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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, D., et al., WO 2021033386 A1 (hereinafter Hayashi), in view of US 20180366358 A1 (hereinafter Jin), in view of US 20190391017 A1 (hereinafter Ranish),and further in view of US6183130B1 (hereinafter Adams).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches an apparatus for performing a process on a substrate, comprising: a processing container configured to accommodate the substrate (Fig. 5, p. 7 para 9) and defining a processing space where the process is performed (fig. 4 and fig. 5 element S2, p. 7 para 2 and para 9); a processing gas supply configured to supply a processing gas (fig. 1 element GS supply gas to fig. 5, p. 7 para 9; p. 10 last para), which is for use in performing the process on the substrate or a process on a device disposed in the processing container (fig. 4 is a substrate processing device, p. 5 para 8), to the processing space; a light emitter configured to emit laser light to the processing space where the processing gas is supplied (the light emitter is element 21 as shown in fig. 4); a light source configured to supply, to the light emitter via a light waveguide (fig. 4 the waveguide is the fiber element 23, p. 7 last para), laser light of a wavelength that changes within a first wavelength range, which is a preset wavelength range (this is the “first wavelength”, p. 8 para 1), and laser light of a wavelength that changes within a second wavelength range, which is different from the first wavelength range (this is the “second wavelength”, p. 8 para 1); a light receiver configured to receive the laser light that has passed through the processing space (fig. 4 element 30, p. 8 para 2); a temperature calculator configured to calculate a temperature of the processing gas based on an absorption spectrum of the laser light within the first wavelength range received by the light receiver and an absorption spectrum of the laser light within the second wavelength range received by the light receiver (p. 8 para 7); and a concentration calculator configured to calculate a concentration of the processing gas based on an absorbance of laser light of a specific wavelength within the first wavelength range or within the second wavelength range (p. 5 para 4 lines 6-7 implies the device calculates the concentration of the gas within the second wavelength), wherein the processing space is provided with a stage on which the substrate is placed (p. 7 para 9).
Hayashi does not teach a gas shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface of the gas shower head and is then received by the light receiver, and wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Jin, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches a shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage and wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface (the opposing surface can be replaced with reflectors 38 as shown in US7847218B2 fig. 10) of the shower head and is then received by the light receiver (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 8A and fig. 7, para [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Jin to Hayashi to have “a shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage and wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface of the shower head and is then received by the light receiver” in order to measure the separate distance between the detecting portion and the reflection body accurately (para [0009] lines 7-11).
Hayashi, when modified by Jin, does not teach a gas shower head and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space, and wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Ranish, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches a gas shower head (fig. 4 element 403, para [0044]) and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space (fig. 4 element 411, para [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranish to Hayashi, when modified by Jin, to have a gas shower head and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space in order to introduce gases or liquids in the enclosure (para [0044]).
Hayashi, when modified by Jin and Ranish, does not teach wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Adams, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches “wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, the reflector is the reflective layer 24; fig. 2 shows the reflected light has a longer optical path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Adams to Hayashi, when modified by Jin and Ranish, to have “wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases” in order to measure a wide area in the gap through multiple reflection thus increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi, teaches wherein the temperature calculator and the concentration calculator calculate the temperature and the concentration of the processing gas in a region where the laser light emitted and received by the detector (p. 8 para 7; p. 5 para 4 lines 6-7 implies the device calculates the concentration of the gas within the second wavelength).
Hayashi, does not teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the stage is provided with a plurality of light emitting/receiving sets, each of which includes the light emitter and the light receiver in association with each other so that the laser light passes through different regions within the processing space, and each of the light emitting/receiving sets passes.
Jin, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the stage is provided with a plurality of light emitting/receiving sets, each of which includes the light emitter and the light receiver in association with each other so that the laser light passes through different regions within the processing space, and each of the light emitting/receiving sets passes (fig. 3A shows three sensors, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Jin to Hayashi to have the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the stage is provided with a plurality of light emitting/receiving sets, each of which includes the light emitter and the light receiver in association with each other so that the laser light passes through different regions within the processing space, and each of the light emitting/receiving sets passes in order to measure multiple gaps between the stage and the substrate reflector (para [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi fails to teach the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed.
Ranish, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed (this is shown in fig. 4, where L1-L6 are light sources and elements 408 and 409 represent the light receiver are all integrated to the support 404, para [0043], the opposing surface is substrate 401; note this is general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranish to Hayashi to have the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed in order to have a stable support system for the light source and detector.
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi fails to teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed.
Ranish, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed (this is shown in fig. 4, where L1-L6 are light sources and elements 408 and 409 represent the light receiver are all integrated to the support 404, para [0043], the opposing surface is substrate 401; note this is general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranish to the modified device of Hayashi to have the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided around a region of the stage where the substrate is placed in order to have a stable support system for the light source and detector.
Regarding claim 19, Hayashi does not teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed, and the light emitter emits the laser light during a period when the substrate is not placed on the stage.
Jin, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the apparatus of Claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed, and the light emitter emits the laser light during a period when the substrate is not placed on the stage (this is shown in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Jin to Hayashi to have the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed, and the light emitter emits the laser light during a period when the substrate is not placed on the stage in order to measure the separate distance between the detecting portion and the reflection body accurately (para [0009] lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi teaches a method of measuring a temperature and a concentration of a processing gas for a process on a substrate, the method comprising: supplying the processing gas (fig. 1 element GS supply gas to fig. 5, p. 7 para 9), which is for use in performing the process on the substrate or a process on a device disposed in a processing container (fig. 4 is a substrate processing device, p. 5 para 8), to a processing space (the processing space is S2 in fig. 5) where the process is performed; emitting by a light emitter (the light emitter is element 21 as shown in fig. 4), laser light of a wavelength that changes within a first wavelength range, which is a preset wavelength range (this is the “first wavelength”, p. 8 para 1), and laser light of a wavelength that changes within a second wavelength range, which is different from the first wavelength range (this is the “second wavelength”, p. 8 para 1), to the processing space where the processing gas is supplied (this is shown in fig. 4); receiving, by a light receiver (fig. 4 element 30, p. 8 para 2), the laser light that has passed through the processing space (this is shown in fig. 4); calculating the temperature of the processing gas based on an absorption spectrum of the received laser light within the first wavelength range and an absorption spectrum of the received laser light within the second wavelength range (p. 8 para 7); and calculating the concentration of the processing gas based on an absorbance of laser light of a specific wavelength within the first wavelength range or within the second wavelength range (p. 5 para 4 lines 6-7 implies the device calculates the concentration of the gas within the second wavelength), wherein the processing space is provided with a stage on which the substrate is placed (p. 7 para 9).
Hayashi does not teach a gas shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface of the gas shower head and is then received by the light receiver, and wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Jin, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches a shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface (the opposing surface can be replaced with reflectors 38 as shown in US7847218B2 fig. 10) of the shower head and is then received by the light receiver (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 8A and fig. 7, para [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Jin to Hayashi to have “a shower head having an opposing surface facing the stage wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are disposed on the stage such that the laser light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the opposing surface of the shower head and is then received by the light receiver” in order to measure the separate distance between the detecting portion and the reflection body accurately (para [0009] lines 7-11).
Hayashi, when modified by Jin, does not teach a gas shower head and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space, and wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Ranish, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches a gas shower head (fig. 4 element 403, para [0044]) and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space (fig. 4 element 411, para [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranish to Hayashi, when modified by Jin, to have a gas shower head and a gas supply port formed in the opposing surface to supply the processing gas to the processing space in order to introduce gases or liquids in the enclosure (para [0044]).
Hayashi, when modified by Jin and Ranish, does not teach wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases.
Adams, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, the reflector is the reflective layer 24; fig. 2 shows the reflected light has a longer optical path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Adams to Hayashi, when modified by Jin and Ranish, to have “wherein the stage is provided with a reflector, which is disposed on the stage and reflects the laser light reflected from the opposing surface back toward the opposing surface so that a length of an optical path of the laser light from the light emitter to the light receiver increases” in order to measure a wide area in the gap through multiple reflection thus increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 24, Hayashi does not teach the method of claim 23, wherein in the emitting the laser light and in the receiving the laser light, emission and reception of the laser light is performed a plurality of times to cause the laser light to pass through different regions in the processing space, and wherein in the calculating the temperature and in the calculating the concentration, the temperature and the concentration of the processing gas are calculated in each region where the laser light passes.
MPEP 2144.05 II-A In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990), states that the precedent limitation is equivalent to a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply “the method of claim 23, wherein in the emitting the laser light and in the receiving the laser light, emission and reception of the laser light is performed a plurality of times to cause the laser light to pass through different regions in the processing space, and wherein in the calculating the temperature and in the calculating the concentration, the temperature and the concentration of the processing gas are calculated in each region where the laser light passes” to the teaching of Hayashi, when modified by Jin and Ranish, in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, Jin, Ranish, and Adams as applied to 12 above, and further in view of Wieboldt, R., et al., US 5045703 A (hereinafter Wieboldt).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi does not teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed, and the light source supplies, to the light emitter, laser light of a wavelength that passes through the substrate.
Ranish, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed (this is shown in fig. 4, where L1-L6 are light sources and elements 408 and 409 represent the light receiver are all integrated to the support 404, para [0043], the opposing surface is substrate 401; note this is general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranish to Hayashi to have the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light emitter and the light receiver are provided in a region of the stage where the substrate is placed in order to have a stable support system for the light source and detector.
Hayasi, fails to teach the light source supplies, to the light emitter, laser light of a wavelength that passes through the substrate.
Wieboldt, from the same field of endeavor as Hayashi, teaches the light source supplies, to the light emitter, laser light of a wavelength that passes through the substrate (fig. 1 shows light from 78 passes through the substrate 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wieboldt to Hayashi to have the light source supplies, to the light emitter, laser light of a wavelength that passes through the substrate in order to detect infrared lights from the substrate (col 8 lines 9-22).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights