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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “…inner member is a substrate holder that is disposed inside the processing chamber and holds the substrate on an upper surface of the substrate holder” of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the drawings show the inner member 51 used as a substrate holder. The substrate W is held by a substrate support 11. Further, “wherein the plurality of induction heating elements correspond to one magnetic field generator” of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the drawing show a many to one correspondence between the induction heating element 53 (magnetic substance) and magnetic field generator 52 (coils). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an inner member”, “a shield member”, “an induction heating element”, “a magnetic field generator” and “a shutter mechanism” in claims 1, 2, 15 and 19 wherein the generic place holder “member”, “generator” and “mechanism” are preceded by functional limitations without reciting what the “inner member”, “shield member”, “induction heating element”, “magnetic field generator” and “shutter mechanism” structurally entail.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus,
“an inner member” or “a shield member” is interpreted to be a nonmagnetic dielectric material 51of ceramic or Aluminum (Al) that is target heating the chamber and functions as an inner wall of the chamber while it is disposed spaced apart from the inner side wall of the chamber and equivalent thereof, (0048 and see FIGS 1 - 2).
“an induction heating element” is interpreted to be a magnetic metal material 53 such as carbon steel, silicon steel, stainless steel or ferrite and equivalent thereof, (0052 and see FIGS.2 – 12).
“a magnetic field generator” is interpreted to be a plurality of induction coils 52 provided along the outer wall surface of the chamber and equivalent thereof, (0050 and see FIGS. 2 – 12).
“a shutter mechanism” is interpreted to be including a valve body 151 for opening and closing the loading port 60a of the wafer and equivalent thereof, (0120 and see FIG.18).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9 – 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kannan (US 20050011441 A1) and hereinafter “Kannan”.
Regarding claim 1, Kannan discloses a substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate (processing device 11 for processing wafer W, FIG.1)), the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber in which a processing space for the substrate is formed (processing chamber 12 providing a processing space for wafer W, (0076 – 0080 and see FIG.1);
a heating mechanism that adjusts an inner temperature of the processing chamber (induction heating elements power source 28 that forms a magnetic field around an induction coils 27 by passing a current through the induction coil, wherein a placing member or susceptor 21 that has insulation layers 24 and 26 and a resistive layer 25 between the insulations is heated to adjust the temperature of the processing chamber 12, (0029 – 0035 and see FIG.1)); and
an inner member provided inside the processing chamber (placing member 21 that is placed in the chamber 12, (0029 and see FIG.1)) wherein the heating mechanism includes:
an induction heating element that heats at least the inner member by generating heat with an induction magnetic field (the resistive layer 25 heats the placing member 21 by the magnetic field formed around the induction coils 27, (0034 and see FIG.1)); and
a magnetic field generator that generates the induction magnetic field (the induction coils 27 generate the magnetic field, (0027 and see FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 9, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the inner member is a substrate holder that is disposed inside the processing chamber and holds the substrate on an upper surface of the substrate holder (the placing member 21 that is placed in the chamber 12 and the wafer W for processing is placed thereon, (0029 and see FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 10, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein, in a front view, the induction heating element is disposed such that at least a part of the induction heating element overlaps with the magnetic field generator (in the front view, the resistive layer 25 of the placing member 21 inside the chamber 12 is disposed in a manner that the induction coil 27 on the outside of the chamber 12 overlaps and provides magnetic fled to heat up the resistive layer 25, (0051 and see FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 11, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the induction heating element is formed of a plate member or a coil member (the resistive layer 25 is conductive metal layer (plate member), (0088 and see FIG.1)); and,
wherein the induction heating element is made of an iron-containing material containing any of carbon steel, silicon steel, stainless steel, permalloy, and ferrite, or at least one of aluminum, tungsten, tin, titanium, carbon, silicon, or silicon carbide (the resistive layer 25 is made of conductive material, for example, pure metal such as tungsten, molybdenum, nickel, tantalum or platinum, alloyed metal such as nickel chrome alloy or iron chrome alloy, such as silicon carbide or nitride boride, or graphite, (0088)).
Regarding claim 13, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the induction heating elements and the magnetic field generators are provided in a same number such that one of the magnetic field generators corresponds to one of the induction heating elements (the resistive layer 25 of the placing member 21 is provided with the corresponding induction coils 27 on the outside of the chamber 12 such that there is a one to one correspondence between the resistive layer and induction coils, see FIG.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Yonenaga et al. (US 2011/0210117 A1) and hereinafter “Yonenaga”.
Regarding claim 12, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate processing apparatus includes a plurality of the magnetic field generators (induction coils 27, see FIGS. 5 – 7).
Kannan does not explicitly teach that the substrate processing apparatus includes a plurality of the induction heating elements and a plurality of the magnetic field generators, and wherein the inner member is configured to be independently heated for each of a plurality of predetermined temperature control regions.
However, Yonenaga that relates to a heat treatment apparatus for a substrate wafer (0002) also teaches the substrate processing apparatus includes a plurality of the induction heating elements (the heat treatment apparatus 100 includes a plurality of magnetic cores 122, 132, (0048, 0062 – 0064 and see FIGS. 1 – 2)) and a plurality of the magnetic field generators (a plurality of induction coils 124 and 134, 0048, 0062 – 0064 and see FIGS. 1 – 2)), and wherein the inner member is configured to be independently heated for each of a plurality of predetermined temperature control regions (the susceptors 112 are independently heated at a predetermined temperature by controlling the current provided to each set of induction coils 124 and 134 and the magnetic field generated at a control region (0048, 0059, 0071 – 0073 and FIG.5)).
Yonenaga further discusses that the heat treatment apparatus 100 that independently controls the plurality of temperature control regions enables to process a plurality of wafers in the regions simultaneously in a processing chamber, (0003 – 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Kannan to include a plurality of the induction heating elements and a plurality of the magnetic field generators, wherein the inner member is configured to be independently heated for each of a plurality of predetermined temperature control regions in order to process a plurality of substrate wafers simultaneously in the processing chamber as taught in Yonenaga.
Regarding claim 14, Kannan in view of Yonenaga teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 12.
Kannan in view of Yonenaga do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of induction heating elements (a plurality of magnetic cores 122, 132) correspond to one magnetic field generator (induction coil124)
However, proving one magnetic field generated from a one induction coil to be shared by a plurality of induction heating elements (magnetic cores) is a matter of a mere design choice that could be addressed by ordinary skill in the art as appropriate in order to more efficiently use the magnetic field generating induction coils.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate processing apparatus of claim 12 taught by Kannan in view of Yonenaga to include the plurality of induction heating elements to correspond to one magnetic field generator as appropriate in order to more efficiently use the magnetic field generating induction coils.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Utsugi Yasufumi et al. (KR 20170004888 A) and hereinafter “Yasufumi”.
Regarding claim 15, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of the heating mechanisms are disposed in the processing apparatus (a plurality of susceptors 21 disposed in the processing chamber 12, see FIG.4),
an exhaust space for exhausting a gas inside the processing space (exhaust pipe 13 for exhausting gas from the processing chamber, (0078)), and a shutter mechanism that opens and closes a substrate loading port formed in a sidewall portion of the processing chamber (a gate valve 16 for opening and closing the wafer transfer gate 15 on formed on the side wall of the processing chamber 12, (0079 – 0080 and see FIG. 1)).
Kannan does not explicitly teach that the substrate processing apparatus is a plasma processing apparatus for performing plasma processing on the substrate, wherein the plurality of heating mechanisms heats at least one of a dielectric window that forms a ceiling portion of the processing space, an insulator ring that connects the dielectric window and the processing chamber, and a baffle plate that partitions the processing space and the exhaust space.
However, Yasufumi that relates to processing apparatus for performing plasma processing a substrate (0001), also teaches a plasma processing apparatus for performing plasma processing on a substrate, such as etching or ashing, on a substrate, (0022 – 0023 and see FIG.1), wherein the plurality of heating mechanisms heats at least one of a dielectric window that forms a ceiling portion of the processing space (a high frequency power sours 15 supplies power to high frequency antennas 13 to heats a dielectric window 2 to form a plasm in the processing chamber to perform a plasma treatment on the substrate G, (0019, 0024, 0051 and see FIG.1)), an insulator ring (support ring 5, see FIG.1) that connects the dielectric window and the processing chamber (the support ring 5 is disposed in between the dielectric window 2 and processing chamber 4 connecting dielectric window 2 and processing chamber 4, (0025 and see FIG.1)), and a baffle plate that partitions the processing space and the exhaust space (a partition member 50 of metal plate that partitions the inside of the processing room into a processing area 41 and an exhaust area 42 , (0037 and see FIG.1)).
Yasufumi further discusses this plasma processing apparatus structure for performing plasma processing on a substrate is necessary in the process of manufacturing semiconductor device or a flat panel display (FPD) from raw substrates, such as plasma etching or film deposition, on a substrate, (0002 – 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 disclosed by Kannan to include a plasma processing apparatus for performing plasma processing on the substrate, wherein the plurality of heating mechanisms heats at least one of a dielectric window that forms a ceiling portion of the processing space, an insulator ring that connects the dielectric window and the processing chamber, and a baffle plate that partitions the processing space and the exhaust space in order to provide additional processing means of plasma processing on the substrate to be processed as taught in Yasufumi.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Michio et al. (JP 2004022988 A) and hereinafter “Michio”.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kannan discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Kannan does not explicitly teach that a magnetic shield that reduces transmission of the induction magnetic field is provided to surround the magnetic field generator in a front view; and wherein the magnetic shield is made of a member having a relative magnetic permeability equal to or less than 1 (claim 16), and wherein a magnetic shield that reduces transmission of the induction magnetic field is provided outside the processing chamber with the magnetic field generator interposed between the magnetic shield and the processing chamber (claim 17).
However, Michio that relates to ta substrate processing apparatus (0001), also teaches a magnetic shielding member 35 that reduces magnetic field from induction coils 12 surrounding the coils therein, wherein the magnetic shield is made from materials like electromagnetic stainless steel (permeability of 1.003–1.005), (0040 – 0042 and see FIGS. 1 – 2), (claim 16), and the magnetic shield 35 includes a magnetic shield portion 37 for the processing chambers covering the processing chamber 2 from outside with magnetic generating coils 12 interposed between the magnetic shield and the proceeding chamber , (0040 – 0042 and see FIGS. 1 – 2), (claim 17).
Providing magnetic shield for suppressing transmission of the inductive magnetic field so that it partially surrounds the inductive magnetic field generating coils and selecting the magnetic shield material to have magnetic permeability equal to or less than 1 as well as the disposition of the magnetic shield to be provided outside the processing chamber with the magnetic field generator interposed between the magnetic shield and the processing chamber is a mere matter of design choice with in ordinary skill in the art of designing substrate processing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 disclosed by Kannan to include a magnetic shield that reduces transmission of the induction magnetic field is provided to surround the magnetic field generator in a front view; and wherein the magnetic shield is made of a member having a relative magnetic permeability equal to or less than 1 and wherein a magnetic shield that reduces transmission of the induction magnetic field is provided outside the processing chamber with the magnetic field generator interposed between the magnetic shield and the processing chamber as taught in Michio as such arrangement is a mere mater of design choice with in ordinary skill in the art that can be addressed as appropriate with the ordinary skill in the art designing substrate processing apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 – 20 are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights