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
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 03/04/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SAIDO et al (US 20190035654 A1) in view of Murobayashi et al (US 20120214317 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO disclose a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a process vessel (36, reaction tube, [0026]) in which a substrate (W, [0026]) is processed;
a lid (60, seal cap, [0030]) capable of closing an opening provided at a lower portion of the process vessel ([0031]);
an elevator (32, [0031]) capable of elevating and lowering the lid (60);
a heat insulator (68, [0040]) provided between the lid (60) and the substrate (W) and comprising a case of a cylindrical shape with a closed upper end ([0040], upper end closed); and
a purging gas supplier ([0043], purge gas supply unit) configured to purge an inside of the heat insulator (68) by supplying a purge gas through a discharge port (72B, [0043]) in the case while the opening is closed by the lid (60).
SAIDO does not explicitly teach a cooling gas supplier configured to purge an inside of the heat insulator by supplying a purge gas through a discharge port in the case while the opening is closed by the lid, and to cool the heat insulator by supplying a cooling gas through the discharge port while the opening is not closed by the lid.
However, Murobayashi is a pertinent art which teaches a substrate processing apparatus, wherein a step of reducing the temperature of the substrates by stopping the heating operation is performed by the heating unit and the supply of the film-forming gas performed by the first gas supply unit and causing a second gas supply unit to start supply of a cooling gas to a thermal insulation portion accommodating region within the processing chamber ([0011]). Murobayashi, further, teaches that the second cooling gas (e.g., a H.sub.2 gas) is supplied from the second gas supply unit to the boat insulation portion 34 when supplying the first cooling gas to the wafers 14 in the temperature reducing step. Therefore, even if the first cooling gas grown hot by the heat exchange with the wafers 14 flows along the sidewall of the boat insulation portion 34, it is possible to effectively prevent the temperature from rising in the boat insulation portion 34. As a result, it is possible to shorten the time required for the temperature reducing step and to enhance the substrate processing productivity. If the H.sub.2 gas having an increased heat exchange rate is used as the second cooling gas, it is possible to effectively prevent the temperature from rising in the boat insulation portion 34. It is also possible to decrease the flow rate of the second cooling gas and to restrain the separation of the adhering materials from the surface of the boat insulation portion 34 or the diffusion of the particles ([0102]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus of SAIDO with a cooling gas supplier configured to purge an inside of the heat insulator by supplying a purge gas through a discharge port in the case while the opening is closed by the lid, and to cool the heat insulator by supplying a cooling gas through the discharge port while the opening is not closed by the lid according to the teaching of Murobayashi in order to effectively prevent the temperature from rising in the boat insulation portion and restrain the separation of the adhering materials from the surface of the boat insulation portion or the diffusion of the particles ([0102] of Murobayashi).
Regarding claim 4, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO in view of Murobayashi teach that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the cooling gas supplier (via 44C, Figure 1 of SAIDO) is fixed to the lid (60) and configured to be elevated or lowered together with the lid by the elevator ([0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO in view of Murobayashi does not explicitly teach that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a mass flow rate of the cooling gas is set to be greater than a mass flow rate of the purge gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to properly cool the inside of the insulator and make an improved device since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO in view of Murobayashi does not explicitly teach that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the purge gas comprises pure nitrogen gas and the cooling gas comprises nitrogen gas less pure than that of the pure nitrogen gas.
However, Murobayashi teaches that both the purge gas and the cooling gas can be nitrogen gas and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to properly cool the inside of the insulator and make an improved device since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO disclose that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a substrate retainer (40, [0032]) configured to be elevated or lowered together with the lid (60) so as to be transferred into or out of the process vessel through the opening and configured to accommodate the substrate in the process vessel ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO disclose that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a heater (64C, [0038]) provided in the case and configured to heat an inside of the process vessel (36).
Regarding claim 10, Figures 1-3 of SAIDO disclose that the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the discharge port (72B, [0043]) is open such that the cooling gas directly hits the closed upper end of the case (of 68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6 and 11-17 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, 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:
Regarding claim 2, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a processing apparatus, comprising: “wherein the cooling gas supplier comprises: an introducer penetrating the lid and configured to introduce the purge gas and the cooling gas into the heat insulator; a movable supply pipe fluidically in communication with the introducer and configured to supply the purge gas into the introducer; and a control valve to perform a turn-on and turn-off operation for each of a supply of the purge gas and a supply of the cooling gas” in combination with other limitations of the claims it depend on.
Regarding claim 6, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a processing apparatus, comprising: “a transfer chamber in communication with the opening of the process vessel and accommodating the elevator provided therein, wherein a substrate retainer is inserted into the transfer chamber when the substrate retainer is lowered; and an interlock controller configured to be capable of forcibly stopping a supply of the purge gas and a supply of the cooling gas when the substrate processing apparatus is stopped urgently or when a maintenance door of the transfer chamber is opened” in combination with other limitations of the claims it depend on.
Regarding claims 3 and 11-17, these claims are allowed as they depend on an allowable claim.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights