substrate W, see Fig. 3, therefore as combined below, the lift mechanism of Sugimoto would lift the partition member first then the substrate W)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the stage 17 of Tahra with the stage 1 of Sugimoto and include the pins 13 in the stage and connect them to the lifting mechanism for the original pins 21 of Tahara
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following reasons:
Tahara teaches of a device that differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of one stage with substrate lift pins supporting a substrate with another stage with substrate lift pins and a substrate placing surface that supports the substrate
A stage with substrate lift pins and a substrate placing surface was known within the art as described by Sugimoto above
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the stage of Tahra with the stage of Sugimoto and the result of the substitution would predictably allow for the substrate to still be heated and slightly raised off of the stage
Tahara has placed no criticality on the use of the pins to slightly raise the substrate off of the stage
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the vertical driving mechanism includes:
substrate lift pins (Sugimoto, Fig. 1, 13);
partition member lift pins (Tahra, Fig. 1, 20)
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
a support plate to which the substrate lift pins and the partition member lift pins are fixed; and
a driving device configured to drive the support plate.
Sugimoto further teaches of:
a support plate to which the substrate lift pins and the partition member lift pins are fixed (Fig. 1, 15); and
a driving device configured to drive the support plate (Fig. 1, 17 lifts 15).
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add 15, 17, 19 and 35 of Sugimoto into 13 of Tahara and further attach 15 to the pins 13 of the combined teachings, attach 35 to the pin 20 of Tahara and attach both 15 and 35 to 19 of Sugimoto so that when 17 of Sugimoto drives 19 both 13 of the combined teachings and 20 of Tahara are lifted, resulting in 19 of Tahra lifting first and as 13 of the combined teachings travel through 17 of Tahara the substrate W of Tahra is lifted after 19 is already lifted, as taught in Sugimoto
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following reasons:
Tahara teaches of a device that differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the two separate lift mechanisms for the enclosure and the substrate for one lift mechanism connecting lift pins for the enclosure and substrate on a common support plate
Substrate lift pins and enclosure lift pins being connected on a common support plate and that support plate being connected to a single driving device was known within the art as described by Sugimoto above
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the lift mechanism for the substrate and enclosure of Tahara with single lift mechanism and support plate of Sugimoto and the result of the substitution would predictably allow for the substrate and the enclosure to be lifted
Tahara has placed no criticality on the separate lift mechanisms for the substrate and enclosure
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the partition member has a first recess forming the gas processing space between the partition member and the substrate placing surface of the stage (Tahra, Fig. 1, 19 forms the first recess forming the gas processing space IS between 19 and 17).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the apparatus of claim 4, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the stage has an annular member disposed on an outer peripheral side of the substrate placing surface, and the partition member further has a second recess forming an exhaust channel communicating with the gas processing space between the partition member and the annular member (Tahara, Fig. 1, see annular member on the outer peripheral of the stage 17 as the portion of 18 with 22 positioned between 18 and 17 and further the second recess is formed between 19a on the right side of 19 and the annular member portion of 18 from which gas is exhausted via 24).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the apparatus of claim 5, and the combined teachings further teach:
Wherein the gas supply has a discharge port configured to discharge gas onto an upper surface of the annular member, and the partition member further has a third recess communicating with the first recess from a position corresponding to the discharge port (Tahara, Fig. 1, 23c is a gas discharge port configured to discharge gas onto an upper surface of 19 via the third recess formed between the annular member portion of 18 and 19a on the left side of 19).
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 20080179006 A1) in view of Sugimoto (JP H10242024 A) as presented in claims 4-6 and in further view of Yamamoto (US 6187102 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the vacuum heat treatment apparatus of claim 4, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a surface of the first recess is a treated surface which has been subjected to blasting.
Yamamoto teaches of:
wherein a surface of the first recess is a treated surface which has been subjected to blasting (Col. 8, lines 16-33, The inner surfaces of the furnace entrance 2 of the thermal treatment furnace 3 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, where reaction by-products of the treatment gas can be assumed to adhere, have roughened surfaces (not shown) that are subjected to a surface-roughening process to suppress any peeling of those reaction by-products. The region over which the surface-roughening process is performed covers the inner surfaces (inner peripheral surfaces) of the manifold 7 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, including the exhaust part 6, but, since it is difficult for reaction by-products to occur at the low pressure of a few tenths of a Torr downstream of the multiple-function valve 11 and the filtering valve 13, the surface-roughening process need be performed only on the inner surfaces of the manifold 7 that are higher than the inner flange portion 8, the inner surfaces of the exhaust part 6, and the inner surfaces of the exhaust pipe 10 from the exhaust part 6 to the multiple-function valve 11; Col. 8, lines 41-45, Various different methods could be used for this surface-roughening process, such as buffing, a hairline treatment, particle-basting, or composite electrolytic abrasion, but sand blasting has been verified by experiments to be the most preferable of these methods)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
sand blast all the interior surfaces of the partition 18/19 of Tahara, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It suppresses peeling of by-products that adhere to the inner surface of the processing chamber which is beneficial for the operators health and reduces cleaning frequency (Yamamoto, Col. 10, lines 13-22, a surface-roughening process to restrain the peeling of reaction by-products therefrom, so peeling does not readily occur even if such reaction by-products adhere thereto. This makes it possible to either prevent or restrain the generation of particles, which is also effective from the point of view of operators' health. In addition, cleaning need only be performed every ten runs, instead of after every run in the prior art, carried out in view of the peeling periods of reaction by-products, so that the spacing of periodic cleaning can be greatly increased, thus improving the processing capability.)
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the vacuum heat treatment apparatus of claim 5, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein surfaces of the first recess and the second recess are treated
surfaces which have been subjected to blasting.
Yamamoto teaches of:
wherein surfaces of the first recess and the second recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to blasting (Col. 8, lines 16-33, The inner surfaces of the furnace entrance 2 of the thermal treatment furnace 3 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, where reaction by-products of the treatment gas can be assumed to adhere, have roughened surfaces (not shown) that are subjected to a surface-roughening process to suppress any peeling of those reaction by-products. The region over which the surface-roughening process is performed covers the inner surfaces (inner peripheral surfaces) of the manifold 7 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, including the exhaust part 6, but, since it is difficult for reaction by-products to occur at the low pressure of a few tenths of a Torr downstream of the multiple-function valve 11 and the filtering valve 13, the surface-roughening process need be performed only on the inner surfaces of the manifold 7 that are higher than the inner flange portion 8, the inner surfaces of the exhaust part 6, and the inner surfaces of the exhaust pipe 10 from the exhaust part 6 to the multiple-function valve 11; Col. 8, lines 41-45, Various different methods could be used for this surface-roughening process, such as buffing, a hairline treatment, particle-basting, or composite electrolytic abrasion, but sand blasting has been verified by experiments to be the most preferable of these methods)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
sand blast all the interior surfaces of the partition 18/19 of Tahara, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It suppresses peeling of by-products that adhere to the inner surface of the processing chamber which is beneficial for the operators health and reduces cleaning frequency (Yamamoto, Col. 10, lines 13-22, a surface-roughening process to restrain the peeling of reaction by-products therefrom, so peeling does not readily occur even if such reaction by-products adhere thereto. This makes it possible to either prevent or restrain the generation of particles, which is also effective from the point of view of operators' health. In addition, cleaning need only be performed every ten runs, instead of after every run in the prior art, carried out in view of the peeling periods of reaction by-products, so that the spacing of periodic cleaning can be greatly increased, thus improving the processing capability.)
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus of claim 6, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein surfaces of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to blasting.
Yamamoto teaches of:
wherein surfaces of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to blasting (Col. 8, lines 16-33, The inner surfaces of the furnace entrance 2 of the thermal treatment furnace 3 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, where reaction by-products of the treatment gas can be assumed to adhere, have roughened surfaces (not shown) that are subjected to a surface-roughening process to suppress any peeling of those reaction by-products. The region over which the surface-roughening process is performed covers the inner surfaces (inner peripheral surfaces) of the manifold 7 and the inner surfaces of the exhaust system 14, including the exhaust part 6, but, since it is difficult for reaction by-products to occur at the low pressure of a few tenths of a Torr downstream of the multiple-function valve 11 and the filtering valve 13, the surface-roughening process need be performed only on the inner surfaces of the manifold 7 that are higher than the inner flange portion 8, the inner surfaces of the exhaust part 6, and the inner surfaces of the exhaust pipe 10 from the exhaust part 6 to the multiple-function valve 11; Col. 8, lines 41-45, Various different methods could be used for this surface-roughening process, such as buffing, a hairline treatment, particle-basting, or composite electrolytic abrasion, but sand blasting has been verified by experiments to be the most preferable of these methods)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
sand blast all the interior surfaces of the partition 18/19 of Tahara, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It suppresses peeling of by-products that adhere to the inner surface of the processing chamber which is beneficial for the operators health and reduces cleaning frequency (Yamamoto, Col. 10, lines 13-22, a surface-roughening process to restrain the peeling of reaction by-products therefrom, so peeling does not readily occur even if such reaction by-products adhere thereto. This makes it possible to either prevent or restrain the generation of particles, which is also effective from the point of view of operators' health. In addition, cleaning need only be performed every ten runs, instead of after every run in the prior art, carried out in view of the peeling periods of reaction by-products, so that the spacing of periodic cleaning can be greatly increased, thus improving the processing capability.)
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 20080179006 A1) in view of Sugimoto (JP H10242024 A) and Yamamoto (US 6187102 B1) as presented in claims 7, 9 and 11 and in further view of Toda (US 20070298617 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the vacuum heat treatment apparatus of claim 7, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the surface of the first recess is a treated surface which has been subjected to blasting (see rejection of claim 7 above).
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the surface of the first recess is a treated surface which has been subjected to thermal spraying
Toda teaches of:
wherein the surface of the first recess is a treated surface which has been subjected to thermal spraying (¶ [0041], a chamber 1 made of aluminum and having an inner surface thereof treated with a thermal spray coating of yttria)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Thermally coat all of the inner surfaces of the enclosure 18/19 of Tahara that come into contact with plasma of hydrogen bromide via hydrogen fluoride, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
The hydrogen fluoride gas would be supplied via the discharge opening and come into contact with the first, second and third recesses and therefore the enclosure surfaces within the recesses would deteriorate due to the plasma formed, thermally coating the interior surfaces would protect the surfaces of the enclosure from becoming damaged due to the plasma (Toda, ¶ [0006], wherein the vacuum processing chamber is treated with a ceramic thermal spray including a metallic component, such as yttria thermal spray, in order to enhance plasma-resistance.)
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the vacuum heat treatment apparatus of claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess and the second recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to blasting (see rejection of claim 9 above)
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess and the second recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to thermal spraying.
Today teaches of:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess and the second recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to thermal spraying (¶ [0041], a chamber 1 made of aluminum and having an inner surface thereof treated with a thermal spray coating of yttria)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Thermally coat all of the inner surfaces of the enclosure 18/19 of Tahara that come into contact with plasma of hydrogen bromide via hydrogen fluoride, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
The hydrogen fluoride gas would be supplied via the discharge opening and come into contact with the first, second and third recesses and therefore the enclosure surfaces within the recesses would deteriorate due to the plasma formed, thermally coating the interior surfaces would protect the surfaces of the enclosure from becoming damaged due to the plasma (Toda, ¶ [0006], wherein the vacuum processing chamber is treated with a ceramic thermal spray including a metallic component, such as yttria thermal spray, in order to enhance plasma-resistance.)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the vacuum heat treatment apparatus of claim 11, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected to blasting (see rejection of claim 11 above)
The combined teaching fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected thermal spraying.
Today teaches of:
wherein the surfaces of the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are treated surfaces which have been subjected thermal spraying (¶ [0041], a chamber 1 made of aluminum and having an inner surface thereof treated with a thermal spray coating of yttria)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Thermally coat all of the inner surfaces of the enclosure 18/19 of Tahara that come into contact with plasma of hydrogen bromide via hydrogen fluoride, including the first, second and third recesses
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
The hydrogen fluoride gas would be supplied via the discharge opening and come into contact with the first, second and third recesses and therefore the enclosure surfaces within the recesses would deteriorate due to the plasma formed, thermally coating the interior surfaces would protect the surfaces of the enclosure from becoming damaged due to the plasma (Toda, ¶ [0006], wherein the vacuum processing chamber is treated with a ceramic thermal spray including a metallic component, such as yttria thermal spray, in order to enhance plasma-resistance.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights