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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 12/16/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0187370, filed on 12/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/16/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/16/2023 have been reviewed and considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 12/16/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda et al. (US Patent 11,171,012) in view of Koizumi et al. (US PGPUB 20110172800).
Regarding Claim 12; Suda teaches; A substrate treatment method comprising: (Suda; at least Fig. 2-3; column 1, lines 47-56; disclose a substrate processing apparatus for creating substrates)
a process task assignment process in which a control apparatus schedules a substrate treatment process of a repetitive cycle of an adsorption process and an etching process on a substrate and assigns a substrate treatment process task to a plasma process apparatus and a thermal treatment apparatus of a dual process facility; and (Suda; at least Fig. 2; column 3, lines 35-67; column 4, lines 1-33; disclose a controller (i.e. control apparatus) for executing a recipe (i.e. task assignment process), wherein recipes are repetitively executed every batch of substrates, wherein the system further includes a plurality of process chambers that perform functions such as forming layers on the surface of substrates (i.e. adsorption) and further etching chambers, wherein the process recipe will assign the various batches to various chambers during performance of the recipe by the controller)
a process performing process in which the control apparatus controls a substrate transfer apparatus so that the substrate is transferred between the plasma process apparatus and the thermal treatment apparatus of the dual process facility and the control apparatus controls the plasma process apparatus so that the adsorption process is performed and controls the thermal treatment apparatus so that the etching process is performed. (Suda; at least Fig. 2; column 3, lines 35-67; disclose wherein the system and method further includes a transfer robot module which facilitates transferring a substrate being processed between the various processing stations, wherein the various processing stations include applying layers to the substrates (i.e. adsorption) and further etching, wherein the controller of the system controls the processing and transferring per an acquired recipe).
Suda appears to be silent on; a process task assignment process in which a control apparatus schedules a substrate treatment process of a repetitive cycle of an adsorption process and an etching process on a substrate and assigns a substrate treatment process task to a plasma process apparatus and a thermal treatment apparatus of a dual process facility; and
However, Koizumi teaches; a process task assignment process in which a control apparatus schedules a substrate treatment process of a repetitive cycle of an adsorption process and an etching process on a substrate and assigns a substrate treatment process task to a plasma process apparatus and a thermal treatment apparatus of a dual process facility; and (Koizumi; at least paragraph [0011]; disclose a scheduler for a substrate processing apparatus that schedules substrate transferring to receive specific treatments during a production process).
Suda and Koizumi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of substrate processing and control systems.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of scheduling substrates to specific chambers as taught by Koizumi with the known system of a substrate processing system as taught by Suda in order to provide a method for ensuring high throughput of substrates even when adverse condition arise as taught by Koizumi (paragraph [0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 20 each contain subject matter that is considered allowable over the closest prior art as detailed below.
Claim 1 recites: “A substrate treatment system comprising:
a dual process facility comprising at least one plasma process apparatus configured to perform an adsorption process on a substrate through plasma treatment and at least one thermal treatment apparatus configured to perform an etching process on the substrate through thermal treatment;
a substrate transfer apparatus configured to transfer the substrate between the plasma process apparatus and the thermal treatment apparatus; and
a control apparatus configured to schedule a substrate treatment process of a repetitive cycle of the adsorption process and the etching process and to assign a substrate treatment process task for the dual process facility, wherein the dual process facility is configured such that a number of the at least one plasma process apparatus is determined and a number of the at least one thermal treatment apparatus is determined according to a process time ratio between the adsorption process and the etching process.”
The closest prior art of record is Suda (US Patent 11,171,012). Suda discloses a substrate processing apparatus system and method including a plurality of plasma processing chambers and a transfer arm system for transferring a plurality of substrates between the plurality of chambers. The system further includes a controller that executes a recipe that includes transferring a plurality of substrates between various processing chambers including adsorption and etching processes. However, the reference of Suda does not explicitly detail, “…a control apparatus configured to schedule a substrate treatment process of a repetitive cycle of the adsorption process and the etching process and to assign a substrate treatment process task for the dual process facility, wherein the dual process facility is configured such that a number of the at least one plasma process apparatus is determined and a number of the at least one thermal treatment apparatus is determined according to a process time ratio between the adsorption process and the etching process.”, as this allows for the optimal number of adsorption and etching chambers to be included according to the process times, such that specific chambers are not idle, thus wasting efficiency.
Claim 20 recites: “A substrate treatment system comprising:
a dual process facility comprising at least one plasma process apparatus configured to perform an adsorption process on a substrate through plasma treatment and at least one thermal treatment apparatus configured to perform an etching process on the substrate through thermal treatment, the dual process facility being configured such that a number of plasma process apparatuses is determined and a number of thermal treatment apparatuses is determined according to a process time ratio between the adsorption process and the etching process;
a single process facility comprising at least one substrate treatment apparatus configured to perform the adsorption process on the substrate through the plasma treatment and to perform the etching process on the substrate through the thermal treatment;
a substrate transfer apparatus configured to transfer the substrate to the plasma process apparatus and the thermal treatment apparatus of the dual process facility and to the at least one substrate treatment apparatus of the single process facility; and
a control apparatus configured to schedule a substrate treatment process by distinguishing the dual process facility and the single process facility, to assign a substrate treatment process task by distinguishing the dual process facility and the single process facility according to a type of a process gas input during the plasma treatment and a thermal treatment process time on the substrate, to determine a weighting for a substrate treatment task assigned to each of the dual process facility and the single process facility, and to reassign the substrate treatment task by bypassing the substrate treatment task assigned to the dual process facility to the single process facility on the basis of the weighting.
The closest prior art of record is Suda (US Patent 11,171,012). Suda discloses a substrate processing apparatus system and method including a plurality of plasma processing chambers and a transfer arm system for transferring a plurality of substrates between the plurality of chambers. The system further includes a controller that executes a recipe that includes transferring a plurality of substrates between various processing chambers including adsorption and etching processes. However, the reference of Suda does not explicitly detail, “…the dual process facility being configured such that a number of plasma process apparatuses is determined and a number of thermal treatment apparatuses is determined according to a process time ratio between the adsorption process and the etching process;
a control apparatus configured to schedule a substrate treatment process by distinguishing the dual process facility and the single process facility, to assign a substrate treatment process task by distinguishing the dual process facility and the single process facility according to a type of a process gas input during the plasma treatment and a thermal treatment process time on the substrate, to determine a weighting for a substrate treatment task assigned to each of the dual process facility and the single process facility, and to reassign the substrate treatment task by bypassing the substrate treatment task assigned to the dual process facility to the single process facility on the basis of the weighting.”, wherein establishing a ratio of the different process chambers allows for the optimal number of adsorption and etching chambers to be included according to the process times, such that specific chambers are not idle, thus wasting efficiency and wherein weighting a treatment task and assigning to a dual or single process facility allows the system to supply easier processing tasks to the single process facility and scheduling more complex tasks to the dual processing facility allowing for a more optimal production queue not taught by Suda.
Claims 13-19 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.
Claim 13 recites: “The substrate treatment method of claim 12 further comprising a treatment process determination process in which a type of a process gas input during plasma treatment on the substrate is determined, wherein, in the process task assignment process, the substrate treatment process task is assigned by distinguishing the dual process facility and a single process facility according to the type of the process gas input during the plasma treatment on the substrate.”
The closest prior art of record is Suda (US Patent 11,171,012). Suda discloses a substrate processing apparatus system and method including a plurality of plasma processing chambers and a transfer arm system for transferring a plurality of substrates between the plurality of chambers. The system further includes a controller that executes a recipe that includes transferring a plurality of substrates between various processing chambers including adsorption and etching processes. However, the reference of Suda does not explicitly detail, “…a treatment process determination process in which a type of a process gas input during plasma treatment on the substrate is determined, wherein, in the process task assignment process, the substrate treatment process task is assigned by distinguishing the dual process facility and a single process facility according to the type of the process gas input during the plasma treatment on the substrate.”. Though, Suda discloses various processing gases utilized for processing substrates, they do not specifically assign different substrates to different chambers based upon the type of gas utilized, thus providing a more efficient system based on the needs for a specific task.
Dependent claims 14-15 depend upon claim 13, and if included with the entirety of claim 13, would also be considered allowable due to the same rationale as provided above.
Claim 16 recites: “The substrate treatment method of claim 12, further comprising a treatment process determination process in which a thermal treatment process time on the substrate is determined, wherein, in the process task assignment process, the substrate treatment process task is assigned by distinguishing the dual process facility and a single process facility according to the thermal treatment process time on the substrate.”
The closest prior art of record is Suda (US Patent 11,171,012). Suda discloses a substrate processing apparatus system and method including a plurality of plasma processing chambers and a transfer arm system for transferring a plurality of substrates between the plurality of chambers. The system further includes a controller that executes a recipe that includes transferring a plurality of substrates between various processing chambers including adsorption and etching processes. However, the reference of Suda does not explicitly detail, “…a treatment process determination process in which a thermal treatment process time on the substrate is determined, wherein, in the process task assignment process, the substrate treatment process task is assigned by distinguishing the dual process facility and a single process facility according to the thermal treatment process time on the substrate.”. Though, Suda discloses various processing chambers, they are not explicit on the assigning tasks to either a dual or single processing facility based on a process time, thus allowing more complex tasks to be assigned to the dual facility while less intensive tasks can be assigned to the single process treatment facility, thus providing a more efficient use of resources.
Dependent claims 17-18 depend upon claim 16, and if included with the entirety of claim 16, would also be considered allowable due to the same rationale as provided above.
Claim 19 recites: “The substrate treatment method of claim 12, further comprising: a process situation monitoring process in which a substrate treatment process performance situation of each of the dual process facility and a single process facility is monitored; a weighting determination process in which a weighting for a substrate treatment task of each of the dual process facility and the single process facility is determined on the basis of the substrate treatment process performance situation and the substrate treatment process task assigned for each of the dual process facility and the single process facility; a rescheduling process in which the substrate treatment process task for the dual process facility having a relatively high weighting and for the single process facility having a relatively low weighting is rescheduled; and a process treatment task reassignment process in which the substrate treatment process task of the dual process facility is bypassed and assigned to the single process facility.”
The closest prior art of record is Suda (US Patent 11,171,012). Suda discloses a substrate processing apparatus system and method including a plurality of plasma processing chambers and a transfer arm system for transferring a plurality of substrates between the plurality of chambers. The system further includes a controller that executes a recipe that includes transferring a plurality of substrates between various processing chambers including adsorption and etching processes. However, the reference of Suda does not explicitly detail, “…a process situation monitoring process in which a substrate treatment process performance situation of each of the dual process facility and a single process facility is monitored; a weighting determination process in which a weighting for a substrate treatment task of each of the dual process facility and the single process facility is determined on the basis of the substrate treatment process performance situation and the substrate treatment process task assigned for each of the dual process facility and the single process facility; a rescheduling process in which the substrate treatment process task for the dual process facility having a relatively high weighting and for the single process facility having a relatively low weighting is rescheduled; and a process treatment task reassignment process in which the substrate treatment process task of the dual process facility is bypassed and assigned to the single process facility.” Suda discloses various processing chambers, however, they do not explicitly teach a rescheduling process in which tasks are assigned to either a dual or single processing facility based upon a determined weight associated with the task, thus allowing more complex tasks to be assigned to the dual facility while less intensive tasks can be assigned to the single process treatment facility, thus providing a more efficient use of resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Merry et al. (US PGPUB 20190013216): disclose a semiconductor manufacturing system including a transfer chamber for transporting a plurality of substrates between two separate processing chambers.
Lee et al. (US PGPUB 20170140975): disclose a spin head apparatus for treating substrates wherein the system includes a plurality of processing chambers and a transport robot configured to transport the substrates to the various processing chambers depending on the type of processing required.
Toshima (US PGPUB 20140064886): disclose a substrate processing system and method including single processing facilities and dual processing facilities, wherein a robot is configured to transport substrates between the various facilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights