DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2, claims 8-10 and 17-27 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims must be examined if there is no serious burden present. This is not found persuasive because the differences in the claims are at least that the apparatus includes both a cooling and cleaning gas supply system as well as an exhaust system and controller. The cooling and cleaning gas of the method are operably supplied in the same process step in the same gas supply, the distinctions between the two include the claimed controller step of the apparatus as well as the configuration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim requires a process chamber to be divided by a “vertical movement”. The claim effectively claims that the chamber is divided by a motion that is not actually required. The clause should be rewritten to clarify how the chamber is divided.
Claim 8 also requires that a cleaning gas is supplied at a temperature lower than a temperature during which the substrate is process. There is no basis to understood what the “processing step” is or at what temperature it occurs. All handling of a substrate is a “processing step” in general. This is held indefinite because it leads to two issues which are the lack of defining what the processing is and the requirement for a distinct temperature over an unclaimed and undefined “process step”.
Claim 23 requires that the distance between the substrate mounting table and a gas introduction is greater during the supplying of the cooling gas is larger than during the process of forming the film on the inner wall – but it is not clear in the latter step what distance is required to be smaller since the cooling gas is not required during the formation of the film on the wall.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the process for forming a film on the inner wall" in claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 further requires a changing of the temperature, since the claim now requires at least coating film this requires a difference in the chamber temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 17-20, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata (2022/0262632).
Yahata teaches a method of cleaning, comprising:
- in a process chamber including a substrate mounting table with a heater, see 212 including heater 213 (see Fig. 1 and [0148]) – because the substate mounting table is able to be raised and lowered, the limitations of the regions are met (and further Yahata teaches the same as noted),
- providing cooling gas to the substrate in a position where the substrate mount is lowered, see [0140-48],
- and supplying a cleaning gas into the process chamber – see [0194] wherein a cleaning gas is provided. In this case, there is no active recitation of a substrate being processed, therefore the limitation is met wherein the chamber is at some temperature (and wherein not actively claim, the process step is performed at a temperature higher than the cleaning step.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the cooling step pressure is preferably 100 – 10,000 Pa [0144] as there is no defined processing step, this is higher than the claimed pressure. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the processing step as in step c includes a preferred pressure of 20 – 100 Pa [0111], meeting the requirements of claim 17. Further to claim 18, wherein the teachings do not specifically include atmospheric pressure, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as process pressure. Absent evidence showing criticality use of the claimed pressure would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the transfer region includes an exhaust 261 that is understood as used when the substrate holder is in a transfer position [0051].
Regarding claim 20, as per the Fig., when the cooling gas is supplied it would be supplied into both regions as they are connected.
Regarding claim 24, Yahata teaches that the cleaning step is performed after the cooling step [0194].
Regarding claim 27, as per above, the substrate mount is lowered for the cooling gas application and this is below the process region as described.
Claims 9, 10, 22, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata (2022/0262632) in view of Lee (2002/0045966) and Ebata (2021/0087678).
The teachings of Yahata are described above, but do not teach a chamber coating process or specifically changing the temperature as claimed.
Lee teaches that it is useful to coat a film deposition chamber after a cleaning process, see [0010-19, 37]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the chamber precoating process of Lee in the film forming method of Yahata as it is beneficial for purity of the chamber. Lee teaches that the conditions are the same as depositing the on-film process except for the amount of time – therefore the temperature of the pre-coat would be that of the deposition and the substrate holder, as it is desirably coated per Lee (upper portion of the heater) would be in the processing position. The combined teachings do not include heating a temperature to the processing temperature, or wherein the cleaning gas temperature is lower than the substrate processing temperature.
Ebata teaches that in a chamber wherein a clean is carried out after a deposition process, it is beneficial for the clean efficiency to set the cleaning temperature generally lower than the deposition temperature [0089-93]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to keep the cleaning temperature lower than the deposition temperature in the process of Yahata and Lee as Ebata teaches that such temperature is useful for the effectiveness of the etch rate.
Per the combined teachings of Yahata, Lee and Ebata, the pre-coating step is taught after the cleaning step – because the pre-coating depends necessarily on an on-substrate deposition, the requirement for the change of temperature between the cleaning and the deposition step is required and taught per Ebata.
Regarding claim 10, the combined art further teaches the deposition of a layer, see film forming step c [0107-0115]. The processing is the deposition step c of Yahata and the cleaning step temperature is lower than the deposition as per Ebata.
Regarding claim 22, as per the combined art, specifically of Yahata and Lee, the temperature of the process chamber is raised after the cleaning gas and a chamber coating performed as noted.
Regarding claim 23, since the substrate mounting table is in a down position for the cooling gas and an up position for the film deposition – the distance between the gas introduction and the mounting table would be understood to be large for the cooling step as per the location of the inputs per Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 25, since as noted the substrate holder is in the down position, per Fig. 1 there is more volume for supplying the cleaning gas than when the substrate holder is elevated for a film on the inner wall of the chamber.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata (2022/0262632) in view of Hirochi (2019/0393056).
The teachings of Yahata are described above, but not teach cooling gas flowing into the chamber from a transfer chamber. Hirochi teaches that to load a system it is useful to include a transfer chamber in order to transfer a substrate into a process chamber [0089]. During the transfer, the flow of cooling gas from the transfer chamber prevents heat from transfer to the transfer chamber. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the transfer chamber of Hirochi with the system of Yahata. One would also apply the transfer step as taught by Hirochi as Yahata is silent on how a substrate is transferred into the chamber and follow the use of flowing the cooling flow as taught by Hirochi for the reason stated.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata (2022/0262632) in view of Okayama (2001/0035124).
The teachings of Yahata are described above, the teachings include cooling the substrate [0071], but does not teach turning of the substate heater. Okayama teaches, however, that in a process including cooling down a wafer, it is useful to turn of the substrate heater [0046]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to turn off the substrate heater in the method of Yahata when cooling down the system and substrate as Okayama teaches that such a step is useful in additional to providing a cooling gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights