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
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) in the dependent claims, all the “the cooling gas nozzles” should be “the plurality of cooling gas nozzles”.
For instance, the “wherein the cooling gas nozzles comprise” of Claim 1 should be “wherein the plurality of cooling gas nozzles further comprise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Claim 3 recites “the position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation will be examined inclusive of “a position”.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20090000769, hereafter ‘769) in view of Kim et al. (US 20220068616, hereafter ‘616).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘769 teaches:
loadlock chamber for use in semiconductor processing (abstract, the claimed “A loadlock assembly for substrate processing”);
the loadlock chamber 200 comprises an enclosed chamber 210 having a top 212, a bottom 214, and sidewalls 216 (Fig. 2, [0026], the claimed “the loadlock assembly comprising: a loadlock chamber provided with a plurality of sidewalls, a top portion, a bottom portion”);
The wafers are transferred from the FOUP docking system 122 to the loadlock chamber 121 via the factory interface 124… The wafers are transferred to one or more of the first process chamber 112, the second process chamber 114, and the third process chamber 116… via the buffer chamber 120([0021], the claimed “and a plurality of openings through which a substrate is configured to be passed into the loadlock chamber”);
Holders 218 are positioned to hold one or more wafers during transport ([0026], the claimed “a substrate support disposed in the loadlock chamber and configured to support the substrate at or near an edge of the substrate”).
chiller 222 ([0026], note Fig. 2 shows the chamber 210 has at least two ports at locations 244, 246 to receive the cooling fluid from the chiller, and the two ports are respectively coupled to the two nozzles of the chiller (the claimed “wherein the loadlock chamber is provided with a plurality of cooling ports” and “and a chiller unit provided with a plurality of cooling nozzles coupled to the cooling ports and configured to provide a cooling that passes through the plurality of cooling nozzles to the loadlock chamber”).
Because ‘769 uses cooling water ([0026]), ‘769 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: wherein the loadlock chamber is provided with a plurality of cooling gas intake ports; a substrate support disposed in the loadlock chamber and configured to support the substrate at or near an edge of the substrate; and a chiller unit provided with a plurality of cooling gas nozzles coupled to the cooling gas intake ports and configured to provide a cooling gas that passes through the plurality of cooling gas nozzles to the loadlock chamber.
Emphasized herein, the ports and nozzles can be used for either inlet or outlet or both, depending on an desired application. It is mere different “use” of the ports and nozzles.
‘616 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘616 teaches the cooling gas provided from the cooling gas supply 150 may be provided to the lower surface of the wafer 10 through the first cooling gas supply line 151 and the second cooling gas supply line 152 (Fig. 1, [0073], note see Fig. 3 showing the arrangement of the exposed holes of the first cooling gas supply line 151 and the second cooling gas supply line 152).
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 replaced the chiller of ‘769 with the cooling gas supply, then further to have modified the ports and nozzles coupled to the ports of ‘769, as the cooling gas supply, instead of use of the temperature-controlled plate 220 of ‘769, for the purpose of simplified structure, and/or for its suitability as the known cooling method of the substrate backside with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claims 2-4,
Fig. 3 of ‘616 shows concentrically arranged holes from the center of the substrate and Fig. 1 shows branched nozzles, thus the modified nozzles would be concentrically arranged from the center of the substrate and branched nozzles (the claimed “wherein the cooling gas nozzles comprise a center nozzle and a plurality of outer nozzles arranged concentrically” of Claim 2, “wherein the position of the center nozzle is configured to coincide with a center of the substrate on the substrate support” of Claim 3, and “wherein at least one of the cooling gas nozzles is provided with a plurality of branched nozzles” of Claim 4).
Regarding to Claim 12,
‘616 teaches In this case, although the cooling gas may include, for example, helium (He), the present disclosure is not limited thereto ([0072]), therefore, the imported cooling gas would be He (the claimed “wherein the cooling gas is selected from N2, Ar, He, and combination thereof”).
Regarding to Claim 13,
‘769 teaches the cluster tool 100 includes a first process chamber 112, a second process chamber 114, and a third process chamber 116 interconnected via a buffer chamber 120 (Fig. 1, [0019]), and one or more wafers being transferred from one or more of the loadlock chambers 121 into a processing chamber… using a belt, robotic arm, or other well-known transfer mechanism (not shown) ([0022], note the “transfer by a robot in the buffer chamber” is commonly well-known feature, the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus, comprising; a substrate handling chamber provided with a substrate handling robot to move a substrate”);
‘769 teaches Interconnected to the buffer chamber 120 are one or more loadlock chambers 121 ([0029]), and the teaching of the loadlock chamber was discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘769 and ‘616 above (the claimed “the loadlock assembly according to claim 1, being attached to a side of the substrate handling chamber”);
‘769 teaches a third process chamber 116 interconnected via a buffer chamber 120 ([0019], the claimed “and a process chamber to carry out a processing step on the substrate, being attached to another side of the substrate handling chamber”).
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘769 and ‘616, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Hamada (US 20040014324, hereafter ‘324).
Regarding to Claims 5-8,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the cooling gas is supplied to the backside of the substrate, through the ports and nozzles (the claimed “the cooling gas passing to a backside of the substrate on the substrate support through the cooling gas nozzles” of Claim 5).
‘769 and ‘616 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 5: further comprising a mass flow controller configured to control an amount of the cooling gas passing to a backside of the substrate on the substrate support through the cooling gas nozzles.
Claim 6: wherein each of the cooling gas is provided with a main gas valve configured to be opened and closed.
Claim 7: wherein each of the cooling gas nozzles is provided with a flow control valve configured to control an amount of the cooling gas.
Claim 8: wherein each of the cooling gas nozzles is provided with a flow sensor.
‘769 further teaches the mass flow controller 230 is coupled to a source gas 234 to control the flow of gas ([0028]).
‘324 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus ([0002]). ‘324 teaches the flux of cooling gas in the cooling gas line 120 should be controlled by the MFC 36 ([0068]), and the first cooling gas line 216 comprises a master valve 21a, a pressure gauge 38a, an MFC 36, and a fifth valve 130 ([0079], note the two valves are capable of controlling the flow between closing and opening, and pressure gauge is a flow sensor).
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 added the MFC, two valves, and flow sensor, into the gas line of ‘769 and ‘616, for the purpose of precisely controlling the flux of cooling gas in the cooling gas line.
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘769 teaches the controller 242, automatically controls the chiller 222, the mass flow controller 230, and/or the control valve 232 ([0029], thus the controller would have a control portion controlling the valve), therefore, the newly imported flow control components would be controlled by the valve control portion of the controller of ‘769 (the claimed “further comprising a valve controller configured to control the flow control valve”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘769 further teaches the loadlock chamber 200 includes a temperature sensor 240 ([0029], the claimed “further comprising a temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of the substrate on the substrate support”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
‘769 further teaches the loadlock chamber 200 includes a temperature sensor 240, such as an infra-red temperature sensor, communicatively coupled to a controller 242, which may also be communicatively coupled to the chiller 222, the mass flow controller 230, and/or the control valve 232. In this embodiment, the controller 242 receives temperature information from the temperature sensor 240 and automatically controls the chiller 222, the mass flow controller 230, and/or the control valve 232 to maintain a desired temperature ([0029]), therefore, the newly imported flow control components would be communicatively coupled to the valve control portion of the controller of ‘769 and controlled based on the temperature measured by the sensor (the claimed “wherein the valve controller communicatively coupled to the temperature sensor, the valve controller being configured to control the flow control valve based on the temperature”).
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