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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“exhaust device” in claims 1, 9-14, and 18-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“exhaust device” is interpreted to require the structure(s) of a pump (see Spec. at ¶ 0030), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 4-6, 7, and 9-19 of U.S. Patent 12,371,782 (hereinafter “Conflicting Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, almost all elements of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (the same/similar elements are in boldface).
This Application
Conflicting Patent 12,371,782
1. A method of processing a substrate, comprising:
(a) processing the substrate while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber at a process pressure by operating an adjustable valve;
(b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure before (a); and
(c) after (a), supplying a predetermined gas directly to a downstream side of the adjustable valve,
wherein (c) comprises: (c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state; (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas to the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; and (c-4) purging the inside of the pipe with a purge gas while the adjustable valve is in the closed state,
wherein, in (b), data comprising at least one selected from the group of an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of an exhaust device configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber is collected a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device, and
wherein a supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.
1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising:
(a) processing a substrate while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber at a process pressure by operating an adjustable valve;
(b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure before (a);
(c) changing the inner pressure of the process chamber from the process pressure to an atmospheric pressure; and
(d) supplying a predetermined gas directly to a downstream side of the adjustable valve,
wherein (d) comprises: (d-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state; (d-2) supplying the predetermined gas to the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; (d-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; and (d-4) purging the inside of the pipe with a purge gas while the adjustable valve is in the closed state,
wherein, in (b), data comprising an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of an exhaust device configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber is collected a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device,
wherein a supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed by adjusting a time duration of (d-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value, and
wherein (d-2) is performed during the adjusted time duration while (c) and (d) are performed in parallel.
Almost all elements of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 19 of the Conflicting Patent.
Almost all elements of Claim 18 are recited in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent.
Almost all elements of Claim 18 are recited in Claim 19 of the Conflicting Patent.
Almost all elements of Claim 19 are recited in Claim 18 of the Conflicting Patent.
Almost all elements of Claim 20 are recited in Claim 18 of the Conflicting Patent.
The remaining claims of this application also share the same/similar elements with other claims of the Conflicting Patent:
The subject matter of Claim 2 is found in Claims 1 and 4 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 3 is found in Claim 5 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 5 is found in Claim 6 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 6 is found in Claim 12 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 8 is found in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 9 is found in Claim 7 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 10 is found in Claim 10 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 11 is found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 12 is found in Claim 13 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 13 is found in Claim 14 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 14 is found in Claim 15 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 15 is found in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 16 is found in Claim 17 of the Conflicting Patent;
The subject matter of Claim 17 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,782 (“Conflicting Patent”), in view of KOSHI et al. (US PGPUB 20130164943).
Almost all elements of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent (see above). Although the subject matter of Claim 4 is not recited in any claims of the Conflicting Patent, such subject matter is still disclosed by the prior art (see KOSHI at ¶ 0034).
Claim Objections
In Claim 14 lines 6-7, the language should be amended as follows:
wherein the time duration of performing (c-2) is adjusted so that (c-2) is performed for the adjusted time duration when the difference . . .
In Claim 16 line 1-3, the language should be amended as follows:
wherein a flow rate controller is provided at a supply pipe configured to directly supply the predetermined gas to the downstream side of the adjustable valve, the flow rate controller being [[and]] configured to control a flow rate of the predetermined gas, and
In claim 19 line 3, the semicolon (;) should be a colon (:).
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites two limitations:
“the time duration of performing (c-2) is adjusted so that (c-2) is performed during the adjusted time duration”;
“a subsequent cycle of (a) through (b) is prevented from being performed.”
Although each individual limitation is supported, the combination of the two limitations is not supported. When abnormality is detected (i.e., “when the difference…exceeds the threshold value continuously for a preset number of times”), one or more parameters (e.g., concentration, flow rate, supply time) of the predetermined gas (i.e., a cleaning gas) may be adjusted (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0053, 0100, 0146). Likewise, when abnormality is detected, a warning may be issued to prohibit the execution of the subsequent recipe (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0056, 0133).
But the specification does not sufficiently support combining both (1) adjusting a parameter of the predetermined gas and (2) issuing a warning to prohibit the execution of the subsequent recipe, because those two steps appear to be alternatives. According to Fig. 9A and ¶¶ 0056, 0133, adjusting a parameter like flow rate (step S24) and issuing a warning to prohibit execution of the subsequent recipe (step S25) are on alternative pathways.
The specification of this application is nearly identical to the specification of the parent application 16/884,854, so the subject matter of Claim 12 also is not sufficiently supported by the disclosures of ‘854 Application.
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 7, 8, 11, 14, and 18 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.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the supply amount of the predetermined gas is equal to a total flow rate of the predetermined gas supplied in (c).” This limitation is indefinite because “supply amount” and “flow rate” have different units of measurement. Flow rate is typically understood as amount per unit time, so it’s unclear how supply amount can equal to flow rate. For example, “supply amount” of a gas may have a unit such as liter (L), whereas “flow rate” of said gas may have a different unit such as liter per minute (L/min). Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “a total flow rate” in line 2. It’s unclear what’s meant by “a total flow rate,” a term that does not appear in the specification. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites “wherein a concentration of the predetermined gas or a type of the predetermined gas is variable before (d).” It’s unclear what action/step is required by this claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites “wherein a concentration of the predetermined gas or a type of the predetermined gas is variable before (d).” It’s unclear what is meant by (d), because there is no prior recitation of a step (d). Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a flow rate of the predetermined gas is pre-set based on the number of times that the difference…exceeds the threshold value.” First, it’s unclear what’s meant by “pre-set”: the flow rate is set before what? Clarification is requested. Second, the specification discloses that a pre-set flow rate (i.e., an “initial flow rate”) is changed based on the number of times that the difference exceeds the threshold value (see ¶¶ 0053, 0056), which is materially different from saying the flow rate is pre-set based on the number of times that the difference exceeds the threshold value. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the time duration of performing (d-2) is adjusted so that (c-2) is performed during the adjusted time duration” at line 6-7. It’s unclear what (d-2) means, because there is no prior recitation of a (d-2) step. Clarification is requested.
Claim 18 recites “the substrate” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; there is no prior recitation of “a substrate.”
Examiner’s Comments
This Office Action does not contain any prior-art rejection for Claim 15, and (to date) the Examiner has not found any prior-art references that are relevant and material to the subject matter of Claim 15. But Claim 15 still contains double patenting issues that must be resolved.
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 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSHI et al. (US PGPUB 20130164943), in view of NISHIURA et al. (US PGPUB 20150096494), MOON et al. (US PGPUB 20070095282), and ASAI (US PGPUB 20120226475).
Regarding Claim 1, KOSHI teaches a method of processing a substrate (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0003-08, 0016, 0046, Fig. 4, claims 7-11).
KOSHI teaches: a process chamber (chamber 201, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0048); an exhaust device (vacuum pump 246) configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035); an adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) positioned between the process chamber 201 and the exhaust device 246 (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035), wherein the adjustable valve is configured to adjust the inner pressure of the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0035, 0049). KOSHI also teaches an exhaust pipe (e.g., pipe 231B and/or 231C) located downstream of the adjustable valve (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0028).
KOSHI’s method comprises:
(a) processing a substrate (see ¶¶ 0046-54, Fig. 4; film formation process S30, ¶ 0050) in the process chamber (chamber 201) at a process pressure (see ¶ 0051);
(b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber (chamber 201) to the process pressure before step (a) (see ¶ 0049, step S20 in Fig. 4);
(d) changing the inner pressure of the process chamber (chamber 201) from the process pressure to an atmospheric pressure (see ¶ 0052, step S40 in Fig. 4); and
(c) supplying a predetermined gas (a cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2, see ¶¶ 0034, 0056) directly to a downstream side of the adjustable valve (see ¶ 0056, Fig. 2, supplying the cleaning gas from gas source 300d to a rear end of pressure adjustor 242 via bypass supply pipe 305) to bypass the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0056), wherein step (c) is performed after step (a) (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0056-57, cleaning the exhaust after substrate processing).
KOSHI teaches that step (a) (film formation process S30) causes deposits to accumulate in the exhaust system—the deposits causing the exhaust system to clog and malfunction (see ¶ 0055)—and the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) is used to remove such deposits (see ¶ 0055). KOSHI teaches that the predetermined gas (cleaning gas) may be supplied together with a diluent gas (see ¶ 0034), which means the predetermined gas has a concentration.
KOSHI teaches that the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) is in a closed state (see ¶ 0052, valve 242 is blocked) in the step (d) (pressure adjustment process S40), wherein step (d) is performed before the cleaning step (c) (see Fig. 4).
KOSHI teaches that cleaning step (c) comprises: (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) to the exhaust pipe (see ¶ 0056); (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the exhaust pipe (see id., purging); and (c-4) purging the inside of the exhaust pipe with a purge gas (see id., supplying inert gas).
Although KOSHI does not explicitly teach that cleaning step (c) is performed “while the adjustable valve is in a closed state,” this is still reasonably expected or considered obvious, for several reasons. First, KOSHI states that the conditions of cleaning the exhaust system are different from conditions of cleaning the process chamber (¶ 0062), such that the exhaust system and the process chamber are cleaned separately (see ¶¶ 0056-57, Fig. 5). Indeed, the cleaning gas may cause damage to the process chamber (see ¶ 0062). Second, when cleaning the process chamber, the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) is in a closed state (see ¶ 0057). Third, when cleaning the exhaust system, the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) is supplied through a bypass line 35 (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0028), which bypasses the process chamber (see Fig. 2). Fourth, the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) is in a closed state in step (d) (see ¶ 0052), which is performed before cleaning step (c) (see Fig. 4), and unloading the substrate does not require opening the adjustable valve (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0053).
