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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Species B (Figs. 3-4) in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicants designate claims 1-13 and 16-20 as reading into the elected Species B. However, the claims 16-20 are dependent from Claim 14, which belong to the unelected species, thus they should be excluded, together with the claim 14. Claims 14-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “high” in “A high pressure processing apparatus” of Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“A processing apparatus”.
(2) The “wherein the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber occupy areas independent of each other” of Claim 2 is not clear, because it is not clear how the areas are independent each other.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber occupy corresponding areas that do not overlap each other”.
(3) The “wherein the third pressure has a value biased toward the external pressure than the first pressure or the second pressure” of Claim 3 is not clear, because it is not clear what the “value bias toward” means. The metes and bounds of the subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive “by considering the external pressure more than the first pressure or the second pressure”.
(4) The “a pressure in the 3-1-th chamber” of Claim 6 is not clear.
Claim 6 is dependent from Claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a space between each of the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber and the second chamber at a third pressure”, in other words, a pressure in each of the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber and the second chamber is a third pressure, thus it is not clear how the “a pressure” of Claim 6 is different from the pressure of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Taniuch et al. (JP 2012-134325, hereafter ‘325, filed in IDS).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘325 teaches:
Substrate treating apparatus (title of the English translation, the claimed “A high pressure processing apparatus”);
a processing furnace 202 is provided as a processing container for processing a substrate inside (2nd paragraph of page 9, the claimed “the apparatus comprising: a first chamber accommodating an object to be processed”);
a cylindrical coil housing 2062 (1st paragraph of page 14), and A cylindrical induction heating device 206 is provided around the processing furnace 202 (last paragraph of page 13, the claimed “a second chamber surrounding the first chamber and heating the first chamber”);
Enclosing member 280 (2nd paragraph of page 15, note the housing case 290 is also a third chamber, thus a portion of the member 280/case 290 is a first sub chamber, and the other portion of the member 280/case 290 is a second sub chamber, the claimed “a third chamber including a 3-1-th chamber surrounding a portion of the second chamber and a 3-2-th chamber surrounding another portion of the second chamber”);
A controller 240 and a process gas supply device 310 (2nd paragraph of page 17), and the first and second inert gas supply devices 330 and 340 (last paragraph of page 17, the claimed “and a supply module”);
the processing gas is supplied into the processing chamber 201 (3rd paragraph of page 12, the claimed “supplying a process gas for processing the object in the first chamber at a first pressure”);
An inert gas (not shown) supplied from the inert gas supply nozzle 261 passes from the scavenger 260 through the gap SP2 between the annular seal 267 and the annular seal 269, and the outer tube 205 and the coil casing 2062 (2nd last paragraph of page 14, the claimed “supplying a protection gas to a space between the second chamber and the first chamber at a second pressure set in relation to the first pressure”);
An inert gas is supplied to a gap SP3 between a housing case 290 and an envelope member 280 and a gap SP4 between the envelope member 280 and a treatment furnace 202 (abstract, the claimed “and supplying a defense gas to a space between each of the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber and the second chamber”);
the inert gas is spread all over the housing case 290 and the process gas leaking inside a heater chamber HR is almost completely diluted and discharged to the outside without letting it stay (abstract, note gas leaking is occurred from a higher pressure zone to a lower pressure zone, in other words, the pressure in the SP3/SP4 is lower than the pressure in the SP2 between the outer tube 205 and the coil casing 2062, thus process gas leaking is occurred and it is diluted with the inert gas, the claimed “at a third pressure lower than the first pressure and the second pressure”);
by setting the pressure in the heater chamber HR to be equal to or higher than the atmospheric pressure, it is possible to prevent oxygen gas from entering the heater chamber HR from the outside (2nd paragraph of page 25, the claimed “and higher than an external pressure of the third chamber to block external air from being introduced into the third chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 8 of ‘325 shows a portion of the enclosing member 280/the housing case 290 surrounding a corresponding portion of the cylindrical coil housing 2062 (the claimed “wherein the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber occupy areas independent of each other”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘325 teaches the inert gas supply amount control unit 243 of the controller 240 supplies the gas supply amount supplied from the pair of first inert gas supply devices 330 to the gap SP3 to the gap SP4 from the second inert gas supply device 340. The first and second inert gas supply devices 330 and 340 are controlled to increase the gas supply amount (last paragraph of page 23), and as a control pattern (explosion-proof control pattern) of the dilution process of the leaked gas, a pattern for controlling the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR by controlling the pressure sensor 351, the gas detector 353, and the flow rate adjusting valve 354, respectively (last paragraph of page 24, the claimed “further comprising a control module controlling an operation of the supply module, wherein the control module controls the supply module to supply the defense gas to the 3-1-th chamber and the 3-2-th chamber according to different standards”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
‘325 teaches a pressure sensor 351 for detecting the pressure in the heater chamber HR, a radiator 352 for reducing the temperature of the inert gas discharged from the heater chamber HR, and a gas for detecting the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR (last paragraph of page 18), and as a control pattern (explosion-proof control pattern) of the dilution process of the leaked gas, a pattern for controlling the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR by controlling the pressure sensor 351, the gas detector 353, and the flow rate adjusting valve 354, respectively (last paragraph of page 24, the claimed “further comprising a detection module including a first sensor detecting an environment in the 3-1-th chamber and a second sensor detecting an environment in the 3-2-th chamber, wherein the control module controls the supply module based on a detection result of the detection module”).
Regarding to Claims 6-7,
‘325 teaches a pressure sensor 351 for detecting the pressure in the heater chamber HR and a gas for detecting the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR (last paragraph of page 18), and when the concentration of the processing gas detected by the gas detector 353 exceeds a predetermined value and the atmosphere in the heater chamber HR is likely to reach the explosion range, the pressure sensor The flow rate adjustment valve 354 is controlled so that the pressure in the heater chamber HR detected by the 351 exceeds the pressure in the processing furnace 202 detected by the pressure sensor 241. Thereby, it is possible to prevent the processing gas from leaking from the processing furnace 202 into the housing 290 while diluting the processing gas leaked into the heater chamber HR. Further, by setting the pressure in the heater chamber HR to be equal to or higher than the atmospheric pressure, it is possible to prevent oxygen gas from entering the heater chamber HR from the outside, and to further reduce the explosion risk (2nd paragraph of page 25;
the claimed “wherein the first sensor includes a pressure gauge, and the control module controls the supply module to inject the defense gas for a pressure in the 3-1-th chamber to reach a set pressure when the pressure in the 3-1-th chamber that is detected by the pressure gauge is lower than the set pressure” of Claim 6, and
“wherein the second sensor includes a gas detector, and the control module controls the supply module to inject the defense gas for oxygen concentration in the 3-2-th chamber to reach set oxygen concentration when the oxygen concentration in the 3-2-th chamber that is detected by the gas detector is higher than the set oxygen concentration” of Claim 7).
Regarding to Claims 8-10,
‘325 teaches The inert gas discharge device 350 includes a pressure sensor 351 for detecting the pressure in the heater chamber HR (2nd paragraph of page 18), and the connection hole 284 includes an inert gas discharge pipe (gas pipe) 291 for discharging an inert gas to the outside (2nd last paragraph of page 15, note all the operation of ‘325 is controlled by the controller, therefore, the inert gas exhausting is also controlled by the controller;
the claimed “further comprising: an exhaust module communicating with the 3-1-th chamber; and a control module controlling the exhaust module’ of Claim 8, and
“further comprising: a detection module disposed in the 3-1-th chamber; an exhaust module communicating with the first chamber, the second chamber, and the 3-1-th chamber; and a control module controlling the exhaust module” of Claim 9);
‘325 further teaches the substrate processing apparatus 101 replaces the atmosphere in the heater chamber HR (housing 290) with an inert gas, that is, dilutes leaked gas. Processing is also performed (1st paragraph of page 23, note to perform the dilution, the exhaustion of the inert gas should be reduced, further note, the detection is performed while exhausting the inert gas;
the claimed “wherein the control module controls the exhaust module to prevent the defense gas supplied to the 3-1-th chamber from being exhausted while the processing of the object is normally performed in the first chamber” of Claim 8,
“wherein the control module controls the exhaust module to exhaust a gas in at least one of the first chamber, the second chamber, and the 3-1-th chamber when determining that the gas leaks based on a detection result of the detection module” of Claim 9, and
“wherein the control module controls the supply module to supply the defense gas to the 3-1-th chamber to dilute the process gas when the gas in the 3-1-th chamber is exhausted” of Claim 10).
Regarding to Claims 11-12,
‘325 teaches When controlling the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR, the pressure sensor 351, the gas detector 353, and the flow rate adjustment valve 354 are controlled to optimize the gas concentration in the heater chamber HR, for example, in the heater chamber HR. The oxygen gas (O2 gas) concentration in the supplied inert gas (N2 gas) is controlled to be less than 1%. As a result, the concentration of the processing gas (hydrogen gas or the like) leaked into the heater chamber HR can be reliably lowered so that the atmosphere in the heater chamber HR does not enter the explosion range, and the explosion risk can be reduced (last paragraph of page 24, note, the “less than 1%” means the inert gas is supplied at a maximum set flow before the explosion range, thus an emergency/close supplier is provided to prevent the explosion;
the claimed “wherein the supply module includes a gas regulation supplier supplying the defense gas to the 3-1-th chamber while regulating a flow rate of the defense gas; and an emergency open/close supplier supplying the defense gas to the 3-1-th chamber at a maximum set flow rate when the gas in the 3-1-th chamber is exhausted” of Claim 11, and
“wherein the detection module includes at least one of a pressure gauge and a gas detector, and the control module determines that the gas leaks when a pressure of the gas in the 3-1-th chamber that is detected by the pressure gauge is higher than a set pressure or the gas detector detects the process gas” of Claim 12).
Regarding to Claim 13, ‘325 teaches:
a semiconductor substrate (semiconductor wafer) (last paragraph of page 3, the claimed “wherein the object includes a semiconductor wafer”);
a processing gas such as hydrogen gas (2nd paragraph of page 2, the claimed “the process gas includes at least one of hydrogen, deuterium, fluorine, ammonia, and chlorine”);
the substrate processing apparatus 101 replaces the atmosphere in the heater chamber HR (housing housing 290) with an inert gas, that is, dilutes leaked gas (1st paragraph of page 23, the claimed “and at least one of the protection gas and the defense gas includes an inert gas”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘325.
Regarding to Claim 3,
‘325 does not explicitly teach the “wherein the third pressure has a value biased toward the external pressure than the first pressure or the second pressure”.
However, ‘325 clearly teaches “by setting the pressure in the heater chamber HR to be equal to or higher than the atmospheric pressure, it is possible to prevent oxygen gas from entering the heater chamber HR from the outside (2nd paragraph of page 25).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have more considered the pressure in the heater chamber, so to be equal or higher than the atmospheric pressure, for the purpose of preventing oxygen gas from entering the heater chamber HR from the outside, thus preventing a possible explosion caused by the oxygen gas, see also the 112 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights