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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2013/0145640).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 19 Lee figures 1-12 teach a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing container (100) comprising an upper container (110), a lower container(120), and a processing space (101) inside the upper container and the lower container; [0032-33]
a support pin (200 substrate supporting member, 220 second vertical rod) in the processing space and configured to support a substrate; [0060-63]
a block plate (340) comprising an upper surface (240 second horizontal rod), the support pin being on the upper surface of the block plate; (fig. 11 [0060-63])
a plate support (106 recessed portion) in the lower container and configured to support a lower surface of the block plate opposite to the upper surface of the block plate; [0039]
a first conduit line (320) in the upper container; [0032]
a second conduit line (310) in the lower container; and
a fluid supply device configured to supply processing fluid in a supercritical state to the processing space through the first conduit line (a first supplying port configured to supply a supercritical fluid to a region of the internal space located below the substrate, a second supplying port configured to supply a supercritical fluid to a region of the internal space located above the substrate), [0006]
wherein a chamber lower surface of the lower container, in contact with the processing space, comprises a first surface (105 inner bottom surface), a first tilted surface (108 inclined inner side surface), and a second surface (107 side surface, upper surface of the lower chamber 120) extending sequentially from a center of the processing space, [0040]
wherein a vertical level of the second surface (107) is higher than a vertical level of the first surface (105), and
wherein a first tilt angle between the first tilted surface and the first surface is an acute angle (an angle of the inclined surface 108 may range from about 10° to about 45°).[0040]
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 19, figure 1 suggests a distance between the plate support (106 recessed portion) and a first center line is less than a first radius, wherein the first radius is a radius from the first center line to a first connection point in which the first surface (105) contacts the first tilted surface (108), and wherein the first center line extends vertically from a center of the upper container to a center line of the lower container.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, figure 1 suggests wherein a second radius is less than a radius of the block plate, and wherein the second radius is a radius from the first center line to a second connection point in which the first tilted surface (108) contacts the second surface (107).
Regarding claim 5, figure 1 teaches first surface (105), the second surface (upper surface of the lower chamber 120), and the substrate (W) are parallel to each other.
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 19, figure 1 teaches the plate support (106) is integrated with the lower container (120).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, figure 1 suggests the first tilt angle is greater than a first reference angle, and wherein the first reference angle between the first surface (105) and an extension line extending from the plate support (106 to an outer diameter of the block plate (340) is an acute angle.
Regarding claims 11, figure 1 suggests wherein the first tilt angle is greater than a second reference angle, and wherein the second reference angle between the first surface (105) and an extension line extending from a first connection point, in which the first surface contacts the first tilted surface (108), to an outer diameter of the block plate (340) is an acute angle.
Regarding claims 12, figure 1 suggests wherein a first height, which is a vertical distance between the first surface (105) and the block plate (upper surface of 340), is greater than a second height, which is a vertical distance between the second surface (107) and the block plate (upper surface of 340), and wherein a third height, which is a vertical distance between the substrate (W) and the second surface (107), is greater than the second height.
Regarding claim 16, figure 2 teaches a second connection point is closer to the center of the lower container (outer wall of 120) than an outer diameter of the block plate (340), and wherein the first tilted surface (108) contacts the second surface at the second connection point.
Regarding claim 17, figure 2 teaches an extension line of the first tilted surface contacts the block plate.
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) 4, 7-8, 10, 13-1, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0145640).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the first radius is 60 mm to 95 mm as a change in size/proportion is an obvious design choice depending on the size of the wafer to be processed.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claims 7 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the chamber lower surface further comprises a second tilted surface and a third surface sequentially extending from the second surface as a duplication of parts is an obvious design choice.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the first surface (105), the second surface (upper surface of the lower chamber 120) , and the third surface are parallel to each other a change in shape is an obvious design choice. (MPEP 2144.04) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have an angle between the second tilted surface and the second surface is an acute angle as Lee teaches an angle of the inclined surface 108 may range from about 10° to about 45°.[0040]
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches bottom wall 104 of the process chamber 100 may be formed to have a recessed portion 106. The recessed portion 106 may be formed to have a predetermined depth. Due to the presence of the recessed portion 106 thereby suggesting wherein the plate support is fastened to a support fastening portion buried in the lower container, the plate support being integrated with the lower container to be an obvious modification.[039]
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the second height is 0.1 to 0.25 times the first height, and the third height is 5 to 8 times the second height as a change in size/proportion is an obvious design choice depending on the size of the wafer to be processes.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claims 14 and 19, figure 1 teaches the first conduit line (320) and the second conduit line (310) are respectively at a center of the upper container and a center of the lower container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the first conduit line is on a same line as the second conduit line as Lee teaches a first supplying port configured to supply a supercritical fluid to a region of the internal space located below the substrate, a second supplying port configured to supply a supercritical fluid to a region of the internal space located above the substrate.[0006]
Regarding claim 20, figure 1 suggests wherein the first tilt angle is greater than a second reference angle, and wherein the second reference angle between the first surface (105) and an extension line extending from a first connection point, in which the first surface contacts the first tilted surface (108), to an outer diameter of the block plate (340) is an acute angle.
Regarding claim 20, figure 1 suggests wherein a first height, which is a vertical distance between the first surface (105) and the block plate (upper surface of 340), is greater than a second height, which is a vertical distance between the second surface (107) and the block plate (upper surface of 340), and wherein a third height, which is a vertical distance between the substrate (W) and the second surface (107), is greater than the second height.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
