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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on July 18, 2025 was received has been entered. Claims 5, 7-9, and 21-23 were amended. Claims 1-4 and 13-20 were previously withdrawn. New claims 21-24 were added. Claims 5-12 and 21-24 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “foreline” in claims 5 and 21 is used by the claim to generally mean “line located between vacuum pump and an exhaust duct from a processing chamber” while the accepted meaning is “a vacuum line between the pumps of multistage vacuum system”. Examiner is considering definition suggested by the usage in the specification as “line located between vacuum pump and an exhaust duct from a processing chamber”. Clarification is requested.
Specification
The previous objection to the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter based on the following previously cited occurrences is withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 5 and 21.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 5 for reciting “a purge gas” and “a foreline purge gas into the foreline” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 5.
The previous objection to claims 5 and 21 (previously misidentified as claim 22) recite : “residual gas” is withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 5 and 22.
The previous objection to claim 5 for reciting: “ pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline, the pulsing the foreline gas comprising:” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 5.
The previous objection to claim 5 for reciting: “ a purge gas line fluidly coupled to the foreline at a location exterior of the chamber body;
…
flowing residual gas in the process chamber into the foreline downstream of the connection into the purge gas line into the foreline:” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 5.
The previous objection to claim 9 recites : “gas outtake line” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim 21 is objected to for the following terms:
The workpiece entry and exit opening, the gas diffuser, an intake system these terms are being interpreted as the following terms recited earlier in the claim
The Substrate exchange opening, the intake portal opening, and the intake portal opening. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-12 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 5 recites : a first pump fluidly connected only to the outtake line and to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline.
It is unclear if outtake line refers to the second gas outtake line or the first gas outtake system or the foreline. Based on Fig. 1, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows: “a first pump (126) fluidly connected only to the second outtake line and to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline”. Clarification is requested.
Claims 6-12 are rejected based on their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 5.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120222813 A1 to Pal et al (hereinafter Pal) .
Regarding claim 5, Shinriki teaches a processing system, comprising: a processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 5, 7 ), comprising: a processing chamber (20, 12, 26, 28) comprising a chamber body (12, 26, 28 ) defining a processing region; and an outtake system comprising:
an exhaust channel (T-junction section of pipe extending between 27 and 1) coupled to the chamber processing region; a first outtake system comprising: a foreline ( pipeline in lower left of Figs. 1, 5, 7, including valve 28 ) fluidly coupled to the chamber body at the exhaust channel (T-junction section of pipe extending between 27 and 1) . (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki teaches a second gas outtake line (pipeline including 29 and 27) separate from the foreline (pipeline including valve 28) and including a second gas outtake line connected to the chamber processing region through the exhaust channel (T-junction section of pipe extending between 27 and 1) and to the foreline (pipeline including valve 28). (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki teaches a chamber body (12, 26, 28) and a ceiling (top of chamber body) defining a processing region (region below ceiling), an intake portal opening (12) in the ceiling fluidly connected to the processing region and a substrate support (14) disposed within the processing region and having a support surface thereon facing intake portal opening, and a substrate exchange opening (gate valve 200) extending through the chamber body, the substrate support located at a processing position above the substrate exchange opening (200) and below the intake portal opening (12) during substrate processing, an exhaust channel (channel including 25) coupled to the chamber processing region at a location between the substrate exchange opening and the ceiling, below the intake portal opening and at the side of the substrate support in the substrate processing region. (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach a purge gas line fluidly coupled to the foreline at a location exterior of the chamber body.
Watson is directed to the cleaning of a pump used to evacuate a semiconductor processing tool.
Watson teaches a purge gas line fluidly coupled to the foreline at a location exterior of the chamber body. (See Watson, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 4, 17, 28-29.) (Examiner is considering a supply of inert gas using a valve in Watson to be equivalent to a purge gas line. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a purge gas line fluidly coupled to the foreline at a location exterior of the chamber body; because Watson teaches placing the purge gas directly into the foreline at a location further upstream (i.e. closer to the reactor) can reduce the cost and the difficulty of providing long runs of piping to locations further downstream. (See Watson, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 4, 17, 28-29.)
Shinriki teaches a gas outtake line separate from the foreline and operatively connected to the chamber processing region through the exhaust channel and to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline.
Shinriki does not explicitly teach the gas outtake line … connected … to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the include the gas outtake line … connected … to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material location for the purge gas line on the foreline, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal location for the purge gas line and reduce the expense and inconvenience of connecting the purge gas line with long runs of piping to locations further downstream on the foreline. (See Watson, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 4, 17, 28-29.) . (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969))
Shinriki does not explicitly teach a purge gas source fluidly coupled to the purge gas line; and a purge gas valve disposed in the purge gas line.
Watson teaches a purge gas source (inert gas such as nitrogen or argon) fluidly coupled to the purge gas line; and a purge gas valve (22) disposed in the purge gas line. (See Watson, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 4, 17, 28-29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a purge gas source fluidly coupled to the purge gas line; and a purge gas valve disposed in the purge gas line; because Watson teaches this would placing the purge gas directly into the foreline at a location further upstream (i.e. closer to the reactor) can reduce the cost and the difficulty of providing long runs of piping to locations further downstream. (See Watson, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 4, 17, 28-29.)
Further regarding claim 5, Shinriki does not explicitly teach a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: supplying a process gas into the processing chamber;
supplying a foreline purge gas into the foreline; and pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline, the pulsing the foreline purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve
Dickinson teaches a controller coupled to the purge gas valve (112), the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: supplying a process gas into the processing chamber; supplying a foreline purge gas (non-reactive gas) into the foreline (102) ; and pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline (turn valve off and on, intermittent supply) , the pulsing the foreline purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve(turn valve off and on). (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 7-8, 24-26, 30-31, 37-39 and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: supplying a process gas into the processing chamber; supplying a foreline purge gas into the foreline; and pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline, the pulsing the foreline purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve, because Dickinson teaches this structure would enable the optimal conversion of the exhaust gas. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 29-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Further regarding claim 5, Shinriki teaches flow gas (reactant gas) from the process chamber into the foreline (50 via 52) at a position which is downstream of the connection into the purge gas line to the foreline. (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, Abstract, and paragraphs 53 and 71-81.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: … pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline, the pulsing the foreline purge gas comprising: flow residual gas in the process chamber into the foreline downstream of the connection into the purge gas line into the foreline.
Dickinson teaches a controller may be provided and coupled to various components of the substrate processing system to control the operation thereof. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 27, 29-30, and 40, Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: … pulsing the foreline purge gas into the foreline, the pulsing the foreline purge gas comprising: flow residual gas in the process chamber into the foreline downstream of the connection into the purge gas line into the foreline, because Dickinson teaches this structure would enable the optimal conversion of the exhaust gas and allow for coordinated control of reagent flow and foreline pressure control. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 29-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 5, Shinriki does not explicitly teach a first pump connected only to the outtake line and to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline.
Pal teaches pumps connected to the foreline at different locations.
Pal teaches the use of pumps to provide the desired conductance of the conduit connected to the chamber. (See Pal, Abstract, Fig. 5, and paragraphs 7-8 and 28.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first pump connected only to the outtake line and to the foreline at a position downstream of the connection of the purge gas line to the foreline, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper pump and proper pump location, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the conductance for the conduit leaving the chamber. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Pal, Abstract, Fig. 5, and paragraphs 7-8 and 28.)
Regarding claim 5, Shinriki does not explicitly teach a second pump fluidly connected to the foreline at a location fluidly downstream of the connection of the first pump to the foreline.
Pal teaches multiple pumps connected to the foreline at different locations.
Pal teaches the use of pumps to provide the desired conductance of the conduit connected to the chamber. (See Pal, Abstract, Fig. 5, and paragraphs 7-8 and 28.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second pump fluidly connected to the foreline at a location fluidly downstream of the connection of the first pump to the foreline, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper pump and proper pump location, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the conductance for the conduit leaving the chamber. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Pal, Abstract, Fig. 5, and paragraphs 7-8 and 28.)
Dickinson teaches the flow of nitrogen may be between a desired number of process runs or when water vapor is flowing. (See Dickinson, paragraphs 38 and 40.) Examiner is considering nitrogen or a cleaning gas to be equivalent to a foreline purge gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the alternately opening and closing of the purge gas valve occur at a rate of about 0.02 s to about 5 min, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper timing, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal operating conditions. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 30-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 6, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve occurs at a rate of about 0.02 s to about 5 min.
Dickinson teaches the flow of nitrogen may be between a desired number of process runs or when water vapor is flowing. (See Dickinson, paragraphs 38 and 40.) Examiner is considering nitrogen or a cleaning gas to be equivalent to a foreline purge gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the alternately opening and closing of the purge gas valve occur at a rate of about 0.02 s to about 5 min, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper timing, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal operating conditions. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 30-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 7, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the foreline purge gas comprises nitrogen gas (N2) or argon (Ar).
Dickinson teaches the foreline purge gas comprises nitrogen gas (N2) or argon (Ar). (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 7-8, 24-26, 30-31, 37-39 and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the foreline purge gas comprises nitrogen gas (N2) or argon