Therefore, given the above disclosures from KOSHI, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that cleaning step (c) is performed while the adjustable valve 242 is in a closed state. Alternatively, it would’ve been obvious to do so, for the benefits of cleaning the exhaust system while minimizing damage to the process chamber.
And because step (c) comprises steps (c-2), (c-3), and (c-4), it’s also reasonably expected or considered obvious to perform those steps while the adjustable valve is in a closed state.
KOSHI does not explicitly teach:
the substrate is processed “while maintaining an inner pressure” of the process chamber at the process pressure “by operating [the] adjustable valve”;
step (c) comprises “(c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state”;
“wherein, in (b), data comprising at least one selected from the group of an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of [the] exhaust device . . . is collected a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device”;
“wherein a supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
NISHIURA teaches processing a substrate and then cleaning the exhaust system (abstract, ¶¶ 0077-80, 0094), just like the present application; thus, NISHIURA is analogous. NISHIURA teaches a processing chamber (chamber 29 within furnace/reactor 28, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0037, 0094; see also “reactor” in Fig. 8) having an exhaust system (see Fig. 8), and an adjustable valve 51 (also called “pressure valve” or “main valve”) for adjusting the chamber’s inner pressure (see Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0065-66, 0081, 0092, 0094), wherein the adjustable valve is positioned in the exhaust system between the process chamber and the vacuum pump (see id.).
NISHIURA teaches: loading a substrate into the processing chamber (¶ 0076); reducing the chamber’s pressure to a predetermined film-forming pressure (¶ 0077), which corresponds to the recited “process pressure”; processing the substrate by supplying a film-forming gas into the chamber in a state where the chamber’s interior is kept at the predetermined film-forming pressure (¶ 0078). In other words, NISHIURA teaches processing the substrate “while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber” at the process pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the chamber’s inner pressure is maintained by operating the adjustable valve 51 in the exhaust system (see Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0065, 0092).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KOSHI to process the substrate while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber at the process pressure by operating the adjustable valve (i.e., KOSHI’s pressure adjustor 242), with reasonable expectation of forming a film on the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to process a substrate (e.g., form a film on the substrate) (see KOSHI; see NISHIURA) while maintaining the chamber’s inner pressure at the process pressure by operating the adjustable valve (see NISHIURA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
The combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA does not explicitly teach:
cleaning step (c) comprises “(c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state”;
“wherein, in (b), data comprising at least one selected from the group of an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of [the] exhaust device . . . is collected a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device”;
“wherein a supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
MOON teaches using a predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to clean an exhaust system 20 connected to a process chamber 10 (see abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0005, 0032), just like the present application; thus, MOON is analogous. The exhaust system 20 comprises an exhaust device (vacuum pump unit 200, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0033) connected with one or more exhaust pipes (see Figs. 1-2, exhaust pipes 120, 140, 262, 264, 268).
MOON teaches that process chamber 10 is used to perform film-deposition on substrates (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0032)—i.e., a step (a) of processing the substrate—wherein byproducts (from the film-deposition) would accumulate in the exhaust system (including the vacuum pump), thereby clogging the exhaust system. As the amount of byproducts/deposits increases, the load/resistance on the vacuum pump’s motor increases, thereby deteriorating the vacuum pump’s performance (see ¶ 0006); higher amount of deposits also causes the electrical current flowing in the vacuum pump’s motor to fall outside a preset range (see ¶¶ 0021, 0063). MOON teaches continuously monitoring data regarding the exhaust device—the data includes an electric current value of the exhaust device (see ¶¶ 0019, 0021, 0063, Claims 17, 30, monitor a load/current of the motor in the vacuum pump)—so as to detect an abnormality of the exhaust device (see ¶¶ 0021, 0063).
MOON also teaches performing, after the substrate-processing step (a), a cleaning step (c) of supplying a predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to clean the exhaust system 20—which comprises the exhaust device (vacuum pump 200) and related exhaust pipes (see Figs. 1-2)—in a state in which the exhaust pipes are being exhausted (see Fig. 5, ¶ 0050). In other words, MOON teaches that cleaning step (c) comprises: (c-1) depressurizing an inside of the exhaust pipe (see id.); (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to the exhaust pipe (see id.); (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the pipe (see id., the applied vacuum or suction would remove residuals of the cleaning gas).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA to incorporate (c-1) depressurizing an inside of the exhaust pipe, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the exhaust system. It’s already known in the prior art to supply a predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to the exhaust system (see KOSHI; see MOON), wherein the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) is supplied while the exhaust pipes are being depressurized (see MOON). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination: cleaning step (c) would comprise (c-1) depressurizing an inside of an exhaust pipe (pipe 231B and/or 231C of KOSHI), which is located downstream of the adjustable valve (as explained above), and (c-1) would be performed while the adjustable valve is in a closed state (as explained above).
Moreover, it would’ve been obvious to modify the combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA to incorporate continuously monitoring data regarding the exhaust device (e.g., vacuum pump 246 of KOSHI), wherein the data includes an electric current value of the exhaust device, with reasonable expectation of detecting an abnormality of the exhaust device. First, given the benefit of detecting an abnormality of the exhaust device, which may be clogged by deposits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to continuously monitor data (e.g., electric current value) regarding the exhaust device. Second, it’s already known in the prior art that deposits accumulating in the exhaust system can cause clogging/malfunction (see KOSHI; see MOON), and it’s already known to continuously monitor data (e.g., electric current value) regarding the exhaust device to detect an abnormality of the exhaust device (see MOON). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination: because data (e.g., electric current value) regarding the exhaust device (KOSHI’s vacuum pump 246) is continuously monitored, it would be monitored in step (b) and the data would be collected a plurality of times.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to change a supply amount of the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) by adjusting a time duration of step (c-2) —which is the step of supplying the predetermined gas (cleaning gas) to the exhaust pipe (as explained above) —when data regarding the exhaust device indicates an abnormality in the exhaust device.
That’s because the data regarding the exhaust device (e.g., load/current of the pump motor) is related to the amount of deposits in the vacuum pump (as explained above, more deposits cause the pump motor’s load/current to change). In turn, the amount of deposits is related to the amount of cleaning gas needed to remove them (i.e., a higher amount of deposits requires more cleaning gas for removal); in other words, the supply amount of cleaning gas for removing the deposits is result effective. And because the supply amount of a gas is related to its concentration, flow rate, and supply time (i.e., amount = concentration × flow rate × time), the cleaning gas’s concentration, flow rate, and supply time are also result effective: by changing one or more of the three parameters, the supply amount of cleaning gas is changed, which in turn affects the removal of deposits in the exhaust system.
Because supply time of the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) is result effective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover— through routine experimentation— a workable or optimal value for the supply time (i.e., “time duration of step (c-2)”) of the cleaning gas (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.) and adjust such supply time when data regarding the exhaust device indicates an abnormality in the exhaust device.
The combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, and MOON does not explicitly teach that the time duration of (c-2) is changed “according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
ASAI teaches performing a substrate processing recipe in a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0004, 0056, 0084, 0132), just like the present application; thus, ASAI is analogous. ASAI teaches that the substrate processing recipe includes: (a) processing a substrate in a process chamber at a process pressure (film forming step S14 in furnace 202, see Fig. 3, 5, ¶¶ 0033, 0084, 0132) and (b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure before step (a) (decompression step S11, see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0084, 0132).
ASAI teaches monitoring and collecting data regarding the substrate processing apparatus (see abstract, Claims 1 & 6, ¶¶ 0009, 0068, 0091) at various steps of the process recipe (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0084, 0087)—wherein the recipe includes step (b)—across a plurality of batches (see ¶¶ 0087, 0090-91; see also Figs. 6, 7A).
ASAI teaches an abnormality determination technique based on data regarding the apparatus. In particular, ASAI teaches determining whether abnormality has occurred according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (as explained above, the recipe includes step (b)) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (i.e., step (b) in an earlier batch) exceeds a threshold value (see ¶¶ 0090-91, 0105-06, abnormality is detected when data points are continuously increased). The abnormality determination technique has benefits, such as determining abnormality in a consistent manner without relying on a human operator’s capability and experience (see ¶ 0152).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, and MOON to apply ASAI’s abnormality determination technique—e.g., determining whether abnormality has occurred according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (e.g., step (b) of the current batch) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (e.g., step (b) of a previous batch) exceeds a threshold value—on the data regarding the exhaust device, with reasonable expectation of determining an abnormality in the exhaust device.
First, given the benefits of determining abnormality in a consistent manner without relying on a human operator’s capability and experience (see ASAI at ¶ 0152), one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to apply ASAI’s abnormality determination technique to data regarding the exhaust device, in order to determine an abnormality in the exhaust device.
Second, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, and MOON already teaches monitoring data regarding the exhaust device—the data is collected continuously, including in step (b)—for the purpose of determining an abnormality in the exhaust device. And it’s already known in the prior art to determine abnormality according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (e.g., step (b) of the current batch) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (e.g., step (b) of a previous batch) exceeds a threshold value (see ASAI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-21; MPEP § 2143, A. Here, by applying ASAI’s abnormality determination technique to the data regarding the exhaust device, an abnormality of the exhaust device would be readily determined, thus yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI: the data regarding the exhaust device (e.g., the load/current of the motor in KOSHI’s vacuum pump 246) would be monitored continuously, including in step (b) of each batch; an abnormality of the exhaust device would be determined according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (e.g., step (b) of the current batch) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (e.g., step (b) of a previous batch) exceeds a threshold value; and in response to determining such abnormality, the supply amount of the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) would be changed by adjusting a time duration of step (c-2).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches: (d) changing the inner pressure of the process chamber (KOSHI’s chamber 201) from the process pressure to an atmospheric pressure (see KOSHI at ¶ 0052, step S40 in Fig. 4). The combination teaches that an inert gas is supplied to the process chamber in step (d) (see KOSHI at ¶ 0052, step S40 in Fig. 4), such inert gas is different from the predetermined gas in (c-2) (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the predetermined gas comprises a halogen-containing gas (NF3, ClF3, F2, as explained above).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the predetermined gas comprises a fluorine-containing gas (NF3, ClF3, F2, as explained above).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the predetermined gas comprises a cleaning gas (NF3, ClF3, F2, as explained above).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the purge gas comprises an inert gas (see KOSHI at ¶ 0056).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein a concentration of the predetermined gas is variable before (d) (see KOSHI at Fig. 2, ¶ 0027, concentration of the cleaning gas may be controlled using MFC 241D).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches determining an abnormality of the exhaust device based on data regarding the exhaust device collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)). The combination also teaches wherein an average value of the data regarding the exhaust device collected in the given step is calculated (see ASAI at ¶ 0082, tables 7B-7C), and the average value is compared with an average value calculated from the data regarding the exhaust device collected in the previous execution of the given step (see ASAI at ¶¶ 0090-91, 0105-06).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches changing the supply amount of the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) according to a number of times that a difference between the data in (b) and data in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value. If the data in (b) does not change between batches (i.e., the difference between data is equal to or smaller than the threshold value), then there’s no abnormality in the exhaust device that would require changing the supply amount of the predetermined gas (i.e., the supply amount remains unchanged).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1.
As explained above, an abnormality of the exhaust device (vacuum pump 246 of KOSHI) is determined “based on the number of times that the difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in the previous execution of (b) exceeds the threshold value.”
As explained above, the flow rate of the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) is result effective: by changing flow rate, the supply amount of cleaning gas is changed, which in turn affects the removal of deposits in the exhaust system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover—through routine experimentation—a workable or optimal value for the flow rate of the predetermined gas (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.) and pre-set the flow rate when data regarding the exhaust device indicates an abnormality in the exhaust device (i.e., “based on the number of times that the difference…exceeds the threshold value”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches determining an abnormality in the exhaust device according to a number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of the same step exceeds a threshold value.
The combination teaches that an alarm is generated when abnormality is determined (see ASAI at ¶ 0003), wherein abnormality may be determined when data points are continuously increased for a pre-set number of times, such as six times (see ASAI at ¶¶ 0090-91, 0105-06). In such example: the threshold value would be 0%; the difference between data collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step has exceeded the threshold value (0%) for six times; and six times is greater than an upper limit (e.g., five times). In other words, the combination teaches that an alarm is generated when said “number of times” is greater than an upper limit.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches determining an abnormality in the exhaust device according to a number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of the same step exceeds a threshold value.
The combination teaches that an abnormality may be determined when data points are continuously increased for a pre-set number of times, such as six times (see ASAI at ¶¶ 0090-91, 0105-06). This means that: (1) the number of times that the difference between the data collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)) and the data collected in the previous execution of the same step exceeds the threshold value (e.g., exceed a threshold of 0%) is counted; (2) the number of times is reset to zero when the difference is equal to the threshold value (e.g., equal to a threshold of 0%) before the number of times reaches a preset number of times (e.g., six times); (3) an abnormality is detected when the difference between the data collected in a given step (e.g., step (b)) and the data collected in the previous execution of the same step exceeds the threshold value continuously for the preset number of times (e.g., six times).
As explained above, when abnormality is detected (e.g., “when the difference…exceeds the threshold value continuously for the preset number of times”), the time duration of performing (c-2) is adjusted, which means step (c-2) is performed during the adjusted time duration.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches a flow rate controller (MFC 241D of KOSHI) configured to control a flow rate of the predetermined gas (see KOSHI at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0027-29), wherein the flow rate controller (MFC 241D) is provided at a supply pipe (pipe 305 of KOSHI) configured to directly supply the predetermined gas to the downstream side of the adjustable valve (see KOSHI at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0028, 0056). The combination teaches wherein the supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed (as explained above) by changing the flow rate of the predetermined gas by the flow rate controller (see KOSHI at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0027-29).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches a method of processing a substrate (as explained above), which is also a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (see KOSHI at ¶¶ 0002, 0007).
As explained above, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method comprising:
(a) processing the substrate while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber at a process pressure by operating an adjustable valve;
(b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure before (a);
(c) after (a), supplying a predetermined gas directly to a downstream side of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state, wherein (c) comprises: (c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas to the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the pipe while the adjustable valve is in the closed state; and (c-4) purging the inside of the pipe with a purge gas while the adjustable valve is in the closed state,
wherein, in (b), data comprising an electric current value of an exhaust device—which is configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber—is collected a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device, and
wherein a supply amount of the predetermined gas is changed by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.
Regarding Claim 19, KOSHI teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1-2), the apparatus comprising: a process chamber (chamber 201, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0048); an exhaust device (vacuum pump 246) configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035); an adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) positioned between the process chamber 201 and the exhaust device 246 (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035), wherein the adjustable valve is configured to adjust the inner pressure of the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0035, 0049). KOSHI also teaches an exhaust pipe (e.g., pipe 231B and/or 231C) located downstream of the adjustable valve (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0028).
KOSHI teaches the apparatus comprises a controller (controller 500, see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0040-44) configured to perform a process recipe, wherein the process recipe comprising:
(a) processing a substrate (see ¶¶ 0046-54, Fig. 4; film formation process S30, ¶ 0050) in the process chamber (chamber 201) at a process pressure (see ¶ 0051);
(b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber (chamber 201) to the process pressure before step (a) (see ¶ 0049, step S20 in Fig. 4);
(d) changing the inner pressure of the process chamber (chamber 201) from the process pressure to an atmospheric pressure (see ¶ 0052, step S40 in Fig. 4); and
(c) supplying a predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2, see ¶¶ 0034, 0056) directly to a downstream side of the adjustable valve (see ¶ 0056, Fig. 2, supplying cleaning gas from gas source 300d to a rear end of pressure adjustor 242 via bypass supply pipe 305) to bypass the process chamber (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0056), wherein step (c) is performed after step (a) (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0056-57, cleaning the exhaust after substrate processing).
KOSHI teaches that step (a) (film formation process S30) causes deposits to accumulate in the exhaust system—the deposits causing the exhaust system to clog and malfunction (see ¶ 0055)—and the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) is used to remove such deposits (see ¶ 0055). KOSHI teaches that the predetermined gas (cleaning gas) may be supplied together with a diluent gas (see ¶ 0034), which means the predetermined gas has a concentration.
KOSHI teaches that the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242) is in a closed state (see ¶ 0052, valve 242 is blocked) in the step (d) (pressure adjustment process S40), wherein step (d) is performed before the cleaning step (c) (see Fig. 4).
KOSHI teaches that cleaning step (c) comprises: (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) to the exhaust pipe (see ¶ 0056); (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the exhaust pipe (see id., purging); and (c-4) purging the inside of the exhaust pipe with a purge gas (see id., supplying inert gas).
As explained above, although KOSHI does not explicitly teach that cleaning step (c) is performed “while the adjustable valve is in a closed state,” this is still reasonably expected or considered obvious. Moreover, it’s reasonably expected or considered obvious to perform steps (c-2), (c-3), and (c-4) while the adjustable valve is in a closed state.
KOSHI does not explicitly teach:
the substrate is processed “while maintaining an inner pressure” of the process chamber at the process pressure “by operating [the] adjustable valve”;
step (c) comprises “(c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state”;
the controller is configured to perform “collecting data, comprising at least one selected from the group of an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of an exhaust device configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber, a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device”;
the controller is configured to perform “changing a supply amount of the predetermined gas by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
NISHIURA teaches processing a substrate and then cleaning the exhaust system (abstract, ¶¶ 0077-80, 0094), just like the present application; thus, NISHIURA is analogous. NISHIURA teaches a processing chamber (chamber 29 within furnace/reactor 28, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0037, 0094; see also “reactor” in Fig. 8) having an exhaust system (see Fig. 8), and an adjustable valve 51 (also called “pressure valve” or “main valve”) for adjusting the chamber’s inner pressure (see Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0065-66, 0081, 0092, 0094), wherein the adjustable valve is positioned in the exhaust system between the process chamber and the vacuum pump (see id.).
NISHIURA teaches: loading a substrate into the processing chamber (¶ 0076); reducing the chamber’s pressure to a predetermined film-forming pressure (¶ 0077), which corresponds to the recited “process pressure”; processing the substrate by supplying a film-forming gas into the chamber in a state where the chamber’s interior is kept at the predetermined film-forming pressure (¶ 0078). In other words, NISHIURA teaches processing the substrate “while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber” at the process pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the chamber’s inner pressure is maintained by operating the adjustable valve 51 in the exhaust system (see Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0065, 0092).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KOSHI to process the substrate while maintaining an inner pressure of a process chamber at the process pressure by operating the adjustable valve (i.e., KOSHI’s pressure adjustor 242), with reasonable expectation of forming a film on the substrate.
The combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA does not explicitly teach:
step (c) comprises “(c-1) depressurizing an inside of a pipe located downstream of the adjustable valve while the adjustable valve is in a closed state”;
the controller is configured to perform “collecting data, comprising at least one selected from the group of an electric current value, a rotation speed and a back pressure of an exhaust device configured to exhaust an inner atmosphere of the process chamber, a plurality of times as data regarding the exhaust device”;
the controller is configured to perform “changing a supply amount of the predetermined gas by adjusting a time duration of (c-2) according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
MOON teaches using a predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to clean an exhaust system 20 connected to a process chamber 10 (see abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0005, 0032), just like the present application; thus, MOON is analogous. The exhaust system 20 comprises an exhaust device (vacuum pump unit 200, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0033) connected with one or more exhaust pipes (see Figs. 1-2, exhaust pipes 120, 140, 262, 264, 268).
MOON teaches that process chamber 10 is used to perform film-deposition on substrates (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0032)—i.e., a step (a) of processing the substrate—wherein byproducts (from the film-deposition) would accumulate in the exhaust system (including the vacuum pump), thereby clogging the exhaust system. As the amount of byproducts/deposits increases, the load/resistance on the vacuum pump’s motor increases, thereby deteriorating the vacuum pump’s performance (see ¶ 0006); higher amount of deposits also causes the electrical current flowing in the vacuum pump’s motor to fall outside a preset range (see ¶¶ 0021, 0063). MOON teaches continuously monitoring data regarding the exhaust device—the data includes an electric current value of the exhaust device (see ¶¶ 0019, 0021, 0063, Claims 17, 30, monitor a load/current of the motor in the vacuum pump)—so as to detect an abnormality of the exhaust device (see ¶¶ 0021, 0063).
MOON also teaches performing, after the substrate-processing step (a), a cleaning step (c) of supplying a predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to clean the exhaust system 20—which comprises the exhaust device (vacuum pump 200) and related exhaust pipes (see Figs. 1-2)—in a state in which the exhaust pipes are being exhausted (see Fig. 5, ¶ 0050). In other words, MOON teaches that cleaning step (c) comprises: (c-1) depressurizing an inside of the exhaust pipe (see id.); (c-2) supplying the predetermined gas (i.e., cleaning gas) to the exhaust pipe (see id.); (c-3) removing residuals of the predetermined gas from the inside of the pipe (see id., the applied vacuum or suction would remove residuals of the cleaning gas).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA to incorporate (c-1) depressurizing an inside of the exhaust pipe, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the exhaust system.
In the resulting combination: cleaning step (c) would comprise (c-1) depressurizing an inside of an exhaust pipe (pipe 231B and/or 231C of KOSHI), which is located downstream of the adjustable valve (as explained above), and (c-1) would be performed while the adjustable valve is in a closed state (as explained above).
Moreover, it would’ve been obvious to modify the combination of KOSHI and NISHIURA to configure the controller (KOSHI’s controller 500) to continuously monitor data regarding the exhaust device (e.g., vacuum pump 246 of KOSHI), wherein the data includes an electric current value of the exhaust device, with reasonable expectation of detecting an abnormality of the exhaust device. First, given the benefit of detecting an abnormality of the exhaust device, which may be clogged by deposits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to continuously monitor data (e.g., electric current value) regarding the exhaust device. Second, it’s already known in the prior art that deposits accumulating in the exhaust system can cause clogging/malfunction (see KOSHI; see MOON), it’s already known to automate the various operations of a substrate processing apparatus using a controller (see KOSHI), and it’s already known to continuously monitor data (e.g., electric current value) regarding the exhaust device to detect an abnormality of the exhaust device (see MOON). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination: the controller (controller 500 of KOSHI) would be configured to collect data (e.g., electric current value) of the exhaust device (vacuum pump 246 of KOSHI) continuously as data regarding the exhaust device, which means the data would be collected in step (b) and collected a plurality of times.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to configure the controller to change a supply amount of the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) by adjusting a time duration of step (c-2)—which is the step of supplying the predetermined gas (cleaning gas) to the exhaust pipe (as explained above)—when data regarding the exhaust device indicates an abnormality in the exhaust device. This is because the supply amount of cleaning gas for removing the deposits is result effective (as explained above). Moreover, because supply amount = concentration × flow rate × supply time, the cleaning gas’s concentration, flow rate, and supply time are also result effective: by changing one or more of the three parameters, the supply amount of cleaning gas is changed, which in turn affects the removal of deposits in the exhaust system. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover—through routine experimentation —a workable or optimal value for the supply time (i.e., “time duration of step (c-2)”) of the cleaning gas (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.) and adjust such supply time when data regarding the exhaust device indicates an abnormality in the exhaust device.
The combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, and MOON does not explicitly teach that the time duration of (c-2) is changed “according to number of times that a difference between the data regarding the exhaust device collected in (b) and the data regarding the exhaust device collected in a previous execution of (b) exceeds a threshold value.”
ASAI teaches performing a substrate processing recipe in a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0004, 0056, 0084, 0132), just like the present application; thus, ASAI is analogous. ASAI teaches that the substrate processing recipe includes: (a) processing a substrate in a process chamber at a process pressure (film forming step S14 in furnace 202, see Fig. 3, 5, ¶¶ 0033, 0084, 0132) and (b) adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure before step (a) (decompression step S11, see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0084, 0132).
ASAI teaches monitoring and collecting data regarding the substrate processing apparatus (see abstract, Claims 1 & 6, ¶¶ 0009, 0068, 0091) at various steps of the process recipe (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0084, 0087)—wherein the recipe includes step (b)—across a plurality of batches (see ¶¶ 0087, 0090-91; see also Figs. 6, 7A).
ASAI teaches an abnormality determination technique based on data regarding the apparatus. In particular, ASAI teaches determining whether abnormality has occurred according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (as explained above, the recipe includes step (b)) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (i.e., step (b) in an earlier batch) exceeds a threshold value (see ¶¶ 0090-91, 0105-06, abnormality is detected when data points are continuously increased). The abnormality determination technique has benefits, such as determining abnormality in a consistent manner without relying on a human operator’s capability and experience (see ¶ 0152).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, and MOON to apply ASAI’s abnormality determination technique—e.g., determining whether abnormality has occurred according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (e.g., step (b) of the current batch) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (e.g., step (b) of a previous batch) exceeds a threshold value—on the data regarding the exhaust device, with reasonable expectation of determining an abnormality in the exhaust device.
In the resulting combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI:
the controller (KOSHI’s controller 500) would be configured to continuously collect
data regarding the exhaust device (e.g., the load/current of the motor in KOSHI’s vacuum pump 246), including in step (b) of each batch;
the controller would determine an abnormality of the exhaust device according to a number of times that a difference between the data collected in a given step of the recipe (e.g., step (b) of the current batch) and data collected in a previous execution of the same step (e.g., step (b) of a previous batch) exceeds a threshold value;
and in response to determining such abnormality, the controller would change the supply amount of the predetermined gas (cleaning gas such as NF3, ClF3, F2) by adjusting a time duration of step (c-2).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (memory, see KOSHI at ¶¶ 0040-44) storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform the method (see id.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI (as applied to Claim 1), in view of UMEHARA et al. (US PGPUB 20190078198).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches: (d) changing the inner pressure of the process chamber (KOSHI’s chamber 201) from the process pressure to an atmospheric pressure (see KOSHI at ¶ 0052, step S40 in Fig. 4).
As explained above, in the pressure adjustment step (d), the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242 of KOSHI) is in a closed state. Because the substrate is not yet unloaded in step (d) (see KOSHI at ¶¶ 0052-53), step (d) may be considered a post-deposition period.
As explained above, in the cleaning step (c), the adjustable valve (pressure adjustor 242 of KOSHI) is in a closed state.
The combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI does not explicitly teach that step (c) and step (d) are performed in parallel.
UMEHARA teaches processing a substrate in a process chamber and then using a predetermined gas to clean the exhaust system (see abstract, Figs. 1 & 6, ¶¶ 0084-102), just like the present application; thus, UMEHARA is analogous. UMEHARA teaches that the exhaust-cleaning step can be performed in parallel with a wide variety of other steps to reduce/avoid downtime (see ¶¶ 0094-96). For example, the exhaust-cleaning step can be performed in parallel with a film-forming process (see Fig. 6A, ¶ 0094), in parallel with a post-deposition period (see Fig. 6B, ¶ 0095), and in parallel with a period in-between recipes (see Fig. 6C, ¶ 0096).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KOSHI, NISHIURA, MOON, and ASAI to perform step (c) (the exhaust-cleaning step) in parallel with another step, such as step (d) (which is in the post-deposition period), with reasonable expectation of reducing or avoiding downtime. First, given the benefit of reducing or avoiding downtime, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to perform step (c) in parallel with another step, such as step (d). Second, it’s already known in the prior art to perform a step (c) of cleaning the exhaust system (see KOSHI; see UMEHARA), wherein step (c) is performed in parallel with a post-deposition period (see UMEHARA), wherein step (d) may be considered a post-deposition period (as explained above). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TANABE (US PGPUB 20200370175) teaches cleaning the vacuum pump while unloading the substrate (see abstract).
YONEJIMA et al. (US PGPUB 20180144953) teaches monitoring the pump’s electrical current at various steps to determine abnormality (see ¶¶ 0102-03, 0107).
ASAI et al. (US PGPUB 20180120822) teaches calculating the difference between an average value (see ¶¶ 0032, 0055) of a parameter in the current batch with an average value of the same parameter in the previous batch (see ¶¶ 0067, 0102).
SCHUMACHER (US PGPUB 20050161158) teaches monitoring back pressure of exhaust line to detect clogging (see ¶¶ 0011, 0036, 0040).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights