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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical calculations without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculating a difference between a lifetime cumulative film thickness value and a cumulative etching amount in order to obtain a replacement time. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the apparatus and controller configured to operate gas supplies are well known, routine, and conventional (see the below rejection) and/or extra solution activity. None of the dependent claims correct this issue. The examiner notes that claims 3 and 8 do use the replacement time, but for generating a notification. This does not overcome the 101 rejection because it is mere outputting and/or extra solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not support specifically controlling the gas supplier to restrict processing of the substrate. The examiner could only find the restriction until replacement, but not that this restriction is by controlling the gas supplier.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. These claims are vague and indefinite because it is not clear how the gas supplier capable of restricting processing and what restricting processing means in the context of this invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoshima (US 2016/0211157) in view of Nunomura (US 2013/0247937).
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 19-21, 24:
Inoshima teaches a CVD apparatus, method, and controller comprising a processing container (Fig. 1), a gas supplier (Fig. 5), a controller for controlling the gas supplier (Fig. 5) including forming deposits on the substrate and boat [0004] and etching [0137]. The controller is configured store cumulative film thickness information [0059] collected/determined by the cumulative depositions [0085-0087] and compare that to a predetermined threshold value to determine boat replacement (Id.). The cumulative film thickness information does take into account the cumulative etching value [0137] as a subtraction (because it is removal of the film by etching/cleaning) [0142]. Instead of just boat replacement, cleaning can be another possible outcome based on comparison with a different threshold value [0142].
Although Inoshima does imply the control is for the interior of the process chamber as a whole [0161], it is not explicit.
However, Nunomura teaches a similar control where the cumulative film thickness is considered on the boat and on the interior of the process chamber (i.e., the tube) (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the control method of Inoshima and monitor the cumulative film thickness on the inner side of the processing chamber in addition to the boat. Nunomura establishes that both are important for maintaining the CVD apparatus in good working order.
Claims 2-5, 8, 11, 22-23:
A generic controller is capable of subtraction. The cumulative film thickness is compared to multiple threshold values, the results of which can be cautions/warnings/alerts [0142]. The results can be displayed [0143].
Claim 6:
Inoshima teaches a support and boat elevator (Fig. 1).
Claims 12-14:
Nunomura covers the situations where just the boat is cleaned, both the boat and tube are cleaned simultaneously, and just the tube is cleaned (Fig. 8).
Claims 15-16, 18:
Insoshima teaches the cumulative film thickness becomes zero [0061]. The number of times the cleaning operation has occurred is also information that can be stored [0142].
Claim 17:
Nunomura teaches over-etching [0137] which causes the cumulative film thickness value to become negative.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The above 101, 112a, and 112b rejections are made in large part due to the unclear link between gas supplier and restricting processing of the substrate, and in particular how this is accomplished when the threshold value is met. The examiner speculates it may be beneficial to focus on restricting processing for the purpose of part replacement, rather than gas supplier and restricting processing.
The 103 rejection is currently maintained because Inoshima does teach the concept of a cumulative film thickness combined with etching/film removal, which would obviously be a subtraction in the cumulative film thickness calculation. Additionally, Inoshima does include control of the gas supplier in response to the threshold value (Fig. 5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights