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 § 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, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18 and 19 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.
The term “future” in claim 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ future” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner suggests deleting “future” and inserting “predetermined” if supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakaya (WO 2020/194434 as cited on IDS see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Nakaya teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed;
an exhaust path that is connected between the process container (5) and an exhaust device and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container and the exhaust device (23);
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line (13) and configured to be capable of continuously adjusting an opening degree of the first valve;
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line (13a) and configured to be capable of continuously adjusting an opening degree of the second valve;
a pressure detector (17) configured to detect a pressure in the process container;
and a pressure control device (19) configured to be capable of:
selecting one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) according to a future pressure setting value (17) in the process container, and a future gas flow rate (11, 20, pg. 3 of translation) into the process container (Fig. 6 and 7),
setting an opening degree of the other valve (152b), which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a constant state;
and adjusting an opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 4 and 5, Fig. 6).
The Examiner takes the position that the pressure controller of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “so that a pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector (17, pressure, pg. 5) approaches a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) which is set each time during a processing (pg. 6)” because it teaches a pressure detector and pressuring setting value. These component allow the apparatus of the prior art to inherently perform the functions recited by claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “the pressure control device is configured to be capable of controlling the pressure (pressure control, pg. 4) in the process container (5) by adjusting the opening degree (opening degree, pg. 4) of the selected one valve (151a, 151b) during at least one period of a period from a current time until a first specific time arrives and a period from the current time until the pressure detection (pressure) value detected by the pressure detector (17) reaches a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) at the first specific time during the process” because it teaches on pages 4-6 of the translation that the apparatus functions in the manner described above. Therefore the cited prior art performs the functions recited by claim 2. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Nakaya teaches a recipe (recipe step instruction , pg. 4) as a program including a substrate processing procedure is given to the pressure control device (19), and the pressure control device includes a computer that executes substrate processing based on the recipe (bottom of page 3),
wherein the recipe for predetermining the one valve (151a, 151b), which is selected at an arbitrary first time according to the pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) at a second time, which arrives after the first time, is given to the pressure control device, and wherein the one valve (151a, 151b) is selected based on the recipe while processing the substrate (pg. 4, Fig. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Nakaya teaches the pressure control device (19) is configured to be capable of setting and adjusting a conductance of the other valve (152b), which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a state in which the conductance of the other valve (152b) is decreasing toward zero (closed) or a state in which the conductance of the other valve 152b is maintained at zero (closed) during at least one period selected from the group of a period from a current time until a first specific time arrives and a period from the current time until the pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector reaches a pressure setting value at the first specific time during processing (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Nakaya only needs to demonstrate that the apparatus is capable of performing the functions recited by claim 5. The Examiner takes the position that claim 5 is functional language that recites how the apparatus is intended to operate.
Nakaya provides an apparatus that teaches the pressure control device (19) includes:
a first controller (191) configured to be capable of automatically adjusting a conductance of the first valve (151b, opening degree) based on the pressure detection value and pressure setting value at a second specific time in the at least one period (Fig. 6 and 7);
and a second controller (191) configured to be capable of automatically adjusting the conductance of the second valve (opening degree) based on the pressure detection value and the pressure setting value at the second specific time in the at least one period (Fig. 6 and 7),
and wherein a controller(192), which corresponds to the non-selected other valve among the first controller and the second controller, fully closes the other valve (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 6, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of performing the following functions: “the recipe includes, for each step included in the substrate processing, a specification for executing any one selected from the group of an execution of a specific opening degree (opening degree), an execution of automatic control by a specific pressure setting value (pg. 4-5), and an execution of automatic control by a specific pressure change rate (1Pa/Se, pg. 4), with respect to each of the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), wherein the specific opening degree (opening degree) includes any one selected from the group of fully closed, fully open, and any opening degree other than fully closed and fully open, and wherein the execution of automatic control by the specific pressure setting value and the execution of automatic control by the specific pressure change rate are specified by one of the first valve and the second valve, for one step (pg. 4-5) because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 7, Nakaya teaches the process container further includes a gas supply device (11) that supplies a gas at a controlled flow rate (20), and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the one valve according to a condition using a combination of the future gas flow rate by the gas supply device and the future pressure setting value (top of page 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nakaya teaches the first valve (151b) has a conductance greater than a maximum conductance of the second valve (151a), and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the second valve (151a).
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of performing the following functions: “when the future pressure setting value (high pressure, S7, fig. 7) is equal to or larger than a predetermined first pressure (0 Pa), and allows the exhaust device to operate at reduced power (no. 7, full close fig. 6) at a time corresponding to the future pressure setting value (S7, fig. 7) when the future pressure setting value (S7, fig. 7) is equal to or larger than a second pressure (P2, fig. 7) that is higher than the first pressure (0 Pa, fig. 7)” because it performs this function and also has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 10, Nakaya teaches the first valve (151b) has a conductance greater than a maximum conductance of the second valve (151a).
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the first valve (151b) when a coordinate of the combination of the gas flow rate and the pressure setting value is located below a predetermined monotonically increasing curve defined by a coordinate system with a horizontal axis as a gas flow rate and a vertical axis as a pressure” because Nakaya teaches all the structural components (pressure control, mass flow controller, pressure settings) necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 11, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ the monotonically increasing curve is determined based on exhaust characteristics when the first valve (151b) is fully closed and the second valve (151a) is fully opened” because Nakaya has all the structural components necessary for producing the monotonically increased curve. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 12, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ wherein in a step included within a predetermined time from now or a step included at least partially in the predetermined time, the pressure control device (19) selects the one valve according to a rate of a case that a coordinate of a combination of the future gas flow rate and the future pressure setting value is located below a predetermined monotonically increasing curve and a rate of a case that the coordinate is located above the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Nakaya teaches a recipe as a program including a substrate processing procedure is given to the pressure control device, and the pressure control device includes a computer that executes substrate processing based on the recipe, wherein, when the corresponding one valve for each step of substrate processing described as the recipe is selected, the pressure control device does not change the selected one valve to a different valve in the corresponding step (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ the rate of the case that the coordinate is located above the monotonically increasing curve is lighter weighted than the rate of the case that the coordinate is located below the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function and because claim 14 only involves a recitation of how the apparatus is intended to function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 15, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: ” wherein the rate is weighted by a distance between the coordinate and the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 16, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “wherein in a step included within a predetermined time from now or a step included at least partially in the predetermined time, the pressure control device (19) selects the first valve (151b) when the time at which the coordinate of the combination of the gas flow rate and the pressure setting value is located above the monotonically increasing curve is equal to or less than a predetermined time” because it has all the structural components necessary (pressure control device, and valve) for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Nakaya teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in a substrate processing apparatus including:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed,
an exhaust path (15) that is connected between the process container and an exhaust device and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container (5) and the exhaust device (23),
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line and configured to be capable of continuously adjusting an opening degree of the first valve,
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line and configured to be capable of continuously adjusting an opening degree of the second valve, and a pressure detector (17) that detects a pressure in the process container (5),
the method, so that a pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector (17) approaches a pressure setting value which is set each time for processing the substrate (Fig. 7) comprising:
selecting one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) according to a pressure setting value in the process container (5) and a future gas flow rate (20, flow rate is adjusted) into the process container (5, pg. 3),
and setting the opening degree of the other valve (152), which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a constant state,
and adjusting the opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 2nd to last para).
Regarding claim 19, Nakaya teaches a pressure control device provided in a substrate processing apparatus including:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed;
an exhaust path (15) that is connected between the process container (5) and an exhaust device (23) and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container (5) and the exhaust device (23);
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line (13) and configured to be capable of continuously an opening degree of the first valve (pg. 3, 2nd last para. pg. 4);
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line (13a) and configured to be continuously adjusting an opening degree of the second valve (pg. 5);
and a pressure detector (17) that detects a pressure in the process container, the pressure control device comprising:
a main controller (19) configured to, so that a pressure detection value (17, fig. 7) detected by the pressure detector (17) approaches a pressure setting value (Fig. 7) which is set each time for processing the substrate, be capable of
selecting one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) according to a future pressure setting value (Fig. 7) in the process container (5),
setting the opening degree of the other valve (152), which is not selected among the first valve and the second valve, to a constant state, and adjusting the opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 2nd to last para. Pg. 5; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Nakaya teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform a process comprising the method of Claim 18 (computer equipped with a storage device; top of page 4).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2004/0118464) and Lee (US 2012/0160417).
Regarding claim 17, Nakaya teaches wherein the second exhaust line (13a) branches at a substantially right angle in the middle of the first exhaust line (13),
Nakaya does not teach wherein the first valve is configured as a butterfly valve, and wherein the second valve is configured as a poppet valve, wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve provided in series with the first valve, and wherein the pressure control device controls the gate valve to be opened before the first valve initiates a selected step.
Chang teaches a valve is configured as a butterfly valve (93, [0041}, fig. 9), wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve (94) provided in series with the first valve (Fig. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first valve of Nakaya by providing the first valve is configured as a butterfly valve, wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve provided in series with the first valve, as taught by Chang, because it would provide a value capable of modifying the amount of conductance within the exhaust pipe (Fig. 9).
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “and wherein the pressure control device controls the gate valve to be opened before the first valve initiates a selected step because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Lee teaches that it is well known in the art to use a poppet valve for vacuum apparatus. It teach a valve is configured as a poppet valve (67, 62, 64; [0019], fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the second valve of Nakaya by providing the second valve is a poppet valve because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 1 above
Regarding claim 21, Nakaya teaches a diameter of the first exhaust line (13) is larger than the diameter of the second exhaust line (13b, pg. 4 of translation). Nakaya also teaches that degree of opening of the valves 151a, and 151b allow for a greater degree of diameter selection for the vacuum pipes. The Examiner takes the position that in light of Nakaya it would be well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the vacuum arts that the diameter of the vacuum pipes 13 and 13a are variables that effect the rate of pumping of the vacuum chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the first exhaust line diameter is 200 mm, and a diameter of the second exhaust line is 40 mm or more and 180 mm or less” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2004/0118464).
Regarding claim 22, Nakaya teaches a gas supply device (11, 20) configured to supply, to the process container, a gas at flow rates controlled according to the recipe, wherein the recipe includes:
a first exposure step of allowing the gas to flow at a first flow rate to control the pressure detection value (17) to approach a first target value (P3, Fig. 7, pg. 3 of translation, fig. 7);
and a second exposure step of allowing the gas to flow at a second flow rate (11, 20, pg. 3, fig. 7) to control the pressure detection value (17) to approach a second target value (p3) higher than the first target value (P1, Fig. 7),
and wherein the pressure control device (19) is configured to be capable of selecting the first valve (151b) in the first exposure step and selecting the second valve (151a) in the second exposure step.
Chang teaches an apparatus with a gas supply configured to supply a first gas and a second gas at flow rates [0004])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nakaya by providing a gas supply configured to supply a first gas and a second gas at flow rates, as taught by Chang, because it would provide the necessary gases for processing the wafer in the reaction chamber ([0004]).
Regarding claim 23, no patentable weight is given to “film forming gas” is used as the first gas and “cleaning gas” is used as the second gas because these are intended uses of the first and second gases. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Therefore as the cited prior art teaches an apparatus capable of delivering two gases at adjustable flow rates the examiner takes the position that claim 23 is well known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nakaya does not select one valve based on the future pressure setting value and future gas flow.
The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claim 1 is an apparatus claim. Selection of one valve or another dependent on a future event can’t differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art because the prior art apparatus is capable of functioning as argued by Applicant.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794