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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The term “cooling gas” has been interpreted as being any gas that is not actively heated by a heater.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishio et al, US 2014/0202387 A1.
Nishio et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a substrate processing apparatus 10 comprising: a process chamber 11 in which a substrate 13 is processed; an electromagnetic wave generator 17 configured to supply an electromagnetic wave (IR electromagnetic wave) into the process chamber 11; and a gas supplier 18 through which a cooling gas is supplied to the substrate 13 by adjusting a direction of supplying the cooling gas (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 11, a rotator (inherently required to cause the rotation of the nozzle as taught in Paragraph 0016), wherein the gas supplier 18 comprises a nozzle through which the cooling gas is supplied, and wherein the rotator is capable of rotating the nozzle (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 12, the gas supplier 18 is configured such that the cooling gas is supplied between adjacent substrates 13 among a plurality of substrates 13 (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, the nozzle 18 is provided with a plurality of holes 19 through which the cooling gas is capable of being supplied to the plurality of substrates 13.
Regarding claim 19, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: (a) supplying an electromagnetic wave (IR electromagnetic wave) into a process chamber 11 of a substrate processing apparatus 10 (Paragraph 0015), wherein the substrate processing apparatus 10 comprises: an electromagnetic wave generator 17 configured to supply an electromagnetic wave (IR electromagnetic wave) into the process chamber 11; and a gas supplier 18 through which a cooling gas is supplied to the substrate 13 by adjusting a direction of supplying the cooling gas (Paragraph 0016); and (b) supplying the cooling gas to the substrate (Paragraph 0016).
Claims 1, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al, US 10,593,587 B2.
Abe et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, A substrate processing apparatus 1 comprising: a process chamber 2 in which a substrate W is processed; an electromagnetic wave generator 63, 66 configured to supply an electromagnetic wave (microwaves 63; light 66) into the process chamber 2; and a gas supplier 36, 38, 42, 44, 45 through which a cooling gas (inert gas such as nitrogen N2) is supplied to the substrate by adjusting a direction of supplying the cooling gas via nozzle moving units 15, 16.
Regarding claim 11, a rotator (nozzle moving units 15, 16), wherein the gas supplier 36, 38, 42, 44, 45 comprises a nozzle 11, 12 through which the cooling gas is supplied, and wherein the rotator is capable of rotating the nozzle.
Regarding claim 19, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: (a) supplying an electromagnetic wave (microwave or light) into a process chamber of a substrate processing apparatus (Column 11 lines 12-14), wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises: the process chamber 2 in which a substrate W is processed; an electromagnetic wave generator 63, 66 configured to supply the electromagnetic wave into the process chamber; and a gas supplier 36, 38, 42, 44, 45 through which a cooling gas (inert gas such as nitrogen N2) is supplied to the substrate by adjusting a direction of supplying the cooling gas; and (b) supplying the cooling gas to the substrate (Column 11 lines 25-44).
Regarding claim 20, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus (Column 9 lines 53-64), by a computer 3, to perform: (a) supplying an electromagnetic wave (microwave or light) into a process chamber of a substrate processing apparatus (Column 11 lines 12-14), wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises: the process chamber 2 in which a substrate W is processed; an electromagnetic wave generator 63, 66 configured to supply the electromagnetic wave into the process chamber; and a gas supplier 36, 38, 42, 44, 45 through which a cooling gas (inert gas such as nitrogen N2) is supplied to the substrate by adjusting a direction of supplying the cooling gas; and (b) supplying the cooling gas to the substrate (Column 11 lines 25-44).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio et al, US 2014/0202387 A1.
Nishio et al was discussed above.
Nishio et al differs from the present invention in that Nishio et al does not teach that the nozzle is provided with a slit through which the cooling gas is capable of being supplied to the plurality of substrates.
It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04.IV.B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to change the shape of the nozzle of Nishio et al from a nozzle having a plurality of holes through which the cooling gas is capable of being supplied to the plurality of substrates to a nozzle having a slit through which the cooling gas is capable of being supplied to the plurality of substrates.
Claims 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio et al, US 2014/0202387 A1 in view of Abe et al, US 10,593,587 B2.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Nishio et al differs from the present invention in that Nishio et al does not teach a controller configured to be capable of adjusting a direction of the cooling gas supplied to the substrate by controlling the rotator (claim 13); or a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer (claim 20).
Abe et al was discussed above and teaches a controller 3 configured to be capable of adjusting a direction of the cooling gas supplied to the substrate by controlling the rotator and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by computer 3 (claim 20). (Column 9 lines 53-64)
The motivation for adding the controller of Abe et al to the apparatus of Nishio et al is to control the adjusting of the direction of the cooling gas supplied to the substrate by controlling the rotator apparatus of Nishio et al (claim 13) and using a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer to execute the method of claim 19 (claim 20). Furthermore, it has been held that:
automation is obvious (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); MPEP 2144.04); and
applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the controller of Abe et al to the apparatus of Nishio et al.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Nishio et al teaches a measurer (thermocouples) capable of measuring a temperature of the substrate (Figure 3), wherein the controller of Nishio et al and Abe et al is further configured to be capable of adjusting the direction of the cooling gas based on measurement results of the measurer (Paragraph 0016 of Nishio et al).
Regarding claim 15, the controller in the combination of Nishio et al and Abe et al is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotator to supply the cooling gas toward a location of the substrate where the temperature thereof is highest based on the measurement results of the measurer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The gas supplier as claimed in claim 2 was not found in or suggested by the art, specifically: a first nozzle through which the cooling gas is supplied; a second nozzle through which the cooling gas is supplied; and a curved structure provided between the first nozzle and the second nozzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references could be used to reject the claims under 102 or 103: US 20250351460 A1; US 20230307267 A1; WO 2020189010 A1; JP 6731471 B2; US 20190198331 A1; and US 20150144622 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights