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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 are pending, and have been examined herein on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (US Pub. 2014/0318457) in view of Nishimura (JP-H06333861-A, using the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Umezawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, film forming apparatus #100), comprising: a processing container (Fig. 1, processing chamber #103) capable of accommodating a substrate holder configured to hold substrates (Fig. 1, boat #115 comprising substrates #1); a pipe extending in a horizontal direction from a side wall of the processing container (Fig. 1, any of the guide pipes #125); and a heating mechanism provided around the processing container (Fig. 1, heating device #113), the first heating mechanism has a first insertion hole through which the pipe is inserted (see Fig. 1).
Umezawa does not teach wherein the heating mechanism includes a first heating mechanism configured to cover a first region of the side wall of the processing container, and a second heating mechanism configured to cover a second region of the side wall of the processing container excluding the first region, and the first heating mechanism is movable in the horizontal direction.
However, Nishimura teaches this limitation (Nishimura – [0012] and Fig. 1, heater #2 divided into two parts which conform to the furnace tube #1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Umezawa apparatus to comprise a multi-piece movable heating assembly according to Nishimura in order to uniformly heat both the upper and lower substrates on the substrate holder (Nishimura – [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding the limitation: “between a position where the pipe passes through the first insertion hole and a position where the pipe does not pass through the first insertion hole”, this limitation is construed as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
The Examiner notes this limitation is met by the capability of the combination of references as proposed herein – if the Umezawa apparatus were to comprise the movable heater assembly of Nishimura.
Regarding claim 2, Umezawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the heating mechanism includes a guide mechanism configured to guide movement of the first heating mechanism (Nishimura – [0012]: driving and guiding means not shown).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Umezawa apparatus to comprise a multi-piece movable heating assembly according to Nishimura in order to uniformly heat both the upper and lower substrates on the substrate holder (Nishimura – [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Umezawa teaches wherein the pipe is a supply pipe configured to supply a gas into the processing container ([0048] and Fig. 1, pipes #125 connected to process gas supply mechanism #130).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (US Pub. 2014/0318457) and Nishimura (JP-H06333861-A, using the attached machine translation), as applied to claims 1-3 above, further in view of Okada (US Patent 9,613,838).
The limitations of claims 1-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Umezawa teaches an exhaust pipe extending in the horizontal direction from the side wall of the processing container and configured to exhaust the gas in the processing container (Fig. 1, exhaust pipe #110).
Umezawa does not teach the second heating mechanism, and the second heating mechanism is movable in the horizontal direction.
However, Nishimura teaches this limitation (Nishimura – [0012] and Fig. 1, heater #2 divided into two parts which conform to the furnace tube #1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Umezawa apparatus to comprise a multi-piece movable heating assembly according to Nishimura in order to uniformly heat both the upper and lower substrates on the substrate holder (Nishimura – [0004]-[0006]).
Modified Umezawa does not teach wherein the exhaust pipe is provided in the second region, nor wherein the second heating mechanism has a second insertion hole through which the exhaust pipe is inserted.
However, Okada teaches this limitation (Okada – Fig. 12A: exhaust pipes #43a-d extend through to processing chamber #1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust pipe of modified Umezawa to comprise the multi-tube exhaust assembly of Okada in order to independently control exhaust flow in various process regions (Okada – C7, L23-43) and/or to eliminate differences in processing due to exhaust path lengths (Okada – C17, L46-52) in an effort to enhance in-plane substrate processing uniformity (Okada – C17, L53-55).
Regarding the limitation: “between a position where the exhaust pipe passes through the second insertion hole and a position where the exhaust pipe does not pass through the second insertion hole”, this limitation is construed as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
The Examiner notes this limitation is met by the capability of the combination of references as proposed herein – if the Umezawa/Okada combined apparatus were to comprise the movable heater assembly of Nishimura.
Regarding claim 5, modified Umezawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Okada teaches wherein the pipe is an exhaust pipe configured to exhaust a gas in the processing container (Okada – Fig. 12A: exhaust pipes #43a-d extend through to processing chamber #1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust pipe of modified Umezawa to comprise the multi-tube exhaust assembly of Okada in order to independently control exhaust flow in various process regions (Okada – C7, L23-43) and/or to eliminate differences in processing due to exhaust path lengths (Okada – C17, L46-52) in an effort to enhance in-plane substrate processing uniformity (Okada – C17, L53-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawase (US Patent 5,232,506) teaches a multi-stage process furnace with closable dividers (Figs. 1A-E). Nishimura (JP-H06349752) teaches a similar movable heater structure (Fig. 1). Ide (US Patent 6,316,748) teaches a heater with movable doors (Fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights