DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the filing of this application on 04 August 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent.
This application is a divisional of application Serial No. 17/461,836, filed on 30 August 2021, now US Patent 12,489,002.
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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Claims 1-20 are rejected hereinbelow under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, US 6,403,927, either taken alone or in combination with Kim et al., KR 10-0766303. With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 based solely on Kato, it has been argued in the rejection below that since the claims recite a generic controller, the processing steps performed by said controller need not be given any patentable weight. Although claims 1-20 are directed to an annealing apparatus which comprises a controller “configured to” perform the recited processing steps, reasoning has been set forth below as to why the processing steps do not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed annealing apparatus from the known annealing apparatus of Kato. However, assuming arguendo, Applicant argues that a controller “configured to” perform these processing steps requires the controller to be specifically designed to perform the recited processing steps, claims 1-20 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, US 6,403,927, in view of Kim et al., KR 10-0766303. Kim et al. disclose a method which includes the processing steps recited in claims 1-20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller 17 of Kato to practice the annealing method of Kim et al.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, US 6,403,927, either taken alone or in combination with Kim et al., KR 10-0766303, both cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 30 January 2024.
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses an annealing apparatus, shown in Figs. 1 and 4, comprising:
a first chamber 3 configured to receive a wafer W and including a first gas PS having a first gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 27-37 and column 4, lines 24-54;
a second chamber 11 surrounding the first chamber 3 and configured to receive a second gas having a second gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 24-42;
a plurality of gas inlets 15 on a chamber wall of the second chamber 11, see Figs. 1 and 4 column 4, lines 24-42;
a plurality of gas vents 23 on the chamber wall of the second chamber 11, see Figs. 1 and 4 column 4, lines 24-42;
a plurality of heating elements 12 laterally surrounding the first chamber 3, see Fig. 4 and column 5, lines 9-24; and
a controller 17 electrically coupled to the gas inlets 15, gas vents 23 and heating elements 12, see Fig. 4, and configured to perform the steps of:
heating the first chamber while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure is within a tolerance limit; and
cooling the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, wherein the exchanging of the second gas includes introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber through the plurality of gas inlets and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber through the plurality of gas vents while keeping the second gas pressure unchanged, see column 5, lines 33-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-64; column 7, lines 30-62; and column 8, lines 12-23.
Applicant’s claim recites a controller “configured to” perform the recited processing steps. First, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) The manner of operating the claimed apparatus does not differentiate Applicant’s claimed apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato. Applicant’s claimed apparatus must distinguish over the known apparatus of Kato by more than mere function. Furthermore, claim 1 contains a recitation of the manner in which Applicant’s claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. Claim 1 requires a broad generic controller limited only by alleged function. It has been well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) In the instant case, Kato clearly teaches the controller of claim 1 that is capable of controlling the flow of gas. Third, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc.(Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) affirmed that, absent specification language supporting a narrower interpretation, the patent claim terms “configured to” and “configured for” are properly construed to mean “capable of” performing the recited function. Therefore, in the examination of the instant claims “configured to” has been merely construed as the generic controller being capable of performing the recited processing steps. In the instant claims, “configured to” is interpreted to mean mere capability rather than purposeful design. Hence, the recited generic controller of the instant claims does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed annealing apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato.
Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, The method of Kato includes the processing steps of: heating the first chamber 3, see column 2, lines 56-61; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 9-38; and cooling the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber, see column 2, lines 56-67; column 3, lines 1-4; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 39-67; and column 6, lines 1-25, wherein the exchanging of the second gas includes introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber 11 through the plurality of gas inlets 15 and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber through the plurality of gas vents 23, see column 6, lines 8-21.
Assuming arguendo, Applicant argues that a controller “configured to” perform these processing steps requires the controller to be specifically designed to perform the recited processing steps, the claim 1 is rejected in view of Kim et al., KR 10-0766303.
Although Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, Kato fails to teach heating the first chamber 3 while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber 3 and the second chamber 11 within a tolerance limit; cooling the first chamber 3 while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, and cooling the first chamber while keeping the second gas pressure unchanged. Kim et al. disclose a method which include the processing steps recited in claim 1, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller 17 of Kato to practice the annealing method of Kim et al.
Kim et al. disclose a method of heating and cooling a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus having a double-wall design, similar to the apparatus of Kato, see Fig. 2a of Kim et al. Kim et al. disclose that when increasing the pressure of a processing gas, it is possible to reduce the processing temperature and the processing time. Kim et al. disclose that during a high pressure heat treatment, the pressure between the two chambers is controlled (“Double-wall design in the chamber, the pressure tube and shell pressure is controlled in a unified way. For example, (e.g., H .sub.2) the process gas in the tube to increase or decrease the pressure of, the gas of the inert gas in the shell is automatically increased or decreased by the automatic gas control system, the automatic gas pressure across the inner chamber wall by the control system monitors the difference between the pressure tube and shell pressure to remain in a preset range, and controlling the pressure difference.” Also, “the pressure difference between the shell pressure and the tube pressure can be tolerated by ± 2 atmospheres.“), since a pressure difference higher than a tolerance limit could affect the integrity of the inner chamber. Kim et al. also teach to maintain the pressure difference between the two chambers (that is, inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201) within the desired range during the cooling step. Kim et al. clearly teach keeping a gas pressure difference between the inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201 within a tolerance limit; cooling the first chamber (inner chamber 203) while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, and during the cooling, pressure of the second gas is kept unchanged. In light of the disclosure of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that if a high pressure heat treatment were performed in the known apparatus of Kato, the first chamber should be heated and cooled while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber 3 and the second chamber 11 within a tolerance limit in order to ensure the integrity of the inner chamber. . In order to keep the gas pressure differences within the tolerance limit of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second gas pressure unchanged.
With respect to claim 2, Kim et al. disclose cooling of the first chamber while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit and monitoring and controlling the pressure difference between the first and second chambers. Hence, controlling the first and second gas pressures within the tolerance limit would encompass keeping the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure unchanged. Therefore, in order to maintain the first and second gas pressures within the tolerance limit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this could be accomplished in the known method of Kato by keeping the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure unchanged during the cooling in the known method of Kato. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that keeping the first and second gas pressures unchanged ensures that the pressure difference is within the tolerance limit.
With respect to claim 3, as shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 4 of Kato, the plurality of gas inlets 15 form pairs with the plurality of gas vents 23, wherein the cooling of the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber comprises causing different exchange amounts of the second gas for the pairs of the plurality of gas inlets and the plurality of gas vents during the cooling, see column 5, lines 39-67; column 6, lines 1-64; column 7, lines 18-67; and column 8, lines 1-30.
With respect to claim 4, Kato disclose the plurality of gas inlets 15 or the plurality of gas vents 23 are arranged at different heights of the chamber wall, see Figs. 1, 3, and/or 4.
With respect to claim 5, in the apparatus of Kato, the heating of the first chamber 3 comprises heating the first chamber 3 by activating the plurality of heating elements 12, see Fig. 1 and column 5, lines 9-24.
With respect to claim 6, as shown in Fig. 1 of Kato, the plurality of heating elements 12 are arranged at different heights of the first chamber 3.
With respect to claim 7, as shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 of Kato, the second chamber 11 defines a plurality of zones Z1-Z5 corresponding to the plurality of heating elements 12, wherein the annealing apparatus further comprises temperature sensors 14 configured to measure individual temperatures of the plurality of zones Z1-Z5, see column 5, lines 9-65.
With respect to claim 8, in the apparatus of Kato, the cooling of the first chamber 3 comprises tuning each of the plurality of heating elements 12 individually according to temperature measurements of the plurality of zones Z1-Z5, see column 6, lines 40-57.
With respect to claim 9, in the apparatus of Kato, the cooling of the first chamber 3 comprises causing rates of temperature decreases in the plurality of zones Z1-Z5 are substantially equal during the cooling, see column 5, lines 39-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-57.
With respect to claim 10, since Kim et al. teach to maintain the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure within a tolerance limit by adjusting the gas pressures during cooling of the first chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cooling of the first chamber could comprise causing the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure to decrease with time while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit.
With respect to claim 11, since Kato teaches that during cooling, the controller 17 controls the cooling mechanism on the basis of temperatures detected by the temperature sensors when the process chamber is cooled, and since Kim et al. teach to adjust the pressures during cooling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure could be decreased in response to a temperature of the first chamber as being below a predetermined level during the cooling.
With respect to claim 12, although Kato discloses using clean air in the second chamber, Kim et al. disclose using nitrogen in the second chamber (“Inert gas such as nitrogen may be used in the outer chamber”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second gas could have comprised an inert gas in the known apparatus of Kato. However, it has been well established that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by an apparatus being claimed does not impart patentability to the claimed apparatus. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)
With respect to claim 13, Kato discloses an annealing apparatus, shown in Figs. 1 and 4, comprising
a first chamber 3 configured to receive a wafer W and including a first gas PS having a first gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 27-37 and column 4, lines 24-54;
a second chamber 11 surrounding the first chamber 3 and configured to receive a second gas having a second gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 24-42;
a first gas inlet 15 and a first gas vent 23 on a chamber wall of the second chamber11, see Fig. 4; and
a second gas inlet 15 and a second gas vent 23 arranged on the chamber wall of the second chamber 11 over the first gas inlet 15 and the first gas vent 23, see Fig. 4;
a first heating element 12 and a second heating element 12 arranged in the second chamber 11, see Fig. 4 and column 5, lines 9-24; and
a controller 17 electrically coupled to the first gas inlet 15, the first gas vent 23, the second gas inlet 15, the second gas vent 23, the first heating element 12 and the second heating element 12, see Fig. 4, and is configured to perform the steps of:
heating the first chamber for a first period while keeping the second gas pressure substantially unchanged; and
after the first period, cooling the first chamber for a second period by performing exchange of the first gas in the second chamber through introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber through the first and second gas inlets and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber while keeping the second gas pressure substantially unchanged, see column 5, lines 33-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-64; column 7, lines 30-62; and column 8, lines 12-23.
Applicant’s claim recites a controller “configured to” perform the recited processing steps. First, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) The manner of operating the claimed apparatus does not differentiate Applicant’s claimed apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato. Applicant’s claimed apparatus must distinguish over the known apparatus of Kato by more than mere function. Furthermore, claim 13 contains a recitation of the manner in which Applicant’s claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. Claim 13 requires a broad generic controller limited only by alleged function. It has been well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) In the instant case, Kato clearly teaches the controller of claim 13 that is capable of controlling the flow of gas. Third, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc.(Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) affirmed that, absent specification language supporting a narrower interpretation, the patent claim terms “configured to” and “configured for” are properly construed to mean “capable of” performing the recited function. Therefore, in the examination of the instant claims “configured to” has been merely construed as the generic controller being capable of performing the recited processing steps. In the instant claims, “configured to” is interpreted to mean mere capability rather than purposeful design. Hence, the recited generic controller of the instant claims does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed annealing apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato.
Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, The method of Kato includes the processing steps of: heating the first chamber 3, see column 2, lines 56-61; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 9-38; and cooling the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber, see column 2, lines 56-67; column 3, lines 1-4; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 39-67; and column 6, lines 1-25, wherein the exchanging of the second gas includes introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber 11 through the plurality of gas inlets 15 and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber through the plurality of gas vents 23, see column 6, lines 8-21.
Assuming arguendo, Applicant argues that a controller “configured to” perform these processing steps requires the controller to be specifically designed to perform the recited processing steps, the claim 1 is rejected in view of Kim et al., KR 10-0766303.
Although Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, Kato fails to teach heating the first chamber 3 while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber 3 and the second chamber 11 within a tolerance limit; cooling the first chamber 3 while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, and cooling the first chamber while keeping the second gas pressure unchanged. . Kim et al. disclose a method which include the processing steps recited in claim 13, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller 17 of Kato to practice the annealing method of Kim et al.
Kim et al. disclose a method of heating and cooling a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus having a double-wall design, similar to the apparatus of Kato, see Fig. 2a of Kim et al. Kim et al. disclose that when increasing the pressure of a processing gas, it is possible to reduce the processing temperature and the processing time. Kim et al. disclose that during a high pressure heat treatment, the pressure between the two chambers is controlled (“Double-wall design in the chamber, the pressure tube and shell pressure is controlled in a unified way. For example, (e.g., H .sub.2) the process gas in the tube to increase or decrease the pressure of, the gas of the inert gas in the shell is automatically increased or decreased by the automatic gas control system, the automatic gas pressure across the inner chamber wall by the control system monitors the difference between the pressure tube and shell pressure to remain in a preset range, and controlling the pressure difference.” Also, “the pressure difference between the shell pressure and the tube pressure can be tolerated by ± 2 atmospheres.“), since a pressure difference higher than a tolerance limit could affect the integrity of the inner chamber. Kim et al. also teach to maintain the pressure difference between the two chambers (that is, inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201) within the desired range during the cooling step. Kim et al. clearly teach keeping a gas pressure difference between the inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201 within a tolerance limit; cooling the first chamber (inner chamber 203) while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, and during the cooling, pressure of the second gas is kept unchanged. In light of the disclosure of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that if a high pressure heat treatment were performed in the known apparatus of Kato, the first chamber should be heated and cooled while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber 3 and the second chamber 11 within a tolerance limit in order to ensure the integrity of the inner chamber. . In order to keep the gas pressure differences within the tolerance limit of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second gas pressure unchanged.
With respect to claim 14, since Kim et al. disclose the gas pressure can be controlled during cooling to keep the first gas pressure and the second gas pressure within a tolerance limit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the controller could further comprise, after the second period, cooling the first chamber for a third period while decreasing the first gas pressure.
With respect to claim 15, in the known apparatus and method of Kato, the performing of exchange of the second gas in the second chamber 11 comprises causing different exchange amounts of the second gas for a first pair of the first gas inlet 15 and the first gas vent 23 and a second pair of the second gas inlet 15 and the second gas vent 23 during the second period, see column 5, lines 39-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-57.
With respect to claim 16, in the apparatus of Kato, the first gas inlet 15 and the first gas vent 23 are in a first zone Z2 of the second chamber 11, the second gas inlet 15 and the second gas vent 23 are in a second zone Z1 of the second chamber, and the cooling of the first chamber 3 by introducing the second gas to the second chamber 11 comprises causing the first zone Z2 and the second zone Z1 to have substantially equal rates of temperature decreases through controlling the first gas inlet 15, the first gas vent 23, the second gas inlet 15 and the second gas vent 23 individually, see Fig. 4 and column 5, lines 39-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-57; column 7, lines 1-67; and column 8, lines 1-30.
With respect to claim 17, Kato discloses an annealing apparatus, shown in Figs. 1 and 4, comprising:
a first chamber 3 configured to receive a wafer W and including a first gas PS having a first gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 27-37 and column 4, lines 24-54; and
a second chamber 11 surrounding the first chamber 3 and configured to receive a second gas having a second gas pressure (see column 3, lines 49-53), see Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 24-42; and
a controller, shown in Fig. 4, configured to perform the steps of
during a second period, heating the first chamber 3, see column 2, lines 56-61; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 9-38; and
during a third period, cooling the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber 11 with an exterior environment, see column 2, lines 56-67; column 3, lines 1-4; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 39-67; and column 6, lines 1-25,
wherein the exchanging of the second gas includes introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber 11 and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber 11, see column 6, lines 8-21; and
during a fourth period, cooling the first chamber and the second chamber by decreasing the first and second gas pressures while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, see column 5, lines 33-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-64; column 7, lines 30-62; and column 8, lines 12-23.
Applicant’s claim recites a controller “configured to” perform the recited processing steps. First, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) The manner of operating the claimed apparatus does not differentiate Applicant’s claimed apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato. Applicant’s claimed apparatus must distinguish over the known apparatus of Kato by more than mere function. Furthermore, claim 17 contains a recitation of the manner in which Applicant’s claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. Claim 17 requires a broad generic controller limited only by alleged function. It has been well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) In the instant case, Kato clearly teaches the controller of claim 17 that is capable of controlling the flow of gas. Third, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc.(Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) affirmed that, absent specification language supporting a narrower interpretation, the patent claim terms “configured to” and “configured for” are properly construed to mean “capable of” performing the recited function. Therefore, in the examination of the instant claims “configured to” has been merely construed as the generic controller being capable of performing the recited processing steps. In the instant claims, “configured to” is interpreted to mean mere capability rather than purposeful design. Hence, the recited generic controller of the instant claims does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed annealing apparatus from the known apparatus of Kato.
Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, the method of Kato includes the processing steps of: heating the first chamber 3, see column 2, lines 56-61; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 9-38; and cooling the first chamber by exchanging the second gas in the second chamber, see column 2, lines 56-67; column 3, lines 1-4; column 4, lines 24-42; column 5, lines 39-67; and column 6, lines 1-25, wherein the exchanging of the second gas includes introducing a first amount of the second gas to the second chamber 11 through the plurality of gas inlets 15 and exhausting a second amount of the second gas out of the second chamber through the plurality of gas vents 23, see column 6, lines 8-21.
Assuming arguendo, Applicant argues that a controller “configured to” perform these processing steps requires the controller to be specifically designed to perform the recited processing steps, the claim 1 is rejected in view of Kim et al., KR 10-0766303.
Although Kato discloses heating and cooling of a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus, shown in Fig. 1 and 4, Kato fails to teach during a first period, increasing the first and second gas pressures to predetermined pressures; during a second period, keeping the first and second gas pressures at the respective predetermined pressures; and during a third period, cooling the first chamber while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber and the second chamber within a tolerance limit. Kim et al. disclose a method which include the processing steps recited in claim 17, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller 17 of Kato to practice the annealing method of Kim et al.
Kim et al. disclose a method of heating and cooling a wafer in a vertical heat-processing apparatus having a double-wall design, similar to the apparatus of Kato, see Fig. 2a of Kim et al. Kim et al. disclose that when increasing the pressure of a processing gas, it is possible to reduce the processing temperature and the processing time. Kim et al. disclose that during a high pressure heat treatment, the pressure between the two chambers is controlled (“Double-wall design in the chamber, the pressure tube and shell pressure is controlled in a unified way. For example, (e.g., H .sub.2) the process gas in the tube to increase or decrease the pressure of, the gas of the inert gas in the shell is automatically increased or decreased by the automatic gas control system, the automatic gas pressure across the inner chamber wall by the control system monitors the difference between the pressure tube and shell pressure to remain in a preset range, and controlling the pressure difference.” Also, “the pressure difference between the shell pressure and the tube pressure can be tolerated by ± 2 atmospheres.“), since a pressure difference higher than a tolerance limit could affect the integrity of the inner chamber. Kim et al. also teach to maintain the pressure difference between the two chambers (that is, inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201) within the desired range during the cooling step. Kim et al. clearly teach keeping a gas pressure difference between the inner chamber 203 and outer chamber 201 within a tolerance limit; cooling the first chamber (inner chamber 203) while keeping the gas pressure difference within the tolerance limit, and during the cooling, pressure of the second gas is kept unchanged. In light of the disclosure of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that if a high pressure heat treatment were performed in the known apparatus of Kato, during a first period, increasing the first and second gas pressures to predetermined pressures; during a second period, keeping the first and second gas pressures at the respective predetermined pressures; and during a third period, cooling the first chamber while keeping a gas pressure difference between the first chamber and the second chamber within a tolerance limit. In order to keep the gas pressure differences within the tolerance limit of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second gas pressure unchanged.
With respect to claim 18, the apparatus of Kato further defining zones Z1-Z5 in a vertical direction of the annealing apparatus, see Fig. 4, wherein the controller is further configured to reduce temperature differences across the zones during the third period, see Fig. 4 and column 5, lines 39-67; column 6, lines 1-25 and 40-57; column 7, lines 1-67; and column 8, lines 1-30.
With respect to claim 19, Kim et al. disclose that a pressure difference of ± 2 bar can be between the pressure of the first chamber and the second chamber (“the pressure difference is ± 2 pressure difference between the pressure shell and tube pressure may be tolerated” and “nitrogen gas is injected into the shell as a way to maintain the pressure differential within the desired range (for example ± 2 bar)” ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that during the first, second and third periods, the first gas pressure could have been less than the second gas pressure of in the known apparatus of Kato.
With respect to claim 20, Kim et al. disclose that a pressure difference of ± 2 bar can be between the pressure of the first chamber and the second chamber (“the pressure difference is ± 2 pressure difference between the pressure shell and tube pressure may be tolerated” and “nitrogen gas is injected into the shell as a way to maintain the pressure differential within the desired range (for example ± 2 bar)” ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first gas pressure could have less than the second gas pressure by less than about 2 atm in the known apparatus of Kato..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claims 2, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 fail to further limit the annealing apparatus of the independent claims from which these claims depend, since these claims recite further processing limitations, rather than structural limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose various vertical annealing apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights