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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Nguyen in addition to previously relied on references below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “disposed between the plurality of sub chamber;” should be “disposed between the plurality of sub chambers.” Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Common exhaust part (individual exhaust lines, combined exhaust line, vacuum pump, para. [0055]) in at least claims 1-13.
Substrate transfer part (rotary shaft, holders, para. [0060]) in at least claim 11.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Through-part (hole, para. [0043]) in claims 7-8.
Auxiliary through-part (single or plural openings, slits, para. [0053]) in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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) 1-2, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180261436 to Nguyen in view of US 20160289834 to Je.
Claim 1: Nguyen discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a plurality of sub chambers (102, 104 [first and second chamber sides], Fig. 2) in which processes are performed on a substrate (not shown, para. [0026]), respectively; and a common exhaust part (192/194/196) connected to the plurality of sub chambers (102/104) to exhaust the inside of each of the plurality of sub chambers (102/104, para. [0030]),
wherein each of the plurality of sub chambers (102/104) comprises: a substrate support (136A/136B [substrate supports], Fig. 2) on which the substrate is supported (para. [0026]); a shower head (170 [shower head]) provided to face the substrate support (136A/136B) and configured to supply a process gas toward the substrate (para. [0027]); an exhaust port (200A/200B [interior wall opening]) provided below the substrate support (136A/136B) and connected to the common exhaust part (192/194/196);
wherein the common exhaust part (192/194/196, Fig. 2) is disposed between the plurality of sub chambers (102/104), wherein the exhaust port (200A/200B) is provided laterally toward the common exhaust part (192/194/196) and extends along the circumference of the substrate support so that a width in a circumferential direction of the substrate support is greater than a height in an up and down direction (Fig. 2).
However Nguyen does not disclose and a flow control part comprising a cover plate provided along a circumference of the substrate support, and configured to adjust an exhaust flow of the process gas to a lower portion of the substrate support; wherein the cover plate is provided in a form of an arc that covers an upper portion of the exhaust port on a portion of the circumference of the substrate support to correspond to the exhaust port.
Je discloses and a flow control part (90/60-67, Fig. 1-9) comprising a cover plate (80 [fixing plate]) provided along a circumference of the substrate support (40 [susceptor]), and configured to adjust an exhaust flow of the process gas to a lower portion of the substrate support (40, para. [0033-0045]); wherein the cover plate (80) is provided in a form of an arc (Fig. 2-4) that covers an upper portion of the exhaust port (15 [exhaust port]) on a portion of the circumference of the substrate support (40) to correspond to the exhaust port for the purpose of switching the movable plate between a standby position and a process position to control an exhaust flow of the non-reaction gases and the reaction byproducts (para. [0045]).
Claim 2: The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je discloses wherein the plurality of sub chambers (102/104, Fig. 2, Nguyen) are disposed to be symmetrical to each other with respect to the common exhaust part (192/194/196, Fig. 2).
Claims 3-4: (Cancelled).
Claims 5-8: The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je discloses (claim 5) wherein the flow control part (90/60-67, Fig. 1-9, Je) further comprises: a movable plate (90 [sliding plate]) coupled to the cover plate (80) so as to be movable (para. [0034]).
The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je does not disclose (claim 5) wherein the movable plate stacked on the cover plate so as to be movable along a circumferential direction of the substrate support; and a driver configured to move the movable plate on the cover plate; (claim 6) wherein the driver is configured to move the movable plate so that an extension length of the cover plate and the movable plate in the circumferential direction of the substrate support varies; (claim 7) wherein the cover plate comprises a through-part, and the movable plate is configured to adjust an opened area of the cover plate through the through-part; (claim 8) wherein the movable plate comprises an auxiliary through-part that is provided in shape or number different from that of the through-part.
Je discloses (claim 5) wherein the movable plate (90 [sliding plate], Fig. 1) is stacked on the cover plate (80) so as to be movable along a circumferential direction of the substrate support (40, Fig. 7, para. [0045]); and a driver (60-67, Fig. 2-9) configured to move the movable plate (90) on the cover plate (80); (claim 6) wherein the driver (60-67) is configured to move the movable plate (90) so that an extension length of the cover plate (80) and the movable plate (90) in the circumferential direction of the substrate support varies (Fig. 2-4); (claim 7) wherein the cover plate (80) comprises a through-part (85 [through hole], Fig. 3), and the movable plate (90) is configured to adjust an opened area (85) of the cover plate (80) through the through-part (85, para. [0034]);
(claim 8) wherein the movable plate (90) comprises an auxiliary through-part (95 [discharge hole], Fig. 3) that is provided in shape or number different from that of the through-part (para. [0050]). Je discloses this for the purpose of switching the movable plate between a standby position and a process position to control an exhaust flow of the non-reaction gases and the reaction byproducts (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above limitations as taught by Je with motivation to switch the movable plate between a standby position and a process position to control an exhaust flow of the non-reaction gases and the reaction byproducts.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je discloses the movable plate (90, Fig. 4, Je) is provided in the form of an arc (90) that is equal to or less than that of the cover plate (80).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je discloses wherein the common exhaust part (192/194/196, Fig. 2, Nguyen) comprises: a plurality of individual exhaust lines (204A and 204B [exhaust paths], are lines of 200A and 200B) each of which communicates with the exhaust port (200A/200B) of each of the plurality of sub chambers (104/102); a combined exhaust line (192 [vacuum port]) to which the plurality of individual exhaust lines (204A and 204B of 200A and 200B) are connected (Fig. 2); and a vacuum pump (196 [vacuum pump]) connected to the combined exhaust line (192, Fig. 2, para. [0024]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Je as applied to claims 1-2, 5-10 above, and further in view of US 20100193132 to Wi.
Claims 11-13: The apparatus of Nguyen in view of Je does not disclose (claim 11) further comprising a substrate transfer part configured to move the substrate between two adjacent sub chambers in a direction crossing a radial direction of the common exhaust part through a communication space between the plurality of sub chambers; (claim 12) wherein each of the plurality of sub chambers further comprises: a liner configured to define an exhaust space in a lower space within the sub chamber; and an inner liner provided inside the liner to surround an outer surface of the substrate support, wherein the cover plate is provided between the liner and the inner liner; (claim 13) wherein an upper end of the inner liner is higher than an upper end of the liner.
Wi discloses (claim 11) further comprising a substrate transfer part (interpreted as 30 [workpiece transfer unit], Fig. 3) configured to move the substrate between two adjacent sub chambers (any of sub chambers of 10a/10b/10c [workpiece processing chambers]) in a direction crossing a radial direction of the common exhaust part (300 [common exhaust channel]) through a communication space between the plurality of sub chambers (space between any of sub chambers of 10a/10b/10c);
(claim 12) wherein each of the plurality of sub chambers (any of sub chambers of 10a/10b/10c) further comprises: a liner (180 [intermediate liner], Fig. 6) configured to define an exhaust space in a lower space within the sub chamber (Fig. 7-8); and an inner liner (160 [upper liner]) provided inside the liner (180) to surround an outer surface of the substrate support (170 [workpiece support]), wherein the cover plate (not shown but disclosed as “exhaust gas baffle,” para. [0087]) is provided between the liner (180) and the inner liner (160);
(claim 13) wherein an upper end of the inner liner (160) is higher than an upper end of the liner (180, Fig. 4-7). Wi discloses the above limitations for the purpose of preventing the internal surface of the internal processing spaces A and B from being damaged or worn by ion collision of plasma (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Wi with motivation to prevent the internal surface of the internal processing spaces A and B from being damaged or worn by ion collision of plasma.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190385873 discloses exhaust paths (31, Fig. 3, 6) respectively formed in the four processing spaces S1 to S4 and a joined exhaust path (32) in which the exhaust paths (31) are joined (para. [0034]). US 20100093185 discloses a cylindrical liner (7, Fig. 1) formed from quartz is provided along an inner circumference of the chamber (1), while a baffle plate (8) having a plurality of exhaust holes (8a) and formed from quartz is annularly provided, around an outer circumference of the susceptor (2, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights