DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II, and III have all of the same features so a search burden is not established in the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not directly responded to any of the statements that the Examiner provided in the original restriction requirement which provide distinguishing features between each of the groups. Therefore, a search burden was properly established resulting in the restriction.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of “The substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein a digital twin model is designed to emulate components and processes of the chamber body” is indefinite. In view of the current claim construction, it is not clear if the digital twin model is positively recited or not. In the event that Applicant is intending to positively recite the digital twin model, the Examiner recommends amending to claim to clearly recite that the controller includes the digital twin model. For the purposes of this examination, the digital twin model will be interpreted to be positively recited.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leighton et al. (US 2016/0282886, hereafter “Leighton”) in view of Iskandar et al. (US 20170045573, hereafter “Iskandar”).
Regarding claim 1, Leighton discloses a substrate processing system (Fig. 1), comprising: a chamber body (102) at least partially enclosing a substrate processing region (110); a pyrometer (136) to take a temperature measurement of a first location of the chamber body (para. [0022]); a controller (140) configured to operate a blower based on a controller output to control the temperature of the upper dome, but fails to disclose the controller is configured to: estimate temperature at one or more second locations of the chamber body based on the temperature measurement at the first location; and adjust an operation of the substrate processing system based on the estimated temperature at the one or more second locations.
Iskandar teaches a controller configured to: estimate temperature at one or more second locations of the chamber body based on the temperature measurement at the first location; and adjust an operation of the substrate processing system based on the estimated temperature at the one or more second locations. (Fig. 1; para. [0030] – [0031])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Leighton to include a controller and sensor system as taught by Iskandar in order to provide a system which allows a user to determine an optimized set of process parameters for a given set of input and output constraints and a list of objectives (e.g., for the topography) for the product. As such, the user interface 104 (with the techniques presented herein) provides an improved investigation tool, compared to traditional tools, for investigating potential issues with a product and determining an optimal set of inputs (process parameters) to achieve a particular topography. (para. [0033])
Regarding claim 5, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the chamber body comprises at least an upper window and a lower window made of transparent materials allowing more than 95% IR transmission. (para. [0020])
Regarding claim 6, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 5, wherein the upper window and the lower window comprise an upper portion (106) and a lower portion (108) of a monolithic frameless box that is made entirely from transparent materials. (para. [0020])
Regarding claim 7, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 5, wherein a temperature is measured from at least one of an outer surface of the upper window or an outer surface of the lower window. (para. [0023])
Regarding claim 8, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 1, further comprising a chamber conditioning assembly (138) disposed outside the chamber body to modulate processing conditions inside the chamber body. (Fig. 1; para. [0022])
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leighton in view of Iskandar and Hauf et al. (US 2006/0100735, hereafter “Hauf”).
Regarding claim 2, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a digital twin model is designed to emulate components and processes of the chamber body, the digital twin model configured to: receive an input from the pyrometer; conduct a virtual processing based on the received input; and generate an output indicative of a temperature mapping within the chamber body.
Hauf teaches a substrate processing system comprising a digital twin model is designed to emulate components and processes of the chamber body, the digital twin model configured to: receive an input from the pyrometer; conduct a virtual processing based on the received input; and generate an output indicative of a temperature mapping within the chamber body. (para. [0080])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the controller of Leighton to include a digital twin model as taught by Hauf in order to provide a system which is more efficient and accurate. (abstract)
Regarding claim 3, Leighton in view of Iskandar and Hauf further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 2, wherein the digital twin model is a physics-based model, a data-based model, or a hybrid model that incorporates both physics-based and data-based modeling approaches. (Hauf discloses a data-based model)
Regarding claim 4, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 2, wherein the digital twin model uses real-time operational data to calibrate predictive models of processing conditions in the chamber body. (as taught by Hauf; para. [0026])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leighton in view of Iskandar and Vellore et al. (US 6,598,559, hereafter “Vellore”).
Regarding claim 9, Leighton in view of Iskandar further disclose the substrate processing system of claim 8, wherein the chamber conditioning assembly comprising: one or more variable speed blowers configured to generate an air flow outside the chamber body (Fig. 1; para. [0022]), but fails to disclose one or more mechanical flow modulators configured to modulate the air flow and direct the air flow towards a central region and a periphery region of the chamber body.
Vellore teaches a substrate processing system comprising one or more mechanical flow modulators (118) configured to modulate the air flow and direct the air flow towards a central region and a periphery region of the chamber body. (Figs. 2-4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the substrate processing system of Leighton to include a mechanical flow modulator as taught by Vellore in order to provide a more optimized gas flow through the system. (Col. 5, line 55 through Col. 6, line 8)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights