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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 2007-270231 Al) in view of Jang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0190485 Al) and Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al. teach a substrate treatment apparatus (Fig. I) comprising: an upper vessel comprising a first body (21) and a supply port (60) formed in the first body (21) and the supply port configured to supply a process fluid (Paragraph 0035 - supercritical fluid); a baffle plate in the upper vessel, the baffle plate configured to supply the process fluid from the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid (Paragraph 0035 - "A diffusion mechanism such as a shower head may be installed so that the processing fluid supplied from the supply path 60 into the film formation processing space F is supplied to the wafer W evenly"); a lower vessel comprising a second body (20); a support plate (Paragraph 0031 - 3 - mounting table 3)) installed in the lower vessel to facing the baffle plate and the support plate configured to support a substrate (Paragraph 0035 – showerhead; Fig. 1 - "W"), wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the support plate is configured to be heated so that a temperature of the support plate is higher than a temperature of each of the first body and the second body (Paragraph 0048)
The difference between Matsumoto et al. and claim 1 is that an exhaust port in the second body, and the exhaust port configured to exhaust the process fluid from the treatment space is not discussed (Claim 1), the at least one liner on an inner surface of at least one baffle plate, the upper vessel, and the lower vessel that define the treatment space is not discussed (Claim 1), the at least one liner comprises a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the support plate is not discussed (Claim 1), the at least one liner is between the support plate and the at least one of the baffle plate, the upper vessel and the lower vessel is not discussed (Claim 1), and the supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the support plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding an exhaust port in the second body, and the exhaust port configured to exhaust the process fluid from the treatment space (Claim 1), Jang et al. teach forming an exhaust port in a second body of an apparatus for supercritical fluid treatment. (See Figs. 2, 3 - exhaust 124 - Paragraph 0027)
Regarding the at least one liner on an inner surface of at least one baffle plate, the upper vessel, and the lower vessel that define the treatment space (Claim 1), Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding the at least one liner comprises a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the support plate (Claim 1), Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components.
Regarding the at least one liner is between the support plate and the at least one of the baffle plate, the upper vessel and the lower vessel (Claim 1), Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding the supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the support plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel (Claim 1), the walls and the lid (i.e. upper and lower vessel components) are controlled to be a temperature lower than the support plate (Paragraph 0048) and thus have a thermal flow.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the temperature of the support plate is configured to be higher than a temperature of the second body while the supercritical process is performed in the treatment space.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto et al. teach the support plate is higher (in temperature)
than the second body while the supercritical process is performed in the treatment space.
(Paragraph 0048)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a heater is inside the support plate, the heater being configured to operate while the supercritical process is performed.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto et al. teach a heater is inside the support plate, the heater being configured to operate while the supercritical process is performed. (Paragraph 0033 - 34a)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a first liner of the at least one liner includes a heat insulating material, the first liner is on a first portion of the baffle plate, and the first portion is a portion exposed to the treatment space.
Regarding claim 4, Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020)
Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a
ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating
material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment
space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base
(stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a second liner of the least one liner includes a heat insulating material, the second liner is on a second portion of the upper vessel and the second portion is a portion is exposed to the treatment space.
Regarding claim 5, Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber
should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a second liner made of a
heat insulating material is installed on a second portion of the upper vessel which is exposed to
the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the
support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2,
the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment
(coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one liner comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber
should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in
FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further,
the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to
corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a support installed on the first
body and supporting edges of the substrate, wherein the substrate is placed on the support
in a state where the upper vessel and the lower vessel are spaced apart from each other and
is transferred from the support to an upper surface of the support plate in a state where the
upper vessel and the lower vessel are in contact with each other.
Regarding claim 11, Jang et al. teach a support installed on the first body and supporting
edges of the substrate, wherein the substrate is placed on the support in a state where the upper
vessel and the lower vessel are spaced apart from each other and is transferred from the support to an upper surf ace of the support plate in a state where the upper vessel and the lower vessel are
in contact with each other. (Figs. 2, 3, 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the first body is controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
support plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the first body is controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
support plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C. (Paragraphs 0048-0057)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the process fluid is a first process fluid
comprising a metal precursor and a supercritical fluid or a second process fluid comprising
a reducing fluid.
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein the process fluid is a first process
fluid comprising a metal precursor and a supercritical fluid or a second process fluid comprising
a reducing fluid. (Paragraphs 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is supplying the first process fluid to the treatment
space so that the first process fluid is in a supercritical state in the treatment space, venting
the treatment space, supplying the second process fluid to the treatment space so that the
metal precursor and the reducing fluid react with each other, and then venting the treatment
space again.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto et al. teach supplying the first process fluid to the
treatment space so that the first process fluid is in a supercritical state in the treatment space,
venting the treatment space, supplying the second process fluid to the treatment space so that the
metal precursor and the reducing fluid react with each other, and then venting the treatment
space again. (Paragraphs 0048-0070)
The motivation for providing the exhaust in the second body as taught by Jang et al. is that it allows exhaustion of supercritical fluid. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for providing
corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Matsumoto et al. by utilizing the features of Jang et al. and Sakashita et al. because it allows for exhaustion of supercritical fluid.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. in view of Jang et al. and Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 11-14 above, and further in view of Tsuda (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/03 10772 A 1 ).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first body comprises a center region and a
peripheral region surrounding the center region, a first accommodating space is connected to the supply port, the first accommodating space having the baffle plate located therein in the center region, the peripheral region protrudes from the center region, and the second liner
is in the peripheral region.
Regarding claim 6:
Tsuda teaches a first body comprising a center region and a peripheral region surrounding
the center region, a first accommodating space connected to the support port and having the
baffle plate located therein is formed in the center region, the peripheral region protrudes from
the center region. (See Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Sakashita et al. already discussed above teach that the internal components of the
chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance and therefore suggest second
liner installed in the peripheral region. (See Sakashita et al. discussed above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a third liner including a heat insulating
material is on a third portion of the lower vessel, and the third portion is a portion exposed to the treatment space.
Regarding claim 7, Sakashita et al. already discussed above teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a third liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a third portion of the lower vessel which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating
of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a second accommodating space is
connected to the exhaust port, the second accommodating space having the support plate located therein in the second body, and the third liner is on sidewalls of the second accommodating
space.
Regarding claim 8:
Jang et al. already discussed above teach a second accommodating space connected to the exhaust port and having the support plate located therein is formed in the second body. (See Figs. 2, 3)
Sakashita et al. already discussed above teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests the third liner is installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance
treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
The motivation for utilizing the features Tsuda is that it allows for diffusing gas. (See
Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Tsuda because it allows for diffusing gas.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al.
in view of Jang et al. and Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 above, and further in view of Verhaverbeke et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0148624 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the upper vessel and the lower vessel
comprise stainless steel (SUS).
Regarding claim 10, Verhaverbeke et al. teach wherein the upper vessel and the lower
vessel can be comprised of stainless steel and coated with Teflon (PTFE). (Paragraph 0051)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Verhaverbeke et al. is that it allows for
utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to
maintain a gas in its supercritical state. (Paragraph 0051)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Verhaverbeke et al. because it allows for
utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to
maintain a gas in its supercritical state.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Jang
et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0190485 Al) in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP 2007-270270231 Al)
and Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Jang et al. teach a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
vessels (110, 120) providing a treatment space (102) for treating a substrate (W) and comprising
an upper vessel (110) and a lower vessel (120) detachably coupled so that the upper vessel and
the lower vessel are configured to be switched between a closed position for closing the treatment space (Fig.1, 2) and an open position for opening the treatment space (Fig. 3); a support on a lower surface of the upper vessel (130), the support configured to support the substrate (W) in the open position of the vessels (Fig. 3 ); a plate installed in the lower vessel (140). (See Figs. 1, 2, 3; Paragraph 0024-0030)
The difference between Jang et al. and claim 15 is that (1) a hot plate in the lower
vessel and the hot plate configured to heat a lower surface of the substrate in the closed position of the vessels is not discussed and (2) a liner on an inner surface of at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel that define the treatment space is not discussed, (3) wherein the liner comprises a heat insulating material configured to insulate the at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the hot plate is not discussed, (4) the liner is between the hot plate and the at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel is not discussed, and (5) a supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the hot plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel is not discussed.
Regarding a hot plate in the lower vessel and the hot plate configured to heat a lower surface of the substrate in the closed position of the vessels (Claim 15):
Jang et al. already teach a plate installed in the lower vessel as discussed above. (See
Jang et al. discussed above)
Matsumoto et al. teach providing a heater (34a) to the plate (3) holding the substrate to
heat the lower surface of the substrate in a closed position. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 003 1)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of
Matsumoto et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
Regarding a liner on an inner surface of at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel that define the treatment space (Claim 15):
Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components.
Regarding wherein the liner comprises a heat insulating material configured to insulate the at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the hot plate (Claim 15):
Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components.
Regarding the liner is between the hot plate and the at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel (Claim 15):
Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components.
Regarding a supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the hot plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel:
Jang et al. teach the walls and the lid (i.e. upper and lower vessel components) are controlled to be a temperature lower than the support plate (Paragraph 0048) and thus have a thermal flow.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while a supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher
than those of the vessels.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto et al. teaches wherein while a supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher
than those of the vessels. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the vessels are controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
hot plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the vessels are controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
hot plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in the closed position of the vessels, the hot plate receives the substrate from the support and supports the received substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Jang et al. discussed above already teaches wherein in the closed
position of the vessels, the plate receives the substrate from the support and supports the received
substrate. (See Figs. 1-3)
Matsumoto et al. suggest that the plate can be a hot plate for heating the wafer. (See
Matsumoto et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. is that it allows for
controlling temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for corrosion
resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of
Matsumoto et al. and Sakashita et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature and for
corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. in view
of Matsumoto et al. and Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 15, 16, 17, 19 above, and further in
view of Verhaverbeke et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0148624 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the vessels comprise SUS, and the liner
comprises PTFE or ceramic.
Regarding claim 18, Verhaverbeke et al. teach wherein the upper vessel and the lower
vessel can be comprised of stainless steel and coated with Teflon (PTFE). (Paragraph 0051)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Verhaverbeke et al. is that it allows for
utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to
maintain a gas in its supercritical state. (Paragraph 0051)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Verhaverbeke et al. because it allows for
utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to
maintain a gas in its supercritical state.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S.
PGPUB. 2018/0190485 Al) in view of Tsuda (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0310772Al) and Matsumoto
et al. (JP 2007-270270231 Al) and Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Jang et al. teach a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
an upper vessel which comprises a first body comprising a center region and a
peripheral region, a supply port formed in the center region and supplying a process fluid,
a lower vessel comprising a second body, an exhaust port formed in the second
body and exhausting the process fluid from the treatment space, and a recessed second
accommodating space.
The difference between claim 20 and Jang et al. is that a first accommodating space
connected to the supply port in the center region and recessed inward from the peripheral region
is not discussed (Claim 20), a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and
supplying the process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the
process fluid is not discussed (Claim 20), a hot plate installed in the second accommodating
space to face the baffle plate is not discussed (Claim 20), a first heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the baffle plate between the baffle plate and the hot plate is not discussed (Claim 20), a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body between the first body and the hot plate is not discussed (Claim 20), a third heat insulating liner on sidewalls of the recessed second accommodating space surrounding side surfaces of the hot plate between the second body and the hot plate is not discussed (Claim 20) and wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the hot plate is configured to be heated so that a temperature of the hot plate is higher than a temperature of the first body and a temperature of the second body is not discussed (Claim 20) and each of the first heat insulating liner, the second heat insulating liner, and the third heat insulating liner includes a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the hot plate is not discussed (Claim 20), and the supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the hot plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel is not discussed (Claim 20).
Regarding a first accommodating space connected to the supply port in the center region
and recessed inward from the peripheral region (Claim 20), Tsuda teaches a first accommodating
space connected to the supply port in the center region and recessed inward from the peripheral
region. (Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Regarding a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and supplying the
process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid
(Claim 20), Tsuda teaches a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and supplying
the process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process
fluid. (Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Regarding a hot plate installed in the second accommodating space to face the baffle
plate (Claim 20):
Jang et al. already teach a plate installed in the lower vessel as discussed above. (See
Jang et al. discussed above)
Matsumoto et al. teach providing a heater (34a) to the plate (3) holding the substrate to
heat the lower surface of the substrate in a closed position. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of
Matsumoto et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
Regarding a first heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the baffle plate between the baffle plate and the hot plate (Claim 20), Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a first heat insulating liner installed on a
lower surf ace of the baffle plate. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable
that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Furtl1er, the processing
chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion
resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body between the first body and the hot plate (Claim 20),
Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding a third heat insulating liner on sidewalls of the recessed second accommodating space surrounding side surfaces of the hot plate between the second body and the hot plate (Claim 20),
Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a
ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a third heat insulating liner installed on sidewalls
of the second accommodating space which surround side surfaces of the hot plate. (Paragraph
0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated
during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and
the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the hot plate is configured to be heated so that a temperature of the hot plate is higher than a temperature of the first body and a temperature of the second body (Claim 20), Matsumoto et al. teaches wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher than those of the vessels. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
Regarding each of the first heat insulating liner, the second heat insulating liner, and the third heat insulating liner includes a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the hot plate (Claim 20),
Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components.
Regarding the supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the hot plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel (Claim 20),
Jang et al. teach the walls and the lid (i.e. upper and lower vessel components) are controlled to be a temperature lower than the support plate (Paragraph 0048) and thus have a thermal flow.
The motivation for utilizing the features Tsuda is that it allows for diffusing gas. (See
Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. is that it allows for
controlling temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for corrosion
resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Tsuda, Matsumoto et
al. and Sakashita et al. because it allows for diffusing gas, controlling temperature and for corrosion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach the limitation of "the at least one liner comprises a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the support plate, the at least one liner is between the support plate and the at least one of the baffle plate, the upper vessel, and the lower vessel, and the supercritical process is controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the support plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel.", it is argued that Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).) The ceramic material is the heat insulating material because ceramic materials generally exhibit a lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components. Furthermore, Jang et al. teach the walls and the lid (i.e. upper and lower vessel components) are controlled to be a temperature lower than the support plate (Paragraph 0048) and thus have a thermal flow.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach in view of the specification a separate discrete structure to serve as a liner, it is argued that Sakashita et al.’s liner is the ceramic layer. It should be noted that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
In response to the argument that the ceramic film does not provided the function of thermal insulation or as a liner, it is argued that the ceramic liner disclosed by Sakashita et al. is a heat insulating material because ceramic material generally exhibit lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components and are used as thermal in insulating layers in high temperature environments. The claim does not require the liner to completely prevent heat transfer or to have a specific thermal conductivity.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach at least one liner, it is argued that Sakashita et al. teach a liner in the form of a ceramic layer.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the liner between the support plate and the at least one baffle plate, the upper vessel and the lower vessel, it is argued that Sakashita et al. teach providing a ceramic layer on all surfaces and therefore would meet the required positional relationship when combined with the primary reference.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach a liner comprising a heat insulating material configured to insulate at least one of the upper vessel and the lower vessel from heat generated in the support plate, it is argued that the ceramic liner disclosed by Sakashita et al. is a heat insulating material because ceramic material generally exhibit lower thermal conductivity than metallic chamber components and are used as thermal in insulating layers in high temperature environments. The claim does not require the liner to completely prevent heat transfer or to have a specific thermal conductivity.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the supercritical process controlled by a thermal flow generated by a temperature difference between the support plate and the upper vessel and the lower vessel, it is argued that Jang et al. teach the walls and the lid (i.e. upper and lower vessel components) are controlled to be a temperature lower than the support plate (Paragraph 0048) and thus have a thermal flow.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RMJuly 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights