Detailed Correspondence
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 Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 12/24/2025, in response to claims 1, 3, and 6-7 rejection from the non-final office action (09/26/2025), by amending claims 1 and 3 and cancelling claim 6 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “one or more first measurement units“ in claim 1, this is considered an optical temperature sensor or pyrometer ([0052]) or the equivalent thereof.
The “one or more second measurement units” in claim 1, this is considered as thermocouples ([0073]) or the equivalent thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-13 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more {see MPEP 2106.04}.
Regarding to claim 1, the claim is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
This lies within one of the four enumerated categories (i.e. machine/apparatus) of patentable subject matter (See MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1). However, determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 in Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis does not end the analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical formula, equations, or performance of limitation in the mind), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (See MPEP 2106.03 Section I).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I Judicial exceptions) without significantly more. Specifically, claim 1 recites “a calculator configured to calculate temperature of a second area of the substrate using measured values of a first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and measured values of a third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units, the second area being located between the first area and the third area
…
wherein the calculator calculates the temperature of the second area of the substrate using at least one of a difference between the measured values of the first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and the measured values of the third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and an average thereof
wherein the calculator calculates the temperature of the second area of the substrate further using a measured value of the second area measured by the one or more first measurement units, and
wherein the calculator is configured to generate an alarm when the difference of temperature between the first area of the substrate and the second area of the substrate exceeds an error range“.
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 1 limitation of “a calculator configured to calculate … the calculator is configured to generate an alarm …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic calculator. That is, other than reciting “a calculator … to generate an alarm” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “to calculate temperature of a second area of the substrate using measured values of a first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and measured values of a third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units, the second area being located between the first area and the third area” in the context of this claim element encompasses the user mentally calculating or estimating (or calculating with pen and paper) the temperature of a second area of the substrate. Likewise for “calculates the temperature of the second area of the substrate using at least one of a difference between the measured values of the first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and the measured values of the third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and an average thereof … to generate an alarm when the difference of temperature between the first area of the substrate and the second area of the substrate exceeds an error range“. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 7 limitations recite an abstract idea (see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(2) in MPEP 2106.04).
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the calculation is performed but there is no description the calculated value being outputted, the claim recites no further action/application of the calculated information. Although claim 1 recites additional elements including a susceptor, a heater, one or more first measurement units and one or more second measurement units, the judicial exception regarding the “a calculator configured to calculate … to generate an alarm when the difference of temperature between the first area of the substrate and the second area of the substrate exceeds an error range” are not integrated into practical application because the calculation is performed and the information is not outputted and then there is no recitation as being used in any manner to control or adjust operation of any part of the processing chamber. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the calculator is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). The claim further recites a susceptor, a heater, one or more first measurement units and one or more second measurement units. A susceptor, a heater, one or more first measurement units and one or more second measurement units are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be represent well understood, routine, and conventional parts /structures in the field of processing chamber (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding performing calculation is merely appended to the apparatus limitations without further describing how the outputting information is integrated into the apparatus to amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, regarding the "one or more first measurement units" and “one or more second measurement units“ (interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in detail above), the calculator takes measurements from these measurement units; this limitation is considered mere data gathering. Mere data gathering in a general way is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Note the receiver of the alarm as currently claimed is an operator, not integrated into the apparatus/chamber.
Dependent claims 3 and 7 are also rejected under USC 101 at least due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobashi et al. (US 20010020439, hereafter ‘439), in view of Zhu et al. (US 20220155148, hereafter ‘148), Feng et al. (US 20220334554, hereafter ‘554), Buchberger et al. (US 20070091541, hereafter ‘541), and Cimino et al. (US 20210022212, hereafter ‘212)
‘439 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: As shown in FIG. 1, there is provided a reactor 1 for subjecting a semiconductor substrate W such as a silicon wafer or the like to oxidation, diffusion, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) ([0061]), includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber”);
The lower part of said reactor 1 is horizontally provided with a disc-shaped heater 2. Further, a susceptor 3 is provided immediately above said heater 2 to hold said semiconductor substrate W such that said susceptor 3 is rotatably supported by a rotary shaft 4 extending through said heater 2 and the bottom of said reactor 1 ([0062], includes the claimed “a susceptor configured to support a substrate in the chamber; a heater disposed under the susceptor”);
Further, while said reactor 1 is provided with a plurality of infrared radiation thermometers 6 at the ceiling thereof to measure the temperatures at a plurality of points on the surface of the semiconductor substrate W, another infrared radiation thermometer 7 is provided at a lower part of the inside of the reactor 1 to measure the temperature of the reverse side of the semiconductor substrate W ([0064], the infrared radiation thermometer 7 is the claimed “one or more first measurement units configured to measure temperature of the heater”, note this is functionally equivalent to thermocouple; the plurality of infrared radiation thermometers 6 is the claimed “and one or more second measurement units configured to measure temperature of the substrate, wherein the first measurement units and the second measurement units are different from each other in number” as these are optical temperature sensors),
a temperature control program adaptable for said temperature rise/fall characteristic is automatically selected out of a plurality of temperature control programs written in advance; the semiconductor substrate is controlled on the basis of the selected temperature control program (includes the claimed “and a calculator”).
‘439 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) (a calculator) configured to calculate temperature of a second area of the substrate using measured values of a first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and measured values of a third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units, the second area being located between the first area and the third area,
(1B) wherein the number of the one or more second measurement units is less than the number of the one or more first measurement units, and
(1C) wherein the calculator calculates the temperature of the second area of the substrate using at least one of a difference between the measured values of the first area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and the measured values of the third area measured by the one or more first measurement units and the one or more second measurement units and an average thereof,
wherein the calculator calculates the temperature of the second area of the substrate further using a measured value of the second area measured by the one or more first measurement units, and
(1D) wherein the calculator is configured to generate an alarm when the difference of temperature between the first area of the substrate and the second area of the substrate exceeds an error range.
‘148 is analogous art in the field of TEMPERATURE PROFILE MEASUREMENT AND SYNCHRONIZED CONTROL ON SUBSTRATE AND SUSCEPTOR IN AN EPITAXY CHAMBER (title). ’148 teaches that The Epi chamber 100 further includes a top outer optical pyrometer 138 mounted on an angle block 140 disposed on a mounting block 142 on the top mounting plate 114 to measure temperature at an outer location 144 of the top surface 106S of the substrate 106 that is spaced from the center location 120 of the top surface 106S of the substrate 106 (Fig. 1, [0019]), 2nd last sentence), The temperature at a center location 118 of the bottom surface 104S′ of the susceptor 104 and the temperature at a center location 120 of a top surface 106S of the substrate 106 are respectively measured by a bottom center optical pyrometer 122 disposed on the bottom mounting plate 112 and a top center optical pyrometer 124 disposed on the top mounting plate 114 ([0017]), although FIG. 1 only illustrates one bottom outer optical pyrometer 130, more than one bottom outer optical pyrometer 130 may be used to simultaneously measure temperatures at multiple locations of the bottom surface 104S′ of the susceptor 104 ([0021], Fig. 3 shows four pyrometers 130), The temperature data collected from the bottom center optical pyrometer 122 and the bottom outer optical pyrometer 130 is input to a susceptor controller 146 ([0022]), for the purpose of deposition uniformity ([0004]). ‘148 also teaches that a method of processing a plurality of substrates in an epitaxy chamber is provided ([0007]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added more thermometers 7 than the number of thermometers 6 of ‘439 and processing a plurality of substrates on the rotary susceptor 3 of ‘439 (the limitations of 1B), as taught by ‘148, for the purpose of deposition uniformity, as taught by ‘148 ([0004]).
‘554 is analogous art in the field of temperature sensors in the wafer supports which contact the wafer and measure its temperature, and non-contact sensors such as photodetectors to measure light output of the LEDs and a pyrometer configured to measure the temperature of different types of wafers ([0084]). ’554 teaches that First, supplemental metrology values are collected from a series of points of a training wafer surface. These points may or may not correspond to points where the large beam spot data was collected. Even if they do not correspond, the spectral response of the standalone metrology values can be interpolated over the face of the wafer, optionally using a spatial model to facilitate this interpolation ([0211]). The temperature control zones may provide for a controllable temperature profile during fabrication operations, with the temperature profile being controllably shaped both radially and azimuthally (or in an x-y coordinate system). The temperature control zones can be arranged in a defined pattern, such as, a rectangular grid, a hexagonal grid, or other suitable pattern for generating a temperature profile as desired. Each temperature control zone can be of a suitable size for generating a temperature profile with the desired spatial granularity (2nd half of [0080]), to accurately predict appropriate settings for a device fabrication tool ([0066], 4th sentence).
‘541 is analogous art in the field of Method Of Processing A Workpiece In A Plasma Reactor Using Feed Forward Thermal Control (title), a plasma reactor having an electrostatic chuck for supporting the workpiece within a reactor chamber … sensing conditions in the chamber including temperature near the workpiece and simulating heat flow through the electrostatic chuck in a thermal model of the chuck based upon the conditions. The method further includes obtaining the next scheduled change in RF heat load on the workpiece and using the model to estimate a change in thermal conditions of the coolant in the evaporator that would hold the temperature nearly constant by compensating for the next scheduled change in RF heat load, and making the change in thermal conditions of the coolant in the evaporator prior to the time of the next scheduled change by a head start related to the thermal propagation delay through the electrostatic chuck (abstract). ’541 teaches that This correction cycle can include simultaneously monitoring plural temperature sensors periodically placed in axial alignment along the Z-axis inside the ESC 105, such as the temperature sensors 220, 221 of FIG. 7 (although more than two axially aligned periodically spaced sensors may be employed in this step). From such multiple contemporaneous measurements, an instantaneous temperature profile T(Z) may be deduced (block 306 of FIG. 28B). This instantaneous temperature distribution is input to the thermal model 288 (block 307 of FIG. 28B). Using the instantaneous temperature distribution of the step of block 307 as the updated "initial" condition, the thermal model 288 generates a new updated version of the time-evolving temperature profile T(Z,t) ([0127], 3rd sentence, see also Fig. 24 for the Z-axis direction being vertical direction).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted spatial interpolation, as taught by ‘554, and building temperature profile along Z axis, as taught by ‘541, to the temperature control program of ‘439 (the limitations of 1A and 1C), for the purpose of accurately predicting appropriate settings for a device fabrication tool ([0066], 4th sentence) and for the purpose of feed forward control, as taught by ‘541 (title). Note linear interpolation is taking average of the two neighboring data points. Note also the spatial distribution in the vertical direction requires data from both thermometers 6 and duplicated thermometers 7 from ‘148.
‘212 is analogous art in the field of MULTI-ZONE HEATER MODEL-BASED CONTROL IN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING (title), A plurality of heating zones in a substrate support assembly in a chamber is independently controlled (abstract). ’212 teaches that the available information about temperature feedback measurements and power usage for all the zones of the substrate support can be compared in real-time or offline to the reference ones provided during the design stage. This allows to detect and warn about any hardware malfunction or mismatch beyond the predefined acceptable limits ([0081]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have sent warning in real-time from temperature measurements in all zones, as taught by ‘212, to the temperature control program of ‘439 (the limitations of 1D), for the purpose of warning of malfunction, as taught by ‘212 ([0081]).
‘439 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 3: Fig. 1 shows the claimed “wherein a first of the one or more second measurement units and a second of the one or more second measurement units are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance” (also taught by ‘212).
The combination of ‘439, ‘148, ‘554, ‘541, and ‘212 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 7: said susceptor 3 is rotatably supported by a rotary shaft 4 extending through said heater 2 and the bottom of said reactor 1 (‘439, [0062], last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the susceptor is rotatable”, also taught by ‘554, [0006]),
a method of processing a plurality of substrates in an epitaxy chamber is provided (‘148, [0007], includes the claimed “while supporting a plurality of substrates”);
Fig. 1 of ‘439 shows the claimed “and the one or more second measurement units are disposed above the plurality of substrates, respectively”
In case Applicants argue that ‘439 does not teach thermocouples as one or more first measurement units of claim 1.
‘212 further teaches that “Each heating zone includes a separate temperature sensor, which may be a resistance thermometer detector (RTD) or, in some embodiments, a thermocouple” ([0027]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the infrared radiation thermometer 7 of ‘439 with thermocouples of ‘212, for its suitability for temperature measuring elements with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered and one of the arguments is persuasive.
In regarding to 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicants argue that the addition of alarm is significantly more by citing Parker, which adjusting an alarm system, see page 1 to the top of page 3.
This argument is found not persuasive.
As discussed in 101 rejection above, sending an alarm to user is not integrated into the chamber/apparatus. Alarm can be formed in the mind of operator, which is not part of the apparatus.
Instant Application does not raise to a level of dynamically adjusting the alarm system.
In regarding to 35 USC 112 rejection,see bottom of page 3, Applicants’ amendment overcomes the rejection.
In regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicants assert that
A) ‘541 is relied upon for a measurement of multiple sensors at the same time, but not on both sides of the wafer, see the 2nd paragraph of page 6.
This argument is found persuasive.
This is attacking reference individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Measurement from both sides of wafer are taught by both ‘439 and ‘148.
B) ‘148 fails to calculate temperature in between the measure areas on the wafer, as it uses comparison between different regions on the same side of the susceptor, see the bridging paragraph between pages 6-7.
This argument is found persuasive.
‘148 clearly teaches that “The substrate controller 148 receives the measured temperatures at the center location 120 and the outer location 144 of the top surface 106S of the substrate 106 and monitors temperature profiles across the substrate 106 during an epitaxy process” ([0025]), a temperature profile includes temperature difference at various locations.
C) ‘554 explicitly interpreting the temperature using only wafer side measurements, see the 2nd complete paragraph of page 7.
This argument is found persuasive.
This is again attacking reference individually.
Measurement from both sides of wafer are taught by both ‘439 and ‘148.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20110139070 is cited for displaying the alarms regarding to temperature control ([0114] and elsewhere).
US 20220205105 is cited for sensor interpolation ([0182]) from multi-zone sensors 2406 (Fig. 24, [0160], see also Fig. 8). Applicants’ IDS, 20120227665, teaches more pyrometers 192 below the heater than pyrometers 193 within the showerhead (Figs. 1-2B).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights