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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. In addition, the reference numbers disclosed in the abstract should be enclosed in parentheses. Corrections are required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al. (hereinafter “Yamawaku”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamawaku teaches a method for discharging foreign matter (particles) in a substrate processing apparatus (figure 1, #1) comprising a processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) (figure 1, #10) where a wafer (reads on “sample”) is processed in a vacuum [0037-0038], a chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) (figure 1, #51) into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) [0045-0046], the method comprising the steps of allowing an ionization unit (reads on “static charge eliminator”) (figure 1, #60) to neutralize charged particles (reads on “eliminate charge in foreign matter”) present in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body, wherein the charge-neutralized particles are exhausted from the chamber main body through a gas exhaust port [0053, 0067-0070], allowing a nitrogen supply line (figure 1, #55 and 38) to supply nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) (figure 1, #51) and the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) (figure 1, #10) [0042 and 0051], and allowing a vacuum pump (figure 1, #57) to evacuate the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) [0049].
Regarding claim 10, Yamawaku further teaches the steps of repeating the supply of the nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and evacuating the chamber main body (see figure 3, and [0074-0077] of Yamawaku).
Regarding claim 14, Yamawaku teaches that after the charge elimination of the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) are executed in a state where the wafer is loaded into the chamber main body, the wafer is unloaded from the chamber main body [0066-0072].
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.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al. (hereinafter “Yamawaku”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Yamawaku does not teach that the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) are repeatedly executed during a process of the wafer in the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku wherein the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) are repeatedly executed during a process of the wafer in the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that particles present on the inner walls of the chamber are neutralized to prevent the particles from being adhered to the wafer after it is being processed in the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) and returned to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), since Yamawaku teaches the step of neutralizing charged particles present in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body by repeating the steps of supplying the nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and evacuating the chamber main body (see figure 3, and [0074-0077] of Yamawaku).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al. (hereinafter “Yamawaku”) in view of JP 2002353086 to Matsusako (hereinafter “Matsusako”, presented in the IDS filed on 09/03/2024).
Regarding claim 15, Yamawaku does not teach that when the number of counts of the processed samples reaches a specified value or when an elapsed time from the charge elimination in the foreign matter, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation that are previously executed reaches a specified value, the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in at least one of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) or the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) are executed.
Matsusako teaches a method for removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber by an anti-static means, wherein the gas inside the airlock chamber is sucked out by a vacuum pump (English translation [0009 and 0015]). Matsusako teaches the steps of supplying an ion flow to eliminate static electricity ionic particles adhered to the inner wall of the airlock chamber, and activating a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the airlock chamber, wherein the process can be performed at timings, and the number of executions and the interval between executions can be based on the amount of particles adhered to the airlock chamber (English translation [0017] and figure 4 of Matsusako).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Yamawaku wherein when an elapsed time from the charge elimination in the foreign matter, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation that are previously executed reaches a specified value, the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) is executed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matsusako teaches a method for removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber by performing the steps of supplying an ion flow to eliminate static electricity ionic particles adhered to the inner wall of the airlock chamber, and activating a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the airlock chamber, wherein the process can be performed at timings, and the number of executions and the interval between executions can be based on the amount of particles adhered to the airlock chamber (English translation [0017] and figure 4 of Matsusako).
Regarding claim 16, Yamawaku does not teach that the vacuum processing apparatus further includes another preliminary exhaust chamber into which the sample is loaded before being transported to the vacuum sample chamber, and that the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the other preliminary exhaust chamber are executed during use of the preliminary exhaust chamber.
Matsusako teaches that it was known in the art to perform the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber before the wafers are loaded into the chamber to reduce the number of particles adhering to the wafers loaded afterward, thereby lowering the rate of defective products (English translation [0009]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Yamawaku wherein the vacuum processing apparatus further includes another chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”), and that the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the other chamber main body are executed during use of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matsusako teaches that it was known in the art to perform the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber before the wafers are loaded into the chamber to reduce the number of particles adhering to the wafers loaded afterward, thereby lowering the rate of defective products (English translation [0009]).Moreover, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Consult 2144.04 VI.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al. (hereinafter “Yamawaku”) in view of JP 2016167431 to Tsukamoto (hereinafter “Tsukamoto”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamawaku teaches a substrate processing system (figure 1, #1) comprising a transfer unit (reads on “transport unit”) (figure 1, #3) configured for transporting a wafer (reads on “sample”) [0028], a processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) (figure 1, #10) where the wafer (reads on “sample”) is processed in a vacuum [0037-0038], a chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) (figure 1, #51) into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) [0045-0046], a ionization unit (reads on “static charge eliminator”) (figure 1, #60) configured for neutralizing charged particles (reads on “eliminating charge in foreign matter”) present in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body, wherein the charge-neutralized particles are exhausted from the chamber main body through a gas exhaust port [0053, 0067-0070], a nitrogen supply line (figure 1, #55 and 38) configured for supplying nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) (figure 1, #51) and the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) (figure 1, #10) [0042 and 0051), and a vacuum pump (figure 1, #57) configured for evacuating the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) [0049]. In addition, Yamawaku teaches that the substrate processing system is computer-controlled by a control unit [0057]. Yamawaku teaches a computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code [0057, and 0100-0105].
Yamawaku does not explicitly each that the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) is configured for controlling the transport unit, the static charge eliminator, the vacuum pump, and the nitrogen supply line to execute the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in at least one of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) or the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”).
Tsukamoto teaches a process chamber comprising an ionization gas generator (figure 10, #340) for generating ionized gas, an introduction pipe that introduces the gas generated by the ionization gas generator into the process chamber (figure 10, #31), an on/off valve (figure 10, #342) provided on the introduction pipe, a vacuum pump figure 10, #343) for evacuating the process chamber, an on/off valve figure 10, # 345) located on a conduit to the vacuum pump, and a control unit (figure 10, # 346) for controlling the ionization gas generator, the on/off valves (figure 10, #342 and 345), and the vacuum pump (see figure 10, and English translation [0080-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku wherein the computer (a control unit) is configured for controlling the transport unit, the static charge eliminator, the vacuum pump, and the nitrogen supply line to execute the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in at least one of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Tsukamoto teaches a process chamber comprising a control unit (figure 10, # 346 of Tsukamoto) for controlling an ionization gas generator, on/off valves (figure 10, #342 and 345 of Tsukamoto), and a vacuum pump (see figure 10, and English translation [0080-0083] of Tsukamoto), and Yamawaku teaches that the substrate processing system comprises an ionization unit configured for neutralizing charged particles present in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body, wherein the charge-neutralized particles are exhausted from the chamber main body through a gas exhaust port [0053, 0067-0070], and a computer (e.g., a control unit), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code ([0057, and 0100-0105] of Yamawaku).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukamoto further teaches that the control unit (figure 10, #346) can repeat purging with the ionized gas and vacuuming multiple times, thereby removing more particles from within the process chamber (English translation [0082-0083]).
Yamawaku/Tsukamoto does not explicitly teach that the computer system repeatedly executes the nitrogen supply and the evacuation in at least one of the preliminary exhaust chamber or vacuum sample chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku/Tsukamoto wherein the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) repeatedly executes the nitrogen supply and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Tsukamoto teaches that the control unit (figure 10, #346) can repeat purging with the ionized gas and vacuuming multiple times, thereby removing more particles from within the process chamber (English translation [0082-0083] of Tsukamoto), and Yamawaku teaches that the substrate processing system comprises a computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code ([0057, and 0100-0105] of Yamawaku), and that the substrate processing system can execute the steps of repeating the supply of the nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) using a control valve (figure 1, #56) and evacuating the chamber main body using a control valve (figure 1, #58) (see figure 3, and [0074-0077] of Yamawaku).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yamawaku/Tsukamoto does not teach that the computer system repeatedly executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the preliminary exhaust chamber during a process of the sample in the vacuum sample chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku/Tsukamoto wherein the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) executes repeatedly the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) during a process of the wafer (reads on “sample”) in the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that particles present on the inner walls of the chamber are neutralized to prevent the particles from being adhered to the wafer after it is being processed in the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”) and returned to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), since Tsukamoto teaches that the control unit (figure 10, #346) may repeat purging with the ionized gas and vacuuming multiple times, thereby removing more particles from within the process chamber (English translation [0082-0083] of Tsukamoto), and Yamawaku teaches that the substrate processing system comprises a computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code ([0057, and 0100-0105] of Yamawaku), and that the substrate processing apparatus can executes the step of neutralizing charged particles present in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body by repeating the steps of supplying the nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) using a control valve (figure 1, #56 of Yamawaku) and evacuating the chamber main body using a control valve (figure 1, #58 of Yamawaku) (see figure 3, and [0074-0077] of Yamawaku).
Regarding claim 6, Yamawaku/Tsukamoto does not explicitly teach that after the computer system executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the preliminary exhaust chamber in a state where the sample is loaded into the preliminary exhaust chamber, the sample is unloaded from the preliminary exhaust chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku/Tsukamoto wherein after the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) in a state where the wafer is loaded into the chamber main body, the wafer is unloaded from the chamber main body, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Tsukamoto teaches that the control unit (figure 10, #346) can be configured for purging with an ionized gas and vacuuming a process chamber for neutralizing and removing particles from within the process chamber (English translation [0082-0083] of Tsukamoto), and Yamawaku teaches that the substrate processing system comprises a computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code ([0057, and 0100-0105] of Yamawaku), and that the substrate processing system can execute the steps of supplying the nitrogen to the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) using a control valve (figure 1, #56), evacuating the chamber main body using a control valve (figure 1, #58) in a state where the wafer is loaded into the chamber main body, and unloading the wafer from the chamber main body ([0066-0072] of Yamawaku).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al. (hereinafter “Yamawaku”) in view of JP 2016167431 to Tsukamoto (hereinafter “Tsukamoto”, see attached English translation), and in further view of JP 2002353086 to Matsusako (hereinafter “Matsusako”, presented in the IDS filed on 09/03/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Yamawaku/Tsukamoto does not teach that when the number of counts of the processed samples reaches a specified value or when an elapsed time from the charge elimination in the foreign matter, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation that are previously executed reaches a specified value, the computer system executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in at least one of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) or the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”).
Matsusako teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising a controller for controlling the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber by an anti-static means, wherein the controller performs the process of supplying an ion flow to eliminate static electricity ionic particles adhered to the inner wall of the airlock chamber and activating a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the airlock chamber, wherein the process can be performed at timings, and the number of executions and the interval between executions can be based on the amount of particles adhered to the airlock chamber (English translation [0009, 0015, and 0017] and figure 4 of Matsusako).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku/Tsukamoto wherein when an elapsed time from the charge elimination in the foreign matter, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation that are previously executed reaches a specified value, the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation of the chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matsusako teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising a controller for controlling the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber by an anti-static means, wherein the controller performs the process of supplying an ion flow to eliminate static electricity ionic particles adhered to the inner wall of the airlock chamber and activating a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the airlock chamber, wherein the process can be performed at timings, and the number of executions and the interval between executions can be based on the amount of particles adhered to the airlock chamber (English translation [0017] and figure 4 of Matsusako).
Regarding claim 8, Yamawaku/Tsukamoto does not teach another chamber main body (reads on “preliminary exhaust chamber”) into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber (reads on “vacuum sample chamber”), wherein the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the other chamber main body during use of the chamber main body.
Matsusako teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising a controller for controlling the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber, wherein the controller performs the process of supplying an ion flow to eliminate static electricity ionic particles adhered to the inner wall of the airlock chamber and activating a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the airlock chamber (English translation [0009, 0015, and 0017]). Matsusako further teaches that the controller executes the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber before the wafers are loaded into the chamber to reduce the number of particles adhering to the wafers loaded afterward, thereby lowering the rate of defective products (English translation [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Yamawaku/Tsukamoto with another chamber main body into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber, wherein the computer (e.g., a control unit) (reads on “computer system”) executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the other chamber main body during use of the chamber main body, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matsusako teaches that the controller executes the process of removing particles adhered to the inner wall of an airlock chamber before the wafers are loaded into the chamber to reduce the number of particles adhering to the wafers loaded afterward, thereby lowering the rate of defective products (English translation [0009]). Moreover, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Consult 2144.04 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are: US 2010/0202093 to Yamawaku et al., which teaches a method and a system for discharging foreign matter (particles) in a substrate processing apparatus (figure 1, #1) comprising a processing chamber (figure 1, #10) where a wafer is processed in a vacuum [0037-0038], a chamber main body (figure 1, #51) into which the wafer is loaded before being transported to the processing chamber [0045-0046], the method comprising the steps of allowing an ionization unit (figure 1, #60) to neutralize charged particles present in the chamber main body and adhered to the inner wall of the chamber main body, wherein the charge-neutralized particles are exhausted from the chamber main body through a gas exhaust port [0053, 0067-0070], allowing a nitrogen supply line (figure 1, #55 and 38) to supply nitrogen to the chamber main body (figure 1, #51) and the processing chamber (figure 1, #10) [0042 and 0051], and allowing a vacuum pump (figure 1, #57) to evacuate the chamber main body and the processing chamber [0049], and that the substrate processing system comprises a computer (e.g., a control unit), and a storage medium in which a program code of software that realizes the functions of the embodiments is stored, wherein a CPU of the computer reads out and executes the program code stored in the storage medium to perform a part or all of the actual operations based on instructions of the program code [0057, and 0100-0105], and JP 2016167431 to Tsukamoto, which teaches a process chamber comprising an ionization gas generator (figure 10, #340) for generating ionized gas, an introduction pipe that introduces the gas generated by the ionization gas generator into the process chamber (figure 10, #31), an on/off valve (figure 10, #342) provided on the introduction pipe, a vacuum pump figure 10, #343) for evacuating the process chamber, an on/off valve figure 10, # 345) located on a conduit to the vacuum pump, and a control unit (figure 10, # 346) for controlling the ionization gas generator, the on/off valves (figure 10, #342 and 345), and the vacuum pump (see figure 10, and English translation [0080-0083]).
The prior art references of record, taking alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of the computer system controls an operation of the partition wall to close a gap between the vacuum sample chamber and the preliminary exhaust chamber, executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the preliminary exhaust chamber, and executes the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the vacuum sample chamber, as disclosed in claim 3, and an operation of a partition wall between the vacuum sample chamber and the preliminary exhaust chamber is controlled to close a gap between the vacuum sample chamber and the preliminary exhaust chamber, the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the preliminary exhaust chamber are executed, and the charge elimination in the foreign matter attached to the inner wall, the nitrogen supply, and the evacuation in the vacuum sample chamber are executed, as disclosed in claim 11, in combination with the other structural features or process steps as instantly claimed.
Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714