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 without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-11 drawn to the apparatus in the reply filed on 07 Nov 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07 Nov 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-16 are objected to for having incorrect status indicator. Claims 12-16 in the claims filed 07 Nov 2025 have. status indicator of “original” when the status indicator should be “withdrawn” since claims 12-16 are withdrawn without traverse in Applicant’s reply filed 07 Nov 2025. Applicant should correct status indicators for claim 12-16 to indicate that the claims are “withdrawn” in the response to this Office Action.
Additionally, claim 3 is objected to for the following informalities: “the first purge gas, and the second purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station” should read as the first purge gas, and the second purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station, the second process station
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: "gas supply unit" (claim 1), "control unit" (claim 1, 3, 5), "first gas supply part" (claim 2, 3, 5), "second gas supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5), "first purge supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5), "second purge supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5).
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. For the purpose of examination: "gas supply unit" (claim 1) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0041] and Fig. 1 as comprising a gas source and a gas line for supplying gases from the gas supply source to the first, second, third, and fourth process station, and equivalents thereof; "first gas supply part" (claim 2, 3, 5, 6) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0045][0063] and Fig. 1 as comprising first gas supply part 121 including a first process gas supply source, or alternatively, a first process gas supply source and a first gas reservoir 121a, and equivalents thereof; "second gas supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5, 6) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0046],[0063] and Fig. 1 as comprising second gas supply part 122 including a second process gas supply source or, alternatively, a second process gas supply source and a second gas reservoir 122a, and equivalents thereof; "first purge supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5, 6) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0047],[0063] and Fig. 1 as comprising first purge supply part 123 including a first purge gas supply source or alternatively, a first purge gas supply source/container and a first purge reservoir 123a and equivalents thereof; "second purge supply part"(claim 2, 3, 5, 6) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0048],[0063] and Fig. 1 as comprising second purge gas supply part 124 including second purge gas supply source or alternatively, a second purge gas supply source/container and a second purge reservoir 124a, and equivalents thereof; (Regarding claim 6, Examiner notes that under interpretation under U.S.C. 112f “first gas supply part” includes a first gas source and equivalents thereof, “second gas supply part” includes a second gas source and equivalents thereof, “first purge gas supply part” includes a first purge gas source and equivalents thereof, “second purge gas supply part” includes a second purge gas source and equivalents thereof, in addition to the claim 6 requirement of the reservoirs to meet the claim limitations and to provide for the structure to perform the entire claimed function of supplying gas).; "control unit" (claim 1, 3, 5) has no corresponding structure which raises rejections under U.S.C.112a and 112b as further discussed below. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “control unit” as comprising a general-purpose computer/controller capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e. via an operator/manual control) or alternatively a programmed computer/controller, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
All recitations of “control unit (claims 1, 3, 5)” in the Specification (paragraph [0008], [0010],[0012],[0032],[0042], [0049], [0059][0076]-[0079], [0082]) refers to “control unit” or “control unit 130” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “control the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations by alternating the gases supplied between the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station” (claim 1), “controls the first gas supply part, the second gas supply part, the first purge supply part, and the second purge supply part so that the first process gas, the second process gas, the first purge gas, and the second purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station” (claim 3), “control the first gas supply part so that the first process gas is supplied in order of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; control the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; control the second gas supply part so that the second process gas is supplied in order of the third process station, the fourth process station, the first process station, and the second process station; and control the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station” (claim 5). Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claims 1, 3, 5.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 11 is/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 11, limitation “the first gas valve, the second gas valve, the first purge valve, and the second purge valve” is unclear and confusing whether the claimed valves in claim 11 are the same or different from “a plurality of first gas valves,” “a plurality of second gas valves, “a plurality of first purge valves”, and “a plurality of purge gas valves” claimed in claim 10, on which claim 11 depends.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 11 as “The substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a plurality of valve blocks wherein each valve block of the plurality of valve blocks supports a respective first gas valve of the plurality of first gas valves, a respective second gas valve of the plurality of second gas valves, a respective first purge valve of the plurality of first purge valves, a respective second purge valve of the plurality of second purge valves the plurality of valve blocks are provided on upper portions of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, respectively.”
Regarding claim 1, 3, 5 claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. All recitations of “control unit (claims 1, 3, 5)” in the Specification (paragraph [0008], [0010],[0012],[0032],[0042], [0049], [0059][0076]-[0079], [0082]) refers to “control unit” or “control unit 130” and the figures only show control 130 as a box without further specifying a specific structure to perform the claimed functions in claim 1, 3, 5.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets “control unit” as comprising a general-purpose computer capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e. via an operator/manual control) or alternatively a programmed controller, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claims 1, 3, 5.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horii et al. (JP2012164736A hereinafter “Horii” and referring to English Machine translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Horii teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising cluster apparatus, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0014], [0018],[0020]) comprising:
a multi-station chamber comprising
a first process station (comprising one of processing unit 31a-31f, Fig. 1 and 4, para.[0018], [0020]; comprising one of process chamber 201a-201f, Fig. 4, para. [0040]),
a second process station (comprising a different one of processing unit 31a-31f, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0018],[0020]; comprising a different one of process chamber 201a-201f, Fig. 4, para. [0040]),
a third process station (comprising another different one of 31a-31f, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0018],[0020]; comprising yet another different one of 201a-201f, Fig. 4, para. [0040]), and
a fourth process station (comprising yet another different one of 31a-31f, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0018],[0020]; comprising yet another different one of 201a-201f, Fig. 4, para. [0040]),
each of which independently performs processes (para. [0054]), and configured to perform processes for a plurality of substrates (as understood from Fig. 1 and 4, the multi-station chamber enables processing one substrate/wafer in each station thus, a plurality of substrate is processed in the substrate processing apparatus. See Fig. 6 and para. [0055]);
a gas supply unit interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a gas supply source (comprising source gas supply system including vaporizer 32; reactive gas supply system including gas supply source 230o; purge gas supply system including purge gas source 230n and 203p, Fig. 4, para. [0039]-[0047]) and a gas supply line (comprising raw material gas supply pipe 213, reactive gas supply pipe 215, purge gas supply pipe 214, purge gas supply pipe 216, Fig. 4, para. [0039]-[0047]) and configured to divide a plurality of gases to respectively supply the plurality of gases to the first process station, the second process, the third process station (, and the fourth process station (comprising processing units 31a-31f, Fig. 1; comprising processing chambers 201a-201f, Fig. 4) (para. [0039]-[0047]); and
a control unit (comprising main controller 37, Fig. 1; comprising controller 280, Fig. 2, 3, 4) configured to control the gas supply unit (see Fig. 4) so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations by alternating the gases supplied between the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station (para. [0019],[0052]-[0054], see also Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, see U.S.C. 112f interpretation above, Horii teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and further teaches wherein the gas supply unit comprises:
a first gas supply part (comprising source gas supply system including vaporizer 32, Fig. 4) configured to supply a first process gas (i.e. source gas) to the multi-station chamber (comprising first to sixth chambers 201a to 201f, Fig. 4)(para. [0039]-[0041]);
a second gas supply part (comprising reactive gas supply system including O2 gas supply source 230o, Fig. 4) configured to supply a second process gas different from the first process gas to the multi-station chamber (comprising 201a to 201f, Fig. 4) (para. [0042]-[0045]);
a first purge supply part (comprising first purge gas supply system including N2 gas supply source 230p, Fig. 4) configured to supply a first purge gas to the multi-station chamber (comprising 201a to 201f, Fig. 4)(para. [0046]); and
a second purge supply part (comprising second purge gas supply system including N2 gas supply source 230n, Fig. 4) configured to supply a second purge gas to the multi-station chamber (comprising 201a to 201f, Fig. 4)(para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Horii teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above and Horii further teaches the control unit (comprising 37, Fig. 1; comprising 280, Fig. 2 and 3) controls the first gas supply part (comprising source gas supply system including 32, Fig. 4), the second gas supply part (comprising reactive gas supply system including O2 gas supply source 230o, Fig. 4), the first purge supply part (comprising first purge gas supply system including N2 gas supply source 230p, Fig. 4), and the second purge supply part (comprising second purge gas supply system including N2 gas supply source 230n, Fig. 4) so that the first process gas, the second process gas, the first purge gas, and the second purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station (comprising 31a, Fig. 1; comprising 201a, Fig. 4), the second process station (comprising 31b, Fig. 1; comprising 201b, Fig. 4), the third process station ((comprising 31c, Fig. 1; comprising 201c, Fig. 4), and the fourth process station (comprising 31d, Fig. 1; comprising 201d, Fig. 4) (para. [0052]-[0074], see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Horii teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2,3 as applied above and Horii further teaches wherein the second process station (comprising one of 31a-31f for example 31b, Fig. 1) is disposed in a first direction (i.e. upwards direction in Fig. 1) of the first process station (comprising one of 31a-31f for example 31a, Fig. 1), the fourth process station (comprising one of 31a-31 for example 31f, Fig. 1) is disposed in a second direction perpendicular (i.e. towards the right of Fig. 1) to the first direction of the first process station (comprising for example 31a, Fig. 1), and the third process station (comprising one of 31a-31f for example 31d, Fig. 1) is disposed in a diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction of the first process station (comprising for example 31a, Fig. 1). Examiner additionally notes that even if one were to interpret 31a to be the first process station, 31b to be the second process station, 31c to be the third process station, 31d to be the fourth process station, the arrangement/placement of the processing stations to meet claim 4 limitations does not affect the operation of the apparatus. Thus, rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sato teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising substrate processing system 100, Fig. 6, 7, 8, para. [0100]-[0159]) comprising:
a multi-station chamber comprising a first process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101a, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]),
a second process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101b, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]),
a third process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101c, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]), and
a fourth process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101d, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]), each of which independently performs processes, and configured to perform processes for a plurality of substrates (comprising 200, Fig. 6)( multi-station chamber enables processing one substrate/wafer in each station thus, a plurality of substrate is processed in the substrate processing apparatus, see Fig. 8);
a gas supply unit interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a gas source (comprising processing gas source 113, reactive gas source 123, purge gas source 133, Fig. 7, para. [0101]-[0108]) and a gas line (comprising gas supply pipes 111a-111d, gas supply pipes 121a-121d, gas supply pipes 131a-131d, Fig. 7, para. [0101]-[0108]) configured to divide a plurality of gases (i.e. processing gas, reactive gas, purge/inert gas) to respectively supply the plurality of gases to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station (para. [0101]-[0108], [0121]); and
a control unit (comprising controller 260, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0052]-[0057]) configured to control the gas supply unit (see para. [0056]) so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations by alternating the gases supplied between the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the second process station(comprising 101b, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the third process station(comprising 101c, Fig. 6, 7, 8), and the fourth process station(comprising 101d, Fig. 6, 7, 8), (see Fig. 8, para. [0110]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, see discussion of interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) above, Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and further teaches the gas supply unit comprises: a first gas supply part (comprising first gas supply system/processing gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) interpreted under U.S. C. 112(f) as comprising a first gas supply source (comprising processing gas source 113, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) configured to supply a first process gas (i.e. processing gas) to the multi-station chamber (comprising 101a-101d, Fig. 6, 7); a second gas supply part (comprising second gas supply system/reactive gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [00105]) interpreted under U.S. C. 112(f) as comprising a second gas supply source (comprising reactive gas supply source 123, Fig. 7, para. [0105]) configured to supply a second process gas (i.e. reactive gas) different from the first process gas to the multi-station chamber (comprising 101a-101d, Fig. 6, 7); a first purge supply part (comprising purge gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0107]) interpreted under U.S. C. 112(f) as comprising a first purge gas supply source (comprising purge gas source 133, Fig. 7, para. [0107]) configured to supply a first purge gas to the multi-station chamber.
Sato does not explicitly teach a second purge supply part configured to supply a second purge gas to the multi-station chamber.
However, Jeong teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising substrate processing device, Fig. 1, para. [0022]) comprising a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially (see Fig. 2b) supply each gas into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse of first purge gas and a pulse of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valve in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second purge gas supply part configured to supply a second purge gas to the multi-station chamber (i.e. by duplicating the first purge gas supply part of Sato including all the structural components such as gas lines, valves and source) because Jeong teaches that such a configuration is a suitable alternative configuration of a substrate processing apparatus which enables providing a pulse of purge gas from a second purge gas supply part/source enabling supply of the process gases according to the desired process time for the desired substrate processing (para. [0018], [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Jeong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above.
Sato further teaches the control unit (comprising 260, Fig. 1, para. [0053]-[0056]) is configured to control the first gas supply part (comprising processing gas supply system including , Fig. 7, para. [0103]), the second gas supply part (comprising reactive gas supply system Fig. 7, para. [0105]), the first purge supply part (comprising purge gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0107], so that the first process gas, the second process gas, the first purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6, 7, 8) (para. [0053]-[0056], [0121]).
Sato in view of Jeong as applied above does not explicitly teach the control unit controls the second purge gas part to respectively supply the second purge gas to the first through fourth stations.
However, Sato teaches a sequential process that occurs in each chamber (see Fig. 5B showing a pulse supply of the first process gas, then pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part, then pulse supply of second process gas and followed by pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part; para. [0098]) and that the sequential process is performed in a sequential manner across the first through fourth stations shown in Fig. 8. (para.[0110]-[121]). See also the valve sequence in Fig. 9 and accompany description para. [0122]-[0127].
Additionally, Jeong teaches a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially supply the first process gas, then a first purge gas from the first purge gas source, followed supply of the second process gas and then supply of second purge gas from the second purge gas source (see sequence shown in Fig. 2B)into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse supply of a first purge gas and a pulse supply of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valves in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control unit of Sato to also control the second purge gas supply part to provide the second purge gas to be supplied to different process stations of the first through fourth process stations because Sato already teaches sequential supply/pulsing of each gas into each process station and because Jeong teaches/suggests that pulsing of first and second purge gas is a known suitable gas supply configuration which enables supplying process gas at a desired process time for desired substrate processing.
Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Jeong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 as applied above.
Sato further teaches wherein the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6) is disposed in a first direction (i.e. upward in Fig. 6) of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6), the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6) is disposed in a second direction (i.e. toward the right in Fig. 6) perpendicular to the first direction of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6), and the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6) is disposed in a diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Sato in view of Jeong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4 as applied above.
Sato further teaches wherein the control unit (comprising 260, Fig. 1 and 2) is configured to: control the first gas supply part (comprising processing/first gas supply system including processing gas source 113 and valves 111a-111d, Fig. 7) so that the first process gas is supplied in order of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7 and 8), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 7 and 8), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7 and 8), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7 and 8); control the second gas supply part (comprising reactive/second gas supply system including reactive gas source 123 and valves 126a-126d, Fig. 7 and 8) so that the second process gas is supplied in order of the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7 and 8), the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7 and 8), the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7 and 8), and the second process station (as understood from Fig. 8).
Examiner notes that that apparatus of Sato was modified in view of teachings of Jeong to include the second purge gas supply part in claim 2 rejection above.
Sato in view of Jeong as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach controlling the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; control the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station.
However, Sato teaches a sequential process that occurs in each chamber (see Fig. 5B) showing a pulse supply of the first process gas, then pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part, then pulse supply of second process gas and followed by pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part; para. [0098]) and that the sequential process is performed in a sequential manner across the first through fourth stations shown in Fig. 8. (para.[0110]-[121]). See also the valve sequence in Fig. 9 and accompany description para. [0122]-[0127].
Additionally, Jeong teaches a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially supply the first process gas, then a first purge gas from the first purge gas source, followed supply of the second process gas and then supply of second purge gas from the second purge gas source (see sequence shown in Fig. 2B) into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse supply of a first purge gas and a pulse supply of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valves in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the control unit/control to perform the steps of controlling the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; and controlling the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station (i.e. controlling the first purge gas supply part to supply a first purge gas for the first purge step and controlling the second purge gas supply part to supply a second purge gas for the second purge step) because Sato already teaches sequentially supplying the first process gas, supplying a purge gas for a first purge gas step, the second process gas, and supplying a purge gas for a second purge gas supply step to respective first through fourth stations in a sequential manner and because Jeong teaches/suggests supplying a first purge gas from a first purge gas supply part in a first purge step and supplying a second purge gas from a second purge gas supply part in a second purge step as a known suitable alternative gas supplying configuration which would enable supplying process gases according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (Jeong: para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
Claim(s) 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation) as applied to claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and further in view of Okura et al. (US 2018/0037991 A1 hereinafter “Okura”).
Regarding claim 6, Sato in view of Jeong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied wherein the first gas supply part (comprising processing/first gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) comprises a first gas reservoir (comprising buffer tank 114, Fig. 7, para. [0103] [0122]) connected to each of the first process station(comprising 101a, Fig. 6 and 7), the second process station(comprising 101b, Fig. 6 and 7), the third process station(comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6 and 7) and configured to store the first process gas so as to selectively supply the first process gas to the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6 and 7), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6 and 7), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6 and 7).
Sato in view of Jeong does not explicitly teach the second gas supply part comprises a second gas reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second process gas so as to selectively supply the second process gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, the first purge supply part comprises a first purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the first purge gas so as to selectively supply the first purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, and the second purge supply part comprises a second purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second purge gas so as to selectively supply the second purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station.
However, Okura teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a first gas supply part including a first gas source (comprising 44, Fig. 1) and a first gas reservoir (comprising 42, Fig. 1), a second gas supply part including a second gas source (comprising 64, Fig. 1) and a second gas reservoir (comprising 62, Fig. 1), a first purge supply part including a first purge gas source (comprising 68, Fig. 1) and a first purge gas reservoir (comprising 66, Fig. 1), a second purge gas supply part including a second purge gas source (comprising 48, Fig. 1) and a second purge gas reservoir (comprising 46, Fig. 1). Okura teaches that providing gas reservoirs enables temporarily storing respective gases supplied from gas supply sources at the upstream sides of gas flow passages, thereby stabilizing the flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1)(para. [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a second gas reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second process gas so as to selectively supply the second process gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, a first purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the first purge gas so as to selectively supply the first purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, and a second purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second purge gas so as to selectively supply the second purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station (i.e. duplicating the configuration of the reservoir 114 of Sato for the other gas supply parts) because Okura teaches a gas supply part including a reservoir enables stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber(s)/stations (Okura: para. [0030]), wherein connecting the respective reservoirs to each of the respective process stations would obviously enable stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to each of the respective process stations.
Regarding claim 10, Sato in view of Jeong and Okura teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 above and Sato further teaches wherein the first gas supply part further comprises a plurality of first gas valves (comprising 116a-116d, Fig. 7) provided between each of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 7), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7) and the first gas reservoir (comprising 114, Fig. 7), the second gas supply part further comprises a plurality of second gas valves (comprising 126a-126d, Fig. 7); the first purge gas supply part further comprises a plurality of first purge valves (comprising 136a-136d, Fig. 7).
Regarding limitation “a plurality of second purge valves,” this limitation would obviously be met in claim 2 rejection when duplicating the first purge gas supply part of Sato.
Regarding limitations “the second gas supply part further comprises a plurality of second gas valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second gas reservoir, the first purge supply part further comprises a plurality of first purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the first purge reservoir, and the second purge supply part further comprises a plurality of second purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second purge reservoir,” these limitations describe the location/placement of the valves being between each process station and the respective reservoirs. Since the combination already teaches the plurality of valves for each gas supply part, as discussed in detail above, and since the reservoir 114 configuration of Sato was duplicated and applied to the other gas supply parts of the combination in claim 6 rejection, the above claim 10 limitations would obviously also be met by the combination.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation), Okura et al. (US 2018/0037991 A1 hereinafter “Okura”) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2003/0190423 A1 hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 7, Sato in view of Jeong and Okura teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Regarding claim 8, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 7 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir has a size less than that of each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Regarding claim 9, Sato in view of Jeong and Okura teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir have the same size.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation), Okura et al. (US 2018/0037991 A1 hereinafter “Okura”) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Provencher et al. (US 2008/0202416 A1).
Regarding claim 11, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Sato in view of Jeong and Okura teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 10 above but does not explicitly teach a plurality of valve blocks, wherein each valve block of the plurality of valve blocks supports a respective first gas valve of the plurality of first gas valves, a respective second gas valve of the plurality of second gas valves, a respective first purge valve of the plurality of first purge valves, a respective second purge valve of the plurality of second purge valves, and the plurality of valve blocks are provided on upper portions of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, respectively.
However, Sato teaches that the valves (comprising 116a-116d, 126a-126d, 136a-136d, Fig. 7) are located above upper portions of the first through fourth process stations (comprising 101a-101d, Fig.7), wherein each process station has an associated respective first gas valve, second gas valve, and purge valve, but is silent regarding how the valves are supported.
Additionally, Provencher teaches a valve block (comprising manifold assembly 10 including body 27 and insulator plate 56, Fig. 4 and 5) supporting a first gas valve (comprising one of reactant gas valves 31(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), a second gas valve (comprising a different one of reactant gas valves 31(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), a first purge gas valve (comprising one of inert gas valves 30(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), and a second purge gas valve (comprising a different one of inert gas valves 30 (a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), wherein the valve block (comprising 10, Fig. 1 and 4) is provided on an upper portion of a process station (comprising reaction chamber 1, Fig. 1, para. [0029]) (para. [0038],[0040],[0064]-[0074]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a plurality of valve blocks, wherein each valve block of the plurality of valve blocks supports a respective first gas valve of the plurality of first gas valves, a respective second gas valve of the plurality of second gas valves, a respective first purge valve of the plurality of first purge valves, a respective second purge valve of the plurality of second purge valves, and the plurality of valve blocks are provided on upper portions of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, respectively because Sato already teaches that each of the first through fourth process stations have respective valves for each associated gas supply part above an upper portion of each respective process station and because Provencher teaches/suggests providing a valve block to support a plurality of valves on an upper portion of a process station as a known suitable configuration for supporting/mounting the valves needed for gas supply into a respective process station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirochi (US 2017/0062254 A1) teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising substrate processing system 1000, Fig. 1, para. [0025]) comprising: a multi-station chamber comprising a first process station (comprising one of 100a-100h, Fig. 1 and 12, para. [0048]), a second process station comprising one of 100a-100h, Fig. 1 and 12), third process station comprising one of 100a-100h, Fig. 1 and 12), fourth process station comprising one of 100a-100h, Fig. 1 and 12) each of which independently performs processes, and configured to perform processes for a plurality of substrates (para. [0008]); a gas supply unit (comprising 113, 123, 143, Fig. 4, para. [0069]) configured to divide a plurality of gases to respectively supply the plurality of gases to the first process station, the second process station (Fig. 4); and a control unit (comprising controller 260, Fig. 5, para. [0102]-[0107]) configured to control the gas supply unit (para. [0048], [0069], [0102]-[107], claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716