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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4, 6, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0214915 to Butterbaugh in view of United States Patent Application No. 2012/0285658 to Roy et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Butterbaugh teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1-3, comprising: a processing container 106 having a processing space 114 provided in an interior of the processing container (as shown in Fig. 1), which is depressurized to a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure (by vacuum system 136 [0020]), and an opening (transfer door 300 Fig. 3) through which a substrate is loaded into and unloaded from the processing space; a substrate holding/rotating mechanism 124, 126, 134 configured to hold the substrate in a horizontal posture and rotate the substrate around a vertical axis (axis of 130), and including a substrate holder 122 configured to hold the substrate inside the processing space and a driving force source 124, 212 [0037] configured to generate a driving force for rotationally driving the substrate holder [0037]; a housing 126 having an internal space 118 isolated from the processing space, wherein the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism is accommodated in the internal space (as shown in 124 inside of 118, as broadly recited); a horizontal movement mechanism 120 configured to move the housing in a horizontal direction so as to move the substrate holder in the horizontal direction (as shown in Fig. 3); and a gas nozzle 112 configured to inject a gas [0028] so as to irradiate a gas cluster onto an upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder [0018-0062].
PNG
media_image1.png
564
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Butterbaugh does not expressly teach the housing is hermetically sealed although Butterbaugh does teaches vacuum tight sealing of the swing arm and pass through components (claims 1-12)
Roy teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1 wherein the substrate holder 240 Fig. 2A is sealed by hermetic sealing [0041-0042; 0032-0095].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Butterbaugh by making the housing hermetically sealed, as per the teachings of Roy, as an art analogous sealing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
In regards to Claim 2, Butterbaugh teaches the horizontal movement mechanism includes a swivel mechanism configured to swivel the housing around a swiveling axial line extending in a vertical direction to swivel the substrate holder, as shown in the movement in Fig. 3.
In regards to Claim 4, Butterbaugh teaches the internal space of the housing is in communication with an external space of the processing container, as 204 is connected outside [0028], as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 6, Butterbaugh teaches the swivel mechanism has a hollow swivel shaft (pivot point is hollow, with wires running outside through the hollow shaft [0052]) extending downward from the housing to an outer side of the processing container (as shown in Fig. 1, 2), and wherein the internal space of the housing is in communication with an outer space of the processing container through an internal space of the hollow swivel shaft (as the hollow shafts are used to run wires from outside the process chamber [0052]).
In regards to Claim 8, Butterbaugh teaches a power feeding line (wires) configured to supply power to the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism extends from an outside of the processing container to the internal space of the housing via the internal space of the hollow swivel shaft, as shown in Fig. 5 [0052].
In regards to Claim 10, Butterbaugh teaches the gas nozzle is fixed to the processing container such that the gas nozzle is immovable (as shown in Fig. 1, 2, where the substrate moves in relation to the position of the nozzle [0028-0029]).
In regards to Claim 11, Butterbaugh teaches an exhaust port 206 configured to vacuum-suction the processing space is provided to be open immediately below the gas nozzle, as the port is opposite to the nozzle, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regards to Claim 12, Butterbaugh teaches a control device 116 configured to control at least operations of the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism, the horizontal movement mechanism, and a gas supply mechanism 108 configured to supply the gas to the gas nozzle, wherein the control device controls the operations of the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism and the horizontal movement mechanism [0028-0044], when the gas cluster is irradiated onto the substrate from the gas nozzle, to sequentially irradiate the gas cluster onto an irradiation target region of the upper surface of the substrate, as broadly recited in the claim, as the substrate moves below the nozzle for gas treatments.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0214915 to Butterbaugh in view of United States Patent Application No. 2012/0285658 to Roy et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2023/0021625 to Siefering et al.
The teachings of Butterbaugh in view of Roy are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Butterbaugh teaches the horizontal movement mechanism but does not expressly teach that it includes a linear movement mechanism configured to linearly move the housing so as to linearly move the substrate holder.
Siefering teaches another substrate holder with a pivoting drive that also has linear movement (see Fig. 1-14), which allows for arc motion and linear movement [0024-0111]. Siefering further teaches that the two forms of movement, the addition of linear translation, advantageously reduces complexity and improves alignment [0080].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Butterbaugh in view of Roy, by adding the linear movement to the pivoting mechanism, as per the teachings of Siefering. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing complexity and improving alignment. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0214915 to Butterbaugh in view of United States Patent Application No. 2012/0285658 to Roy et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 7837798 to Kuibira et al.
The teachings of Butterbaugh in view of Roy are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 5 and 7, Butterbaugh in view of Roy do not expressly teach an exhaust mechanism configured to exhaust an atmosphere of the internal space of the housing or an exhaust mechanism configured to exhaust an atmosphere of the internal space of the housing via the internal space of the hollow swivel shaft.
Kuibira teaches a substrate support Fig. 1, 2 which is connected to an exhaust mechanism 10 which provides a vacuum into the interior of the support through the shaft 2 (Col. 3 line 35-Col. 4 line 56), to maintain the space in a state of a vacuum to improve thermal uniformity in the holder and increase thermal efficiency (Col. 3 lines 52-63).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Butterbaugh in view of Roy with the teachings of Kuibira, by adding the vacuum to the stem to the interior housing of Butterbaugh. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of improving thermal uniformity in the holder and increasing thermal efficiency. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0214915 to Butterbaugh in view of United States Patent Application No. 2012/0285658 to Roy et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0293527 to Nguyen et al.
The teachings of Butterbaugh in view of Roy are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 9, Butterbaugh in view of Roy do not expressly teach a plurality of lift pins configured to support the substrate by upper ends of the plurality of lift pins; and a lifting drive mechanism configured to raise and lower the substrate relative to the substrate holder by raising and lowering the plurality of lift pins relative to the substrate holder, wherein at least the driving force source of the lifting drive mechanism is accommodated in the housing.
Nguyen teaches a substrate support Fig. 1 where there are a plurality of lift pins 196 configured to support the substrate by the upper ends of the lift pins (see Fig. 1, [0041-0046]), a lifting drive mechanism 194 configured to raise and lower the substrate relative to the substrate holder by raising and lowering the plurality of lift pins relative to the substrate holder, wherein at least the driving force source of the lifting drive mechanism is accommodated in the housing (as 196 is in the interior space 168 of the housing 168 [0022-0053].
As it is known to provide a lift pin and lifting drive mechanism in a housing interior space, as taught by Nguyen, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shaft/interior housing space as taught by Butterbaugh in view of Roy to include the lift pins and lifting drive mechanism. One would be motivated to do so in order to be able to lift up the substrate above the substrate support/holder, which is a functionality that is well known in the art, as per the teachings of Nguyen. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 13, Butterbaugh teaches a control device 116 configured to control at least operations of the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism, the horizontal movement mechanism, and a gas supply mechanism configured to supply the gas to the gas nozzle (see Fig. 1 and [0024, 0027, 0032-0033, 0040-0048], wherein a substrate delivery region relatively close to the opening and a substrate processing region relatively far from the opening are set in the processing space (as shown in Fig. 3), but does not expressly teach wherein the control device executes: controlling the operation of the horizontal movement mechanism and an operation of the lifting drive mechanism to deliver the substrate to a rotational stage from an external substrate transfer mechanism using the plurality of lift pins by positioning the substrate holder in the substrate delivery region; controlling the operation of the horizontal movement mechanism to position the substrate holder in the substrate processing region; controlling the operations of the driving force source of the substrate holding/rotating mechanism and the horizontal movement mechanism, while controlling the irradiating of the gas cluster onto the substrate from the gas nozzle, to sequentially irradiate the gas cluster onto an irradiation target region of the upper surface of the substrate; and controlling the operations of the horizontal movement mechanism and the lifting drive mechanism to return the substrate holder to the substrate delivery region and deliver the substrate from the substrate holder to the external substrate transfer mechanism using the plurality of lift pins.
However, the limitations of execution are not recited to be “configured” to do said functions and as such need only to be “capable” of performing these functions. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Butterbaugh in view of Roy and Nguyen is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Butterbaugh in view of Roy and Nguyen would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to perform the function/execute them as claimed, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Butterbaugh in view of Roy and Nguyen and that of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 10211033 to Nguyen et al, which also teaches lift pins in a cantilevered structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights