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 .
This office action is in response to application 18468179 filed on September 15, 2023.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 15, 2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S106. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a storage configured to store in claim 1, a controller configured to perform in claims 1-6 and 9-15, and an operator configured to execute in claim 16.
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. The instant specification states a storage is implemented in hardware (e.g., memory) ([0037]), a controller is implemented in hardware (e.g., CPU) ([0036]]), and an operator is implemented in hardware (e.g., touch panel presenting a display) ([0036]).
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 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 4 is 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 4, the claim recites “calculating set values set … based on set values set for the target temperature corresponding to substrate temperatures of two points”. It is unclear how set values are based on themselves. As such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “calculating set values set … based on values for the target temperature corresponding to substrate temperatures of two points”.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20210366791A1) in further view of Wirth et al. (US20210351051A1) and Dao et al. (US20090177310A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a processing apparatus comprising:
a storage configured to store at least a temperature control table in which a set value of a heater configured to heat a substrate and a set value of a lamp configured to heat the substrate are set … processing the substrate (A relationship between temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the IR lamps ... is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database ... a relationship between the temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the first to fourth heaters ... with the heater power source 70 is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database)([0052] and [0054]; a database stores a temperature control table (i.e., relationships between control values of heating elements, namely heaters and lamps, and resultant heat of a wafer substrate) for processing a wafer substrate); and
a controller configured to be capable of performing a control of executing the process … (FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing an internal configuration of a control unit of the plasma processing device)([0022]), wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of performing a control of:
searching the temperature control table with a target temperature corresponding to a substrate temperature … (based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]; the database is searched based on a target value); and
setting a set value for the target temperature corresponding to the substrate temperature to at least one selected from the group of a temperature set value of the heater, a temperature ratio of the heater, a power set value of the lamp, and a lamp rate value in the process … (An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 based on ... IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70 based on ... the heater control initial value calculation unit 42)([0059] and [0061]; based on the searching control values for heaters and lamps are set to control heating).
Although Tanaka discloses heating a substrate to a target temperature (a target temperature of the stage 4, so as to maintain the temperature of the wafer 2 within a predetermined temperature range such as temperature 6522)([0079]). Tanaka differs from the claim in that Tanaka fails to teach the target temperature for the substrate is defined in a recipe.
However, defining a target temperature for a substrate in a recipe is taught by Wirth (The process recipe can include one or more commands to maintain or modify the substrate temperature to a target temperature)([0069]).
The examiner notes Tanaka and Wirth teach processing a substrate. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka to include the defining of Wirth such that a target temperature for a substrate is defined in a recipe. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of processing a substrate in a uniform manner thereby reducing defects.
The combination of Tanaka-Wirth fails to teach the recipe is constituted by a plurality of steps to process the substrate.
However, processing a substrate by a plurality of steps defined by a recipe is taught by Dao (FIG. 1 is a graph depicting a chuck temperature process parameter spanning a range of setpoints across ... process steps of a manufacturing process recipe executed … The recipe file may include a number of recipe steps, including both stability steps and value-added process step)([0021] and [0035]; Figure 1 – an exemplary processing of a substrate with a plurality of steps is shown).
The examiner notes Tanaka, Wirth, and Dao teach processing a substrate. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka-Wirth to include the processing of Dao such that a substrate is processed using a recipe with a plurality of steps. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of building complex circuits with extreme precision by processing a substrate using a multi-step approach.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the processing apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the temperature control table includes a set value for at least one item selected from the group of the heater, a lamp unit, a high-frequency power supply, a microwave generator, and a cooler (Tanaka - A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70 based on the initial voltage ... calculated by the heater control initial value calculation unit 42, and applies the predetermined voltage as an initial voltage)([0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the processing apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to be capable of performing a control of setting the set value for the target temperature corresponding to the substrate temperature in the temperature control table to each of the temperature set value of the heater, the temperature ratio of the heater, the power set value of the lamp, and the lamp rate value in the process recipe (Tanaka - An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 based on the voltage ... calculated by the IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43, and applies the predetermined voltage to the IR lamps)([0059]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Wirth, Dao and in further view of Sayyarrodsari et al. (US20150134647A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the apparatus as applied above, wherein the controller performs control of setting values of a heater and lamp (Tanaka - An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70)([0059] and [0061]) and searching the control table for the values to extract (Tanaka - based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]). Tanaka-Wirth-Dao differs from the claim in that Tanaka-Wirth-Dao fails to teach not setting values (i.e., return an error message) if the values are not capable of being extracted (i.e., not found).
However, returning an error message if values are not found is taught by Sayyarrodsari (FIG. 4B describes a process 44 for receiving data from the database 22 ... controller may request the operational parameter stored in the database ... The database 22 may then search for the requested data (process block 48) ... if the requested data is not found, the database 22 may return an error message)([0048] and [0049]).
The examiner notes Tanaka, Wirth, Dao, and Sayyarrodsari teach retrieving parameter data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka-Wirth-Dao to include the returning of Sayyarrodsari such that the values are not set if values are not capable of being extracted. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of preventing processing errors by ensuring proper values are set.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Wirth, Dao and in further view of Anderson et al. (20040010501A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the apparatus as applied above, wherein the controller performs control of setting values of a heater and lamp (Tanaka - An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70)([0059] and [0061]) and searching the control table for the values to extract (Tanaka - based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]). Tanaka-Wirth-Dao differs from the claim in that Tanaka-Wirth-Dao fails to teach setting set value to the closest value if the value is not present.
However, setting set value to closest value if the value is not present is taught by Anderson (FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of a method 300 for determining return values by the lookup/ interpolation module 130 ... In step 320, the lookup/interpolation module 130 may be configured to utilize the at least one inquiry parameter value to search the data structure … In step 335, the lookup/interpolation module 130 may be configured to determine an estimated target value for at least one inquiry parameter ... For example, the lookup/interpolation module 130 may use a closest point)([0044], [0047] and [0048]; Figure 3 reference elements 320 and 325 – obtaining a closest value if value is not found in a data structure is shown).
The examiner notes Tanaka, Wirth, Dao, and Anderson teach retrieving parameter data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka-Wirth-Dao to include the setting of Anderson such that a value is set to the closest value if the value is not present. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing the operating range of substrate processing by adapting set values when none exist.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the apparatus as applied above, wherein the controller performs control of setting values of a heater and lamp (Tanaka - An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70)([0059] and [0061]) and searching the control table for the values to extract (Tanaka - based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]). Tanaka-Wirth-Dao differs from the claim in that Tanaka-Wirth-Dao fails to teach setting set value using a proportional expression (i.e. averaging) of two values whose range includes the value if the value is not present.
However, setting set value using averaging of two values whose range includes a value if the value is not present is taught by Anderson (FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of a method 300 for determining return values by the lookup/ interpolation module 130 ... In step 320, the lookup/interpolation module 130 may be configured to utilize the at least one inquiry parameter value to search the data structure … In step 335, the lookup/interpolation module 130 may be configured to determine an estimated target value for at least one inquiry parameter ... may use a nearest neighbor averaging interpolation technique to estimate a desired target value ... a set of nearest neighbors ... whose value is usually around the number ... The contribution of each neighbor is weighted by its distance from the other neighbors, wi, such that the summation of the weights Σwi=1, where wi is proportional to the distance of point i to the inquiry parameter value)([0044], [0047], [0048], and [0049]; Figure 3 reference elements 320 and 325 – obtaining an average value if value is not found in a data structure is shown).
The examiner notes Tanaka, Wirth, Dao, and Anderson teach retrieving parameter data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka-Wirth-Dao to include the setting of Anderson such that a value is set to a proportional expression of two values whose range includes a value if the value is not present. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing the operating range of substrate processing by adapting set values when none exist.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Wirth, Dao and in further view of Takenaga (US20180284716A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka-Wirth-Dao teach the apparatus as applied above, wherein the apparatus includes the control table with set values (Tanaka - to facilitate a correspondence relationship with the three IR lamps ... a relationship with the temperatures ... is put into a database)([0053]), the apparatus executes a process recipe (Wirth - A system controller can control one or more operating conditions of a process at the processing chamber based on a process recipe)([0018]), and the apparatus includes an operator (i.e., display) (Wirth - The computing device 800 also can include a video display unit 810)([0090]). Tanaka-Wirth-Dao differs from the claim in that Tanaka-Wirth-Dao fails to teach the display presents an editing screen to edit the recipe and execute a change of the set values.
However, presenting an editing screen on a display to edit a recipe and execute a change of set values is taught by Takenaga (FIG. 2 is a view illustrating an exemplary recipe editing screen of the substrate processing system a ... The temperature setting button 201 refers to a button that inputs a set temperature (° C.) of the heater ... The ramping setting button 202 refers to a button that inputs a ramping rate (° C./min))([0053], [0054], and [0055]; Figure 2 - an exemplary recipe editing screen to change set values is shown).
The examiner notes Tanaka, Wirth, Dao, and Takenaga teach processing a substrate. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka-Wirth-Dao to include the presenting of Takenaga such that an editing screen is presented on a display to edit a recipe and execute a change of set values. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing a user to customize a process recipe.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in further view of Wirth.
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches … a substrate processing apparatus, to perform a process, wherein the substrate processing apparatus includes a controller configured to set a plurality of temperature control items to create … and execute … to process a substrate (FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a schematic configuration of a plasma processing device ... the control unit 40 controls the IR lamp power source 64, a heater power source 70 ... to make the temperature on the entire surface of the wafer 2 reach a predetermined temperature range)([0018] and [0037]; Figure 1 reference element 40 – an exemplary wafer substrate processing apparatus including a controller to set temperature is shown), and wherein the process comprising:
storing at least a temperature control table in which a set value of a heater configured to heat the substrate and a set value of a lamp configured to heat the substrate are set … to process the substrate (A relationship between temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the IR lamps ... is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database ... a relationship between the temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the first to fourth heaters ... with the heater power source 70 is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database)([0052] and [0054]; a database stores a temperature control table (i.e., relationships between control values of heating elements, namely heaters and lamps, and resultant heat of a wafer substrate) for processing a wafer substrate);
searching the temperature control table with a target temperature corresponding to a substrate temperature … (based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]; the database is searched based on a target value);
setting a set value for the target temperature corresponding to the substrate temperature to at least one selected from the group of a temperature set value of the heater, a temperature ratio of the heater, a power set value of the lamp, and a lamp rate value in the process … (An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 based on ... IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70 based on ... the heater control initial value calculation unit 42)([0059] and [0061]; based on the searching control values for heaters and lamps are set to control heating); and
executing the process … (FIG. 7 shows a configuration of a control system in the present embodiment corresponding to a configuration of a control system)([0093]; executing processing of a wafer substrate based is shown).
Although Tanaka discloses heating a substrate to a target temperature (a target temperature of the stage 4, so as to maintain the temperature of the wafer 2 within a predetermined temperature range such as temperature 6522)([0079]). Tanaka differs from the claim in that Tanaka fails to teach explicitly teach a non-transitory medium storing a program that is executed by a computer to process a substrate according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate. However, a non-transitory medium storing a program that is executed by a computer to process a substrate according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate is taught by Wirth (The process recipe can include one or more commands to maintain or modify the substrate temperature to a target temperature … The data storage device 828 can include a machine-readable storage medium ... which is stored one or more sets of instructions 826 embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein)([0069] and [0091]).
The examiner notes Tanaka and Wirth teach processing a substrate. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka to include the medium of Wirth such that a non-transitory medium stores a program that is executed by a computer to process a substrate according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of processing a substrate in a uniform manner thereby reducing defects.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor device is configured to set a plurality of temperature control items to create … and execute … to process a substrate (FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a schematic configuration of a plasma processing device ... the control unit 40 controls the IR lamp power source 64, a heater power source 70 ... o make the temperature on the entire surface of the wafer 2 reach a predetermined temperature range)([0018] and [0037]; Figure 1 reference element 40 – an exemplary semiconductor device (i.e., controller) in wafer substrate processing apparatus that sets temperature is shown), and wherein the method comprises:
storing at least a temperature control table in which a set value of a heater configured to heat the substrate and a set value of a lamp configured to heat the substrate are set … to process the substrate (A relationship between temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the IR lamps ... is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database ... a relationship between the temperatures detected by the temperature sensors ... when a voltage applied to the first to fourth heaters ... with the heater power source 70 is changed to heat the test wafer 21 is obtained, and the relationship is put into a database)([0052] and [0054]); a database stores a temperature control table (i.e., relationships between control values of heating elements, namely heaters and lamps, and resultant heat of a wafer substrate) for processing a wafer substrate);
searching the temperature control table with a target temperature corresponding to a substrate temperature … (based on an input target value, an IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 of the control unit 40 refers to the database ... based on the input target value, a heater control initial value calculation unit 42 refers to the database stored in the storage unit 41)([0058] and [0060]; the database is searched based on a target value);
setting a set value for the target temperature corresponding to the substrate temperature to at least one selected from the group of a temperature set value of the heater, a temperature ratio of the heater, a power set value of the lamp, and a lamp rate value in the process … (An IR lamp control unit 45 controls the IR lamp power source 64 based on ... IR lamp control initial value calculation unit 43 ... A heater control unit 44 controls the heater power source 70 based on ... the heater control initial value calculation unit 42)([0059] and [0061]; based on the searching control values for heaters and lamps are set to control heating); and
executing the process … (FIG. 7 shows a configuration of a control system in the present embodiment corresponding to a configuration of a control system)([0093]; executing processing of a wafer substrate based is shown).
Although Tanaka discloses heating a substrate to a target temperature (a target temperature of the stage 4, so as to maintain the temperature of the wafer 2 within a predetermined temperature range such as temperature 6522)([0079]). Tanaka differs from the claim in that Tanaka fails to teach explicitly teach processing a substrate according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate.
However, processing a substrate according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate is taught by Wirth (The process recipe can include one or more commands to maintain or modify the substrate temperature to a target temperature)([0069]).
The examiner notes Tanaka and Wirth teach processing a substrate. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka to include the processing of Wirth such a substrate is processed according to a recipe with a target temperature for the substrate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of processing a substrate in a uniform manner thereby reducing defects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-10, and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for processing a wafer substrate based on a recipe.
US20020072025A1
US20040173311A1
US20050047767A1
US20080255683A1
US20140188269A1
US20150132863A1
US20190198299A1
US20190286632A1
US6855916B1
US7557328B2
US11367645B2
JP2007201295A
JP2019165123A
JP4364468B2
JP6771418B2
CN102907181A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118