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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a substrate processing apparatus, classified in CPC H01J 37/32715.
II. Claims 13-32, drawn to substrate processing method, classified in H01J 37/32449.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus can be used to practice by another and materially different process, such as cleaning the chamber.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of the claimed invention of substrate processing apparatus:
1) Fig. 3, or
2) Fig. 6, or
3) Fig. 8.
Currently, Claims 1-7 and 11-12 are considered generic.
The species are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive, as only one of the contact/separation mechanism is used in the invention. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, even though this requirement is traversed. Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected species. MPEP § 809.02(a).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
A phone call to Applicants’ representative Arimi Yamada on 08/28/2026, Applicants elected Apparatus claims, and Species 1), Fig. 3. Applicants identified claims 1-7 and 11-12 read into the elected Species 1).
Claim Interpretations
The “a hermetic container provided in the vacuum processing chamber and having a gas pressure higher than a gas pressure in the vacuum processing chamber” of claim 1 is considered an intended use of the apparatus. An apparatus that is capable of perform this pressure different is considered read into the claim.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
The “a sealing configured to form a closed space between the substrate held by the substrate holder and the substrate holder” of claim 1, as Applicants’ “closed space” is connected to various valves, it is closed when these valves are closed.
The “a first differential pressure sensor” of claim 6 and “a second differential pressure sensor” of claim 7, Applicants’ Specification discloses that “The third pressure sensor 112 may have a first differential pressure sensor and a second differential pressure sensor” ([0080]), therefore, these are the same sensor structure but differ only by the threshold setting, which is an intended use of the apparatus.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulavi et al. (US 20210351060, hereafter ‘060), in view of CHANDLER et al. (US 20110114665, hereafter ‘665).
‘060 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: substrate supports for use with single wafer or multi-wafer (also referred to as batch) process chambers. FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate a processing chamber 100 ([0033], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
Suitable processing stations 110 include, but are not limited to … pumping chambers ([0036], last sentence, includes the claimed “a vacuum processing chamber in which processing on a substrate is performed”);
as shown in FIG. 6A, the portion 504a of the support surface 504 outside of the outer diameter of the seal band 512 is higher than the support surface 504. The illustrated embodiment has a substrate support 500 (also referred to as the electrostatic chuck or ESC) comprising mesas 511 or dimples on a flat surface. The wafer sits on the mesas 511 and the seal band 512 and is surrounded, at least in part, by the outer portion 504a of the body 502 ([0058]), When the MFC is continuously flowing, the flow to the substrate is about zero as the leak rate across the seal band is about zero if the wafer is well chucked ([0078], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “a substrate holder provided in the vacuum processing chamber and configured to hold the substrate; a sealing configured to form a closed space between the substrate held by the substrate holder and the substrate holder”),
a purge gas source 560 is connected to an inlet of a mass flow controller (MFC) 570 through an valve 571. Exiting the MFC 570, the purge gas flows through outlet valve 572 and to a junction with a purge flow leg 573 going to the processing chamber 100 and an exhaust leg 574 going to an exhaust system. The gas flowing through the purge flow leg 573 passes through a pressure transducer 575 and a control valve 576 before flowing into purge line 562 or passing through dump valve 577 to exhaust (Fig. 9, [0082]), The purge line 562 passes through the support post 550, splitting in a first purge line 562a going to a first substrate support body 502a with a first substrate support body second leg 564a, and in a second purge line 562b going to a second substrate support body 502b with a second substrate support body second leg 564b. In some embodiments, a pressure transducer 575 is used to control the pressure in the purge line 562 by means of a software or hardware control loop, or a combination thereof, which regulates the purge flow rate in that channel. In some embodiments, the pressure in the purge line 562 is controlled relative to the pressure in the process chamber 100 ([0083], includes the claimed “a gas path communicating with the closed space; a gas supply path configured to supply a gas into the gas path; a gas exhaust path configured to exhaust the gas from the gas path; a first valve provided in the hermetic container and capable of opening and closing a space between the gas path and the gas supply path; and a second valve provided capable of opening and closing a space between the gas path and the gas exhaust path”).
‘060 further teaches that A purge line 562 is in fluid communication with the purge channels 510 formed in the support surface 504. The purge line 562 of some embodiments is connected to a purge gas source 560 to allow a purge gas to flow from the purge gas source 560 to the purge channels 510 through the purge line 562. In some embodiments, the support post 550 includes a plenum or cavity along the length of the purge line 562. In some embodiments, as illustrated, the purge line 562 connects to a second leg 564 of the purge line 562 to split the flow of purge gas into the different openings 566 in the purge channels 510. In some embodiments, the purge line 562 provides a flow of purge gas to the backside of a substrate positioned on the support surface 504. This is also referred to as a backside purge ([0067]).
‘879 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: a hermetic container provided in the vacuum processing chamber and having a gas pressure higher than a gas pressure in the vacuum processing chamber;
(a gas path) provided in the hermetic container (and communicating with the closed space;
a gas supply path configured to supply a gas into the gas path;
a gas exhaust path configured to exhaust the gas from the gas path;
a first valve) provided in the hermetic container (and capable of opening and closing a space between the gas path and the gas supply path; and
a second valve) provided in the hermetic container (and capable of opening and closing a space between the gas path and the gas exhaust path).
‘665 is analogous art in the field of GAS DELIVERY FOR BEAM PROCESSING SYSTEMS (title), Beam systems, such as electron beam systems, ion beam systems, laser beam systems, cluster beam system, and neutral particle beam systems, are used to create features on a surface by etching or deposition … For example, iodine can be used to etch a silicon wafer ([0003], same as ‘060, [0028], [0036]), The gas sources 710 and 712 are in portion 708 external to the vacuum chamber 704 so that they can be easily replaced when empty ([0031], 4th sentence). ‘665 teaches that Gas injection system 700 extends through a wall 702 into a vacuum chamber 704 and so includes a portion 706 inside the vacuum chamber 704 and a portion 708 outside the vacuum chamber 704 … An airtight cabinet 716 maintains the containers 710 and control valves 720 within a vacuum environment. In some embodiments, the gas source, such as one of containers 710, which may be, for example, a crucible containing a solid or liquid precursor material, is contained entirely within the interior of airtight cabinet 716, rather than having a portion that extends outside the airtight cabinet. This can simplify the design of the crucibles or other gas sources. Airtight cabinet 716 is connected to the vacuum in sample chamber 704, but can be vacuum isolated by closing a valve (not shown) to facilitate replacing or refilling containers 710 (Fig. 7A, [0031], 2nd half), with valves 724, positioned in portion 706 that extends into the sample chamber 704 ([0034], 2nd last sentence, i.e. valves can be placed in a hermetic container provided in the vacuum processing chamber and isolated from the vacuum chamber), A vacuum pump is continually removing gas from the sample chamber ([0007]), A forepump 722 is used to evacuate chamber 716. Forepump 722 speeds evacuation of cabinet 716 after changing gas containers 710 eliminating the time required for gas in cabinet 716 to diffuse into the sample chamber 704 and be evacuated from there ([0032], 2nd half, i.e. two independent pumps, and the gas cabinet is capable of operation at a higher pressure than the sample chamber), Cabinet 716 provides a secondary gas containment structure, in case of a leak from one of the gas sources, eliminating the need for separate vented storage boxes ([0033]).
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 re-arranged various valves of the backside purge system 561 of ‘060 in the gas injection system 700 of ‘665 including an airtight chamber portion 706 inside the vacuum chamber, for the purpose of a secondary gas containment structure, as taught by ‘665 ([0033]).
‘060 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: the controller is connected to the purge line 562 and or the purge gas source 560 and is configured to measure a flow rate of purge gas through the purge line 562 to the back side of a substrate on the support surface 504. The flow rate of the purge gas in the purge line 562 can be measured through any suitable technique known to the skilled artisan, including, but not limited to, a mass flow controller (Fig. 8, [0081], this corresponds to the “gas path”), A controller 495 may be provided and coupled to various components of the processing platform 400 to control the operation thereof ([0047]), a purge gas source 560 is connected to an inlet of a mass flow controller (MFC) 570 through an valve 571 (Fig. 9, [0082], 2nd sentence, this MFC is the “gas supply path”, includes the claimed “further comprising: a flow rate sensor configured to measure a flow rate of the gas supplied to the gas supply path; and a flow rate control valve configured to control the flow rate of the gas supplied to the gas supply path based on a measurement value of the flow rate sensor”).
Claim 5: a pressure gauge 551 is positioned along the flow path of the purge gas and the pressure in the purge line 562 is controlled by increasing or decreasing the purge flow to meet a pressure setpoint ([0076], 3rd sentence, includes the claimed “further comprising: a third pressure sensor configured to measure a gas pressure in the gas path”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘060 and ‘665, as being applied to claims 2 and 1 rejection above, further in view of Hirayanagi et al. (US 20010016302, hereafter ‘302).
‘060 teaches that Referring to FIGS. 6, 8 and 9, some embodiments of the disclosure include a backside purge with a known or controlled purge pressure ([0075]). However, ‘060 does not teaches pressure sensor(s) within the backside purge system 561 (Fig. 9).
The combination of ‘060 and ‘665 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 3: further comprising: a first pressure sensor configured to measure a gas pressure in the gas supply path, wherein the flow rate control valve controls the flow rate of the gas supplied to the gas supply path further based on a measurement value of the first pressure sensor.
Claim 4: further comprising: a second pressure sensor configured to measure a gas pressure in the gas exhaust path.
‘302 is analogous art in the field of the Wafer Chucks (title), in the fabrication of semiconductor integrated circuits ([0001]), if gas leakage from the HTG channel 67 is not a problem during wafer exposure the HTG-inlet valve 59 can be left open during wafer exposure (Fig. 4, [0063], 2nd sentence, i.e. sealing of a closed space of the chuck). ‘302 teaches that After the HTG-inlet-duct pressure gauge 63 confirms that the pressure in the HTG-inlet duct 61 has dropped to a sufficiently low level, the HTG-inlet valve 59 is opened ([0060], last sentence, note the pressure gauge 63 is associated with HTG supply 72), A gas-evacuation pressure gauge 79 is connected to the gas-evacuation duct 77 between the evacuation pump 81 and the gas-evacuation valve 75 ([0057], last sentence), At a second time instant relative to the fabrication process, the heat-transfer gas is evacuated from the channel. These time instants can be established to allow wafer-exchange to be performed quickly (abstract, last two sentences).
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 a pressure gauge 63 and a gas-evacuation pressure gauge 79 of ‘302, near the purge gas source 560 and near the dump valve 577 of ‘060, and then combined with ‘665, for the purpose of quick wafer exchange, as taught by ‘302 (abstract, last two sentences).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘060 and ‘665, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of HIRATA et al. (US 20230011244, hereafter ‘244).
The combination of ‘060 and ‘665 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 6: further comprising: a first differential pressure sensor configured to output a first differential pressure signal indicating whether or not a difference between a gas pressure in the gas path and the gas pressure in the vacuum processing chamber exceeds a first threshold.
Claim 7: further comprising: a second differential pressure sensor configured to output a second differential pressure signal indicating whether or not the difference between the gas pressure in the gas path and the gas pressure in the vacuum processing chamber exceeds a second threshold higher than the first threshold.
‘244 is analogous art in the field of PRESSURE CONTROL DEVICE (title), Semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as a plasma CVD apparatus or an etching apparatus is provided with a supplying system of a heat-transfer cooling gas (also referred to as backside gas) to a backside of a processing substrate during a plasma process … The processing substrate may be a semiconductor wafer placed on a mount table in a process chamber. As the cooling gas, an inert gas such as He gas, Ar gas, or N.sub.2 gas is generally used. The cooling gas can promote heat exchange between the back surface of the substrate and the mount table and thus the cooling gas is used to control a temperature of the substrate along with a. cooling water line for cooling the mount table (Fig. 1, [0002]). ‘244 teaches that since the gas is supplied to the back surface of the substrate 5 fixed on the mount table 32 using the suction device 34, depending on the suction state of the substrate 5, the backside gas may leak from the gap between the substrate 5 and the mount table 32 into the process chamber 30. The pressure control device 20 of the present embodiment includes a flow rate measurement function for detecting the backside gas leakage into the process chamber and measuring the leakage amount ([0056]), it is advantageous to determine a lower flow rate near the lower limit of the differential pressure ΔP (=P1−P2) that is detectable by the first pressure sensor 21 and the second pressure sensor 22. In other words, it is advantageous for the pressure control device to be configured in such a way that a large value can be detected as the differential pressure ΔP even at a low flow rate. Although the leakage amount of the backside gas is a small amount, if the differential pressure ΔP detected is large at the same flow rate, it is possible to measure the flow rate more accurately. The present inventors have made intensive studies, and found that as the flow resistance, rather than using an orifice member, using a capillary laminar flow element can detect a large differential pressure even at the same flow rate. Thus, using a capillary laminar flow element enables more accurate measurement of the leakage amount at a lower flow rate (Fig. 2, [0082]-[0083]). in the case where the capillary laminar flow device is used, even when the differential pressure ΔP is about 0.44 kPa, which greatly exceeds the detectable lower limit value of 0.1 kPa ([0087], i.e. multiple thresholds). Note leak rate refers to the difference between the pressure of the backside gas and the pressure of the chamber.
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 the differential pressure sensor of ‘244, to measure the leak rate of ‘060, for the purpose of more accurate measurement of the leakage amount at a lower flow rate, as taught by ‘244 ([0083]). Note the multiple thresholds is suggested by ‘244 and is also an intended use of the apparatus, see claim interpretations above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘060 and ‘665, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Selyutin et al. (US 6120609, hereafter ‘609).
‘060 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 11: The substrate support 500 includes a support post 550 connected to the bottom surface 506 of the body 502. The support post 550 of some embodiments is hollow to contain the transmission lines 531, 532 and any other connections or conduits (e.g., a purge gas conduit or plenum) ([0066], includes the claimed “further comprising:
a support mechanism provided in the vacuum processing chamber and configured to support the substrate holder”).
The combination of ‘060 and ‘665 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 11: wherein the hermetic container is provided in the support mechanism.
‘609 is analogous art in the field of the structure and method of moving a substrate within a processing chamber … with the movement of a substrate support plate (pedestal) supported by a stem in the processing chamber (col. 1, lines 9-14). ‘609 teaches that The substrate support plate 22 is integrally connected with a substrate support plate stem 30 which can be hollow or solid, although utility feed connections such as power and cooling when used are routed through the stem whether it is hollow or solid. A bottom end connector 34 is fixed to, supports, and is sealed to the end of the stem 30 (the sealing between the stem 30 and the end connector 34 is not shown here) (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 58-65). In short, ‘609 provides a sealed hollow space within stem inside the vacuum processing chamber.
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 a hollow stem/shaft of ‘609 as utility feed of ‘060, for its suitability 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. Furthermore, to have imported the valves to this sealed hollow space as taught by ‘665, for the purpose of a secondary gas containment structure, as taught by ‘665 ([0033]).
‘060 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 12: The processing stations 110 are located in the interior volume 109 of the housing 102 and are positioned in a circular arrangement around the rotational axis 211 of the substrate support 200 (Fig. 1, [0035], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the support mechanism includes a twist mechanism configured to rotate the substrate holder”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130160709 is cited for “the placement of valves and/or filters within a vacuum chamber surrounding the reaction chamber can reduce the space” ([0025]).
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