Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1 -7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2016-009742) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2009-062599).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one chamber (202) including a process chamber that is capable of processing a substrate (200) and a shower head (230) arranged in an upstream of the process chamber (Fig. 1);
a first exhaust pipe (236) communicating with the shower head (230);
a gas supplier (244-246) that is capable of supplying a gas into the process chamber (201) or the first exhaust pipe (236) via the shower head (230);
a second exhaust pipe (222) communicating with the process chamber (201);
a first exhaust controller (238) connected to the first exhaust pipe (236);
and a controller (260) configured to be capable of:
(a) while controlling the gas supplier so as to supply a processing gas as the gas to the shower head in a state in which the substrate is present in the process chamber, controlling the gas supplier (244-246) and the first exhaust controller (238) such that an inside of the first exhaust pipe (236) has a first conductance (positive conductance – exhausted towards pump 239, fig. 1; [0079]), and
(b) while controlling the gas supplier (244-246) so as to supply a non-processing gas (purge gas nitrogen) as the gas to the shower head in a state in which the substrate is not present in the process chamber, controlling the gas supplier (244-246) and the first exhaust controller (238) such that the inside of the first exhaust pipe (236) has a second conductance (negative conductance – gas flows towards exhaust tube 222, [0081]) smaller than the first conductance.
The Examiner notes there is functional language in claim 1, such as “in a state in which the substrate is present in the process chamber and “ “in a state in which the substrate is not present in the process chamber”. The Examiner has considered this language. It does not bear patentable weight in apparatus claim 1. Substrates are a material worked upon and being present or not present in the apparatus of claim 1 does not change the structure of the apparatus. It would also not effect the inherent capabilities of the controller of Sasaki. See MPEP 2114 and 2115 for claiming apparatus.
Sasaki does not teach the a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Matsumoto teaches a first heater (58) installed in the first exhaust pipe (51). Matsumoto teaches the first heater is operated because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by providing a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe as taught by Matsumoto, because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner takes the position that the above prior art teaches a first heater. Claim 2 requires the heater to operate at a certain temperature which is a function of the heater and/or intended use. The Examiner takes the position that the cited prior art would be inherently capable of performing the following function: “(a), the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater such that a temperature in the first exhaust pipe becomes a temperature that does not promote thermal decomposition of the processing gas” because Matsumoto teaches control (110, [0031]) of the heater is operated to prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030]. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the first exhaust controller 238 is an automatic pressure controller. Matsumoto provides evidence that automated pressure controllers include a valve, and wherein an opening degree can be adjusted [0025]. Therefore the cited prior art teaches the function of “the controller (260) is configured to be capable of controlling the valve such that an opening degree of the valve in (a) is controlled so as to be greater than an opening degree of the valve in (b)” because it teaches an apparatus inherently capable of performing this function.
The Examiner takes the position that the recitation “ the non-processing gas is an inert gas” is intended use of the apparatus and a material worked upon as such it does not receive patenatable weight. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki teaches its prior art apparatus is inherently capable of functioning to (a) includes exhausting an atmosphere in the shower head, and wherein the opening degree of the valve in (a) is an opening degree of the valve in the act of exhausting the atmosphere in the shower head [0133] because it teaches all the necessary structure to perform this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Sasaki would be inherently capable of performing the functions of claim 5. Claim 5 only describes how the apparatus of claim 1 is intended to function. It does not appear to add further limiting structure. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that the following: “the non-processing gas is an inert gas, and wherein in (b), the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first exhaust controller (238) such that: (b-1) the inside of the first exhaust pipe has a predetermined conductance in a state in which the first heater is operated [0065-0079]; and (b-2) the inside of the first exhaust pipe (236) has a conductance lower than the predetermined conductance after a predetermined time has elapsed would be capable of being performed by Sasaki. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches the first exhaust controller 238 is an automatic pressure controller. Matsumoto provides evidence that automated pressure controllers include a valve, and wherein an opening degree can be adjusted [0025]. Therefore the cited prior art teaches the function of “the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the valve such that: the valve is opened in (b-1); and an opening degree of the valve in (b-2) becomes smaller than an opening degree of the valve in (b-1)” because it teaches all the necessary structure required to inherently perform this function.
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki teaches a second exhaust controller (224) installed in the second exhaust pipe (222), wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas, and wherein the controller ([0059-0060] is configured to be capable of controlling the first exhaust controller and the second exhaust controller such that an exhaust amount from the second exhaust pipe in (b) is larger than an exhaust amount from the first exhaust pipe because Sasaki teaches evacuating 1000-10000 sccm from either of the first and second exhaust pipes [0079],[0081]. Claim 7 recites functional language of how the apparatus is intended to perform. Sasaki’s apparatus would be inherently capable of the following functions: “controlling the first exhaust controller and the second exhaust controller such that an exhaust amount from the second exhaust pipe in (b) is larger than an exhaust amount from the first exhaust pipe” and “the non-processing gas is an inert gas”. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Sasaki teaches a method of processing a substrate, comprising:
(a) supplying a processing gas to a shower head (230) installed in an upstream of a process chamber in a state in which a substrate is present in the process chamber [0065], [0073], a state in which an inside of the first exhaust pipe (236) has a first conductance by a first exhaust controller (238) installed in the first exhaust pipe connected to the shower head [0079]; and
(b) supplying a non-processing gas to the shower head (230) in a state in which the substrate is not present in the process chamber ([0097]), and a state in which the inside of the first exhaust pipe has a second conductance smaller than the first conductance by the first exhaust controller [0133].
Sakai does not teach operating the first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Matsumoto teaches operating the first heater (58) installed in the first exhaust pipe (51). Matsumoto teaches the first heater is operated because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by operating a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe as taught by Matsumoto, because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by the substrate processing method of Claim 18 [0002].
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program [0059] that causes, by a computer ([0060], a substrate processing apparatus to perform a process comprising:
(a) supplying a processing gas to a shower head (230) installed in an upstream of a process chamber in a state in which a substrate is present in the process chamber[0069], [0073], and a state in which an inside of the first exhaust pipe (236) has a first conductance by a first exhaust controller installed in the first exhaust pipe connected to the shower head [0079];
and (b) supplying a non-processing gas to the shower head (230) in a state in which the substrate is not present in the process chamber [0097], and a state in which the inside of the first exhaust pipe has a second conductance smaller than the first conductance by the first exhaust controller [0133].
Sakai does not teach operating the first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Matsumoto teaches operating the first heater (58) installed in the first exhaust pipe (51). Matsumoto teaches the first heater is operated because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by operating a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe as taught by Matsumoto, because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pettit (US 2007/0189356) and Yahata (US 2022/0090263).
Claim 9 is an apparatus claim which recites how the apparatus is intended to function. The prior art only needs to demonstrate the apparatus is inherently capable of performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki teaches the non-processing gas is an inert gas because it teaches an apparatus capable of handling inert gases. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki does not teach a temperature measurer that is capable of measuring an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe, and wherein, when the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is lower than a predetermined temperature in (b), the controller controls the first heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe becomes higher than the predetermined temperature.
Pettit teaches a temperature measurer (43, thermocouple, fig. 3a) that is capable of measuring an internal temperature of the exhaust pipe (20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust of Sasaki by providing a temperature measurer that is capable of measuring an internal temperature of the exhaust pipe, as taught by Pettit, because it would provide the temperature of the exhaust pipe for maintenance purposes [0019-0020].
Yahata teaches adjusting the temperature of the exhaust pipe 301a using a heater 304. Therefore it teaches the following functional language “ when the an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is lower than a predetermined temperature in (b), the controller 260 controls the first heater 304 such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe becomes higher than the predetermined temperature” [0094],[0111] because it provides a structure inherently capable of performing this function. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first heater of Sasaski by providing when the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is lower than a predetermined temperature in (b), the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe becomes higher than the predetermined temperature, as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent gas from adhering to the insides of the source gas exhaust pipe [0111].
Claims 8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yahata (US 2022/0090263).
Claim 8, the examiner takes the position that the recitation “the non-processing gas is an inert gas” is a material worked upon or intended use of the apparatus. Sasaki teaches an apparatus inherently capable of providing a gas such as inert gas. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki does not teach the a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Yahata teaches a controller (260) configured to be capable of controlling (110) a first heater (304) installed in the first exhaust pipe (301a) to adjust a temperature of the exhaust pipe[0094] because it would prevent gas from adhering to the insides of the source gas exhaust pipe [0111][ Therefore the prior art teaches an apparatus inherently capable of performing the following functional language of claim 8: ”the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater such that an output of the first heater in (a) become higher than the output of the first heater in (b).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by providing the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater such that an output of the first heater in (a) become higher than the output of the first heater in (b), as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent gas from adhering to the insides of the source gas exhaust pipe [0111].
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki does not teach the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number, wherein the apparatus further comprise a common exhaust pipe for joining the first exhaust pipe of the plurality of chambers, wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas, and wherein the controller controls the gas supplier so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present, and controls at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a temperature of the processing gas in the common exhaust pipe is equal to or higher than a thermal decomposition temperature.
Yahata teaches the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number (100a, 100b, Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus further comprise a common exhaust pipe (225a) for joining the first exhaust pipe of the plurality of chambers (224a, 224b, [0072], wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas,
and wherein the controller (260, 260a) controls the gas supplier (113, 123, 133, 143, fig. 4) so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present ([0093], [0109-0110]),
and controls a heater to a desired temperature [0111].
The Examiner takes the position that claim 10 recites functional language which includes the following: “ wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas” and “wherein the controller (260, 260a) is configured to be capable of controlling the gas supplier so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present [0109-0110],
and controls at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a temperature of the processing gas in the common exhaust pipe is equal to or higher than a thermal decomposition temperature.” The examiner takes the position that the apparatus of the prior art teaches all the necessary structure to inherently perform the aforementioned structure.
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 Sasaki by providing the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number, wherein the apparatus further comprise a common exhaust pipe for joining the first exhaust pipe of the plurality of chambers, wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas, and wherein the controller controls the gas supplier so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present, as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent exhaust gas from accumulating in an exhaust pipe of the process vessel in a substrate processing system [0009].
Sakai does not teach operating the first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Yahata teaches Matsumoto teaches operating the first heater (58) installed in the first exhaust pipe (51). Matsumoto teaches the first heater is operated because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030]. Therefore Matsumoto teaches a first heater of the first chamber is inherently capable of providing a temperature equal to or higher than a thermal decomposition temperature. The Examiner takes the position that providing this first heater to a second chamber is merely a duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a first heater to the second chamber, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art MEP 2144.04(VI.B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify first and second chamber of Sasaki by providing first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a temperature of the processing gas in the common exhaust pipe is equal to or higher than a thermal decomposition temperature, as taught by Matsumoto, because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner takes the position claim 11 recites the following functional language: “and wherein, when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers,
the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range”.
Functional language in an apparatus claim requires the apparatus to be inherently capable of performing the function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki does not teach the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number,
Yahata teaches the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number (110a, 110b), and wherein, when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers, the controller (260) is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range.
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 Sasaki by providing the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number, and wherein, when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers, as taught by Yahata, because it would more than one process to be performed on more than one wafer simultaneously.
Matsumoto teaches controller (110) is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater of the first chamber [0030]. Therefore the structure of Matsumoto would be inherently capable of providing the following function of claim 11: “such that a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the controller of Sasaki by providing the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range, as taught by Matsumoto because it would prevent aggregation of gas in the exhaust pipe [0030].
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner take the position that the following is functional language: “when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers, if a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber approaches an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber. “ The apparatus of the prior art only needs to show an inherent capability to perform this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki does not teach at least one chamber is installed in a plural number.
Yahata teaches teach at least one chamber is installed in a plural number (110a, 110b) when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers [0030-0032].
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 Sasaki by providing the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number, and wherein, when loading the substrate into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and a second chamber of the plurality of chambers, as taught by Yahata, because it would more than one process to be performed on more than one wafer simultaneously [0008].
Matsumoto teaches controller (110) controls the first heater of the first chamber [0030]. Therefore the structure of Matsumoto would be inherently capable of providing the following function of claim 12: “if a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber approaches an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the controller of Sasaki by providing if a difference between an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber approaches an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber, as taught by Matsumoto because it would prevent aggregation of gas in the exhaust pipe [0030].
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki does not teach the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number.
Yahata teaches teach the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number (110a, 110b), wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas (Yahata inherently capable of supply inert gas (functional language and intended use of apparatus See MPEP 2114 and 2215. [0129] of Yahata).
Yahata teaches controller (260) controls the gas supplier (113, 123, 133, 143, [0093]) so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber (110a) of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber (110b) of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present because Yahata teaches all the structure necessary to perform the following function:” configured to be capable of controlling the gas supplier (113, 123, 133, 143, [0093]) so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber (110a) of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber (110b) of the plurality of chambers”. Therefore it is inherently capable of performing this function.
The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language:” the controller 260 and controls the first heater of the first chamber (110a) such that a difference between the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range. In an apparatus claim the prior art only needs to demonstrate it is inherently capable of performing the function.
Sakai does not teach operating the first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Matsumoto teaches controlling (110) the first heater (58) installed in the first exhaust pipe (51). Matsumoto teaches the first heater is operated because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030]. Matsumoto teaches a controller configured to control the heaters as well as other components of its apparatus [0031].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by operating a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe as taught by Matsumoto, because it would prevent aggregation of the organometallic raw material gas [0030].
The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language: “wherein the non-processing gas is an inert gas, and wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the gas supplier so as to supply the processing gas into a first chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is present and supply the non-processing gas into a second chamber of the plurality of chambers in a state in which the substrate is not present, and controls at least one selected from the group of the first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that a difference between the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the first chamber and an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range.” The apparatus of the prior art only needs to show an inherent capability to perform this function. Namely at the structure required to perform this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. The Examiner takes the position that the above apparatus as taught by the prior art would be inherently capable of performing this function.
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki teaches an apparatus inherently capable of providing the non-processing gas is a cleaning gas because it teaches an apparatus capable of cleaning with a cleaning gas [0065-0133]. Providing a cleaning gas to an apparatus is considered a material worked upon by the apparatus or an intended use. Using a specific gas in an apparatus does not limit the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Sasaki teaches a controller configured to control the heaters [0059-0060].
The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language: “the controller is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a) is lower than an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (b). The apparatus of the prior art only needs to show an inherent capability to perform this function. See MPEP 2114.
Yahata teaches a controller (260) is configured to be capable of controlling the first heater (304) such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe (301a) is adjusted to a predetermined temperature [0094],[0111]. Therefore it teaches the temperature of the first exhaust pipe controlled by a controller is capable of controlling the first heater such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a) is lower than an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the controller and first heater of Sasaki by providing a controller is capable of controlling the first heater such that an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a) is lower than an internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (b), as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent the gas from adhering to the insides of the exhaust pipe [0111]
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki teaches a second exhaust controller (224) installed in the second exhaust pipe, wherein the non-processing gas is a cleaning gas, wherein in (b), the controller (260) he controller is configured to be capable of:
(b-1) controlling the first exhaust controller and the second exhaust controller such that a conductance of the first exhaust pipe is lower than a conductance of the second exhaust pipe [0133]; and
(b-2) controlling the first exhaust controller and the second exhaust controller such that the conductance of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the conductance of the second exhaust pipe [0079],
Sasaki teaches a controller controlling a heater 213 to a desired temperature [0059-0060], but does not teach the controller, in (b-2), is configured to control the first heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a).
The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language: ”is configured to control the first heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a). “ The prior art apparatus only needs to demonstrate that it inherently can perform the recited function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Sasaki does not teach the a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe.
Yahata teaches a controller (260) configured to be capable of controlling (110) a first heater (304) installed in the first exhaust pipe (301a) to adjust a temperature of the exhaust pipe[0094] because it would prevent gas from adhering to the insides of the source gas exhaust pipe [0111][ Therefore the prior art teaches an apparatus inherently capable of performing the following functional language of claim 15:” the controller, in (b-2), is configured to control the first heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe in (a).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first exhaust pipe of Sasaki by providing a first heater installed in the first exhaust pipe as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent gas from adhering to the insides of the source gas exhaust pipe [0111].
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki teaches
a substrate support (212) installed in the process chamber to support the substrate;
and a third heater (213 installed in the substrate support (212).
Sasaki teaches an apparatus inherently capable of providing the non-processing gas is a cleaning gas because it teaches an apparatus capable of cleaning with a cleaning gas [0065-0133]. Providing a cleaning gas to an apparatus is considered a material worked upon by the apparatus or an intended use. Using a specific gas in an apparatus does not limit the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Sasaki teaches a controller configured to control the heaters [0059-0060].
Sasaki does not teach a second heater installed in the second exhaust pipe.
Yahata teaches a first heater (304) installed in a first exhaust pipe (301a). Yahata teaches a second heater ([0094]) installed in a second exhaust pipe (301b).
The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language: “to, in (b), control at least one selected from the group of the first heater (58) and the second heater such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the second exhaust pipe.” In an apparatus claim the prior art only needs to demonstrate that it is inherently capable of performing the function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Yahata teaches a controller (260 [0094]) which controls each component of the film forming apparatus [0031] and is configured to adjust the temperature of the exhaust pipe 301a and 301b to a predetermined temperature [0094]. Therefore Yahata teaches the necessary structure to perform the following functions : “to, in (b), control at least one selected from the group of the first heater (304) and the second heater [0094] such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the second exhaust pipe because the temperature of each exhaust pipe can be adjusted [0094],[0111].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify first and second chamber of Sasaki by providing first heater of the first chamber and the first heater of the second chamber such that the internal temperature of the first exhaust pipe is higher than the internal temperature of the second exhaust pipe, as taught by Yahata, because it would prevent the gas from adhering to the insides of the exhaust pipe [0111]
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki does not teach the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number.
Yahata teaches the at least one chamber is installed in a plural number (100a, 100b),
wherein the apparatus further comprise a valve installed in the first exhaust controller of each of the plurality of chambers ([0072], conductance regulator, 226a, 226b),
Yahata teaches the controller (260) is configured to be capable of controlling the gas supplier (113, 123, 133, 143, FIG. 4) so as to supply the processing gas in a state in which the substrate is present in a first chamber (110a) of the plurality of chambers and supply the non-processing gas in a state in which the substrate is not present in a second chamber (110b) of the plurality of chambers [0093] because Yahata teaches all the necessary structure for performing the following functions: “the controller is configured to control the gas supplier so as to supply the processing gas in a state in which the substrate is present in a first chamber of the plurality of chambers and supply the non-processing gas in a state in which the substrate is not present in a second chamber of the plurality of chambers,”.
Yahata teaches control the valve (226a, 226b) such that a difference between an opening degree of the valve of the first chamber and an opening degree of the valve of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range because Yahata teaches all the necessary structure for performing the following function: “control the valve such that a difference between an opening degree of the valve of the first chamber and an opening degree of the valve of the second chamber falls within a predetermined range”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant submits that Sasaki is different than the instant invention because it does not address the conductance of the exhaust pipes while controlling the gas supplier to supply the processing gas.
The Examiner takes the position that Applicant references and intended use of the apparatus of Sasaki. Since the prior art provides the same structure of the apparatus of claim, the way the apparatus is controlled does not yield patentable weight.
Applicant submits that Sasaki does not address the substrate presence and non-presence in operation of the apparatus..
The Examiner takes the position that Applicant refers to an intended use of the apparatus of Sasaki. Since the prior art provides the same structure of the apparatus of claim, the way the apparatus is controlled does not yield patentable weight.
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