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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II, III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/31/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150292082 to Sano in view of US 20080067146 to Onishi.
Claim 1: Sano discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (PM1 [process chamber, Fig. 2) in which a substrate (W [wafer]) is processed; an exhaust controller (212 [APC Auto Pressure Controller]) configured to control a gas flow path (211/221/231/241 [exhaust conduit]) through which a plurality of exhausts (GE1/GE2/GE3/GE4 [gas exhaust systems]) in parallel is connected to the process chamber and a gas flow in the gas flow path (para. [0045]); and a controller (CNT [Controller]) configured to be capable of controlling the exhaust controller (para. [0045]).
However Sano does not explicitly disclose an output controller configured to control output of each of the exhausts; the controller configured to be capable of controlling the exhaust controller and the output controller.
Onishi discloses an output controller (508 [exhaust capacity controller], Fig. 1) configured to control output of the exhaust (para. [0043]); the controller (502 [apparatus control unit]) configured to be capable of controlling the exhaust controller (508) and the output controller (501 [pressure controller]), for the purpose of controlling operations of the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0044]).
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 Onishi with motivation to control operations of the plasma processing apparatus.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein the exhaust controller (212, Fig. 2, Sano) includes a pressure controller (212) configured to regulate a degree of opening of the gas flow path to control a pressure of the process chamber to a predetermined pressure (para. [0045]).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of exhausts is different in maximum exhaust quantity from another of the exhausts (para. [0108, [0045], Sano).
It is noted that the limitation is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein the process chamber (PM1, Fig. 2, Sano) includes a plurality of process chambers (PM1, PM2, PM3, PM4) in which respective substrates (W’s) are processed, and the plurality of exhausts (GE1, GE2, GE3, GE4) in parallel is connected to each of the process chambers through the gas flow path (211/221/231/241, Fig. 2).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses further comprising: a detector (216/226/236/246 [sensor], Fig. 2, Sano) configured to detect abnormality in the exhausts (para. [0045]);
However the apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi does not explicitly disclose and an emergency controller configured to be capable of controlling, in response to detection of the abnormality in the exhausts by the detector, at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller. Yet Sano teaches the controller (CNT) can respond to abnormalities that the sensor (216) detects (para. 0045]) without a separate computer component.
Onishi discloses an emergency controller (500 [computing unit]) configured to be capable of controlling, in response to detection of the abnormality in the exhausts by the detector (505 [determination unit]), at least either the exhaust controller (501) or the output controller (508), for the purpose of quickly detecting the occurrence of an abnormality (para. [0056-0059]).
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 computer component as taught by Onishi with motivation to quickly detect the occurrence of an abnormality.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller between first processing performed in the process chamber and second processing performed in the process chamber after the first processing (para. [0008]).
It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. See above case law regarding intended use.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller such that exhaustion of the process chamber is performed in the second processing by an exhaust in the exhausts, the exhaust being different from an exhaust used in the first processing in the exhausts (para. [0010]).
It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. See above case law regarding intended use.
Claims 8-11: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi does not explicitly disclose (claim 8) wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller such that a gas flow rate per unit of time for exhaustion of the process chamber varies between in the first processing and in the second processing; (claim 9) wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller such that a number of the exhausts connected to the process chamber varies between in the first processing and in the second processing;
(claim 10) wherein the controller is configured to be capable of controlling at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller such that at least one exhaust of the exhausts connected to the process chamber varies in maximum exhaust quantity between in the first processing and in the second processing; (claim 11) wherein the controller is configured to control at least either the exhaust controller or the output controller such that an output rate that is a value of the output to a maximum output of at least one exhaust of the exhausts connected to the process chamber varies between in the first processing and in the second processing.
Yet the limitations above are drawn to intended uses of the apparatus, and Sano in view of Onishi are capable to perform the above limitations as necessary, as the structures and computer components are fully present (see above). See above case law regarding intended use.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein the first processing corresponds to first substrate processing, and the second processing corresponds to second substrate processing (para. [0045], Sano).
It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. See above case law regarding intended use.
Claim 13: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein one of the first processing and the second processing corresponds to substrate processing, and another corresponds to cleaning processing to the process chamber (para. [0078], [0091-0092], Sano).
It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. See above case law regarding intended use.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Sano in view of Onishi discloses wherein one of the first processing and the second processing corresponds to substrate processing and another corresponds to remaining on standby (para. [0074-0075], Sano).
It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. See above case law regarding intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240093372 discloses a controller (260) and exhaust systems (238/238/251/222) which are connected through two processing chambers, where the controller controls operations for the exhaust systems (para. [0100-1043]).
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