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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Preheating structure (heat exchangers, para. [0021]) in at least claim 10.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas controller (valves, para. [0021]), in at least claim 17.
Temperature regulator (tank heaters, para. [0025]) in at least claim 17.
Storage (tanks, para. [0021]) in at least claims 1-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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(s) 1-9, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100236480 to Hara.
Claims 1, 16: Hara discloses (claim 16) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the substrate processing method of claim 1 (see below); (claim 1) a substrate processing method comprising: performing a cycle a plurality of times (para. [0002]), the cycle comprising: (a) storing a first process gas in a storage (40, para. [0033]);
(b) supplying the first process gas from the storage at a first temperature to a substrate after (a) to change a temperature of the storage to a second temperature lower than the first temperature (para. [0057] where the gas undergoes adiabatic expansion also); and
(c) changing the temperature of the storage after supplying the first process gas to
a third temperature after (b) (para. [0057] where temperature is set to increase after supplying),
wherein (a), (b) and (c) are sequentially performed in the cycle (para. [0057]), and wherein the third temperature is kept within a predetermined temperature range while the cycle is performed the plurality of times (para. [0056-0057]).
However Hara does not disclose what the predetermined temperature range is. It is noted that no actual temperatures are disclosed, thus it is interpreted that any range of temperature is necessary as a “predetermined temperature range,” for the purpose of preventing a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controller capabilities as taught by Hara with motivation to prevent a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein the third temperature is set to be equal to or higher than the second temperature (para. [0057], Hara).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein the third temperature is set to be lower than the second temperature (para. [0057 where at some point the temperature will be below the second temperature).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein (a) is started when the temperature of the storage reaches the third temperature in (c) (para. [0057], Hara).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein the first temperature of two or more executions of the cycle does not deviate therebetween (para. [0047-0049], Hara, where temperatures are set and monitored).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein the cycle is performed the
plurality of times such that the first temperature does not deviate between the plurality of times of the cycle being performed (para. [0047-0049], Hara, where temperatures are set and monitored).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein (a) comprises: (a1) storing the first process gas in the storage; and (a2) setting the temperature of the storage to the first temperature after (al) (para. [0056-0058], Hara).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein (a) further comprises (a3) maintaining the temperature of the storage at the first temperature until a predetermined time has elapsed after (a2) (interpreted as any time since no time is disclosed, para. [0002], Hara).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein (a) comprises (a4) setting the temperature of the first process gas stored in the storage to the first temperature (para. [0057], Hara).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein (a) is started after a predetermined time has elapsed since the temperature of the storage is set to the third temperature in (c) (interpreted as any time since no time is disclosed, para. [0002], Hara).
Claims 12-13: The apparatus of Hara does not explicitly disclose (claim 12) wherein the first process gas is resistant to a self-decomposition reaction within a space where the substrate is accommodated; (claim 13) wherein the first process gas is susceptible to a self-decomposition reaction within a space where the substrate is accommodated.
However Hara teaches many process gases (para. [0059-0061]) and teaches heating the materials below the decomposition temperature for the purpose of minimizing decomposition of the raw material (para. [0056]). In this way, the process gas necessarily has either resistance and/or susceptibility to decomposition, but Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the two different modes (and further leans away from criticality by claiming both).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hara with motivation to minimize decomposition of the raw material.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein an amount of the first process gas supplied from the storage to the substrate in (b) is at least half an amount of the first process gas stored in the storage in (a) (para. [0064], Hara). It is also interpreted that any amount is sufficient, as no discrete amounts are claimed.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Hara does not explicitly disclose wherein the cycle further comprises (e) supplying a second process gas to the substrate.
However Hara discloses multiple gases as options (para. [0059-0067]). the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara as applied to claims 1-9, 11-16 above, and further in view of US 20030217697 to Miyamoto.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Hara discloses wherein the cycle further comprises (d) supplying the first process gas to a preheating structure before (a).
Miyamoto discloses wherein the cycle further comprises (d) supplying the first process gas to a preheating structure (4 [preheat device], Fig. 1) before (a) (para. [0024]) for the purpose of preventing disturbance of the material in the material tank even when a quantity of the material is supplied to the inside of the material tank (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Miyamoto with motivation to prevent disturbance of the material in the material tank even when a quantity of the material is supplied to the inside of the material tank.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100236480 to Hara.
Claim 17: Hara discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (8 [processing container], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (W [wafer]) is processed (para. [0029]); a storage (40 [tank]) in which a first process gas is stored (para. [0033]); a temperature regulator (62 [tank-heating mechanism]) configured to control a temperature of the storage (40, para. [0036]); a gas controller (52/60/48 [valves]) configured to control a storage of the first process gas in the storage (40) and configured to control a supply of the first process gas from the storage to the substrate (para. [0037]); and a controller (92/96/98 [temperature control device]/[control device]/[storage medium]) configured to be capable of controlling the temperature regulator (62) and the gas controller (52/60/48) to perform a cycle a plurality of times (para. [0002]), the cycle comprising: (a) storing the first process gas in the storage (40, para. [0033]).
(b) supplying the first process gas from the storage at a first temperature to a substrate after (a) to change a temperature of the storage to a second temperature lower than the first temperature (para. [0057] where the gas undergoes adiabatic expansion also); and
(c) changing the temperature of the storage after supplying the first process gas to
a third temperature after (b) (para. [0057] where temperature is set to increase after supplying),
wherein (a), (b) and (c) are sequentially performed in the cycle (para. [0057]), and wherein the third temperature is kept within a predetermined temperature range while the cycle is performed the plurality of times (para. [0056-0057]).
However Hara does not disclose what the predetermined temperature range is. It is noted that no actual temperatures are disclosed, thus it is interpreted that any range of temperature is necessary as a “predetermined temperature range,” for the purpose of preventing a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controller capabilities as taught by Hara with motivation to prevent a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100236480 to Hara.
Claim 18: Hara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer (92/96/98 [temperature control device]/[control device]/[storage medium]), to perform a cycle a plurality of times (para. [0002]), the cycle comprising: (a) storing a first process gas in a storage (40, para. [0033]).
(b) supplying the first process gas from the storage at a first temperature to a substrate after (a) to change a temperature of the storage to a second temperature lower than the first temperature (para. [0057] where the gas undergoes adiabatic expansion also); and
(c) changing the temperature of the storage after supplying the first process gas to
a third temperature after (b) (para. [0057] where temperature is set to increase after supplying),
wherein (a), (b) and (c) are sequentially performed in the cycle (para. [0057]), and wherein the third temperature is kept within a predetermined temperature range while the cycle is performed the plurality of times (para. [0056-0057]).
However Hara does not disclose what the predetermined temperature range is. It is noted that no actual temperatures are disclosed, thus it is interpreted that any range of temperature is necessary as a “predetermined temperature range,” for the purpose of preventing a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controller capabilities as taught by Hara with motivation to prevent a raw material gas from re-solidifying (or reliquefying), thus making the temperature distribution in the system uniform over the entire area of the raw material tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210197157 discloses a liquid material vaporization and supply device (100, Fig. 1) having a tank (20 [second tank]) where adiabatic expansion occurs which can correct the sensed temperature after sensing the reduced temperature (para. [0079]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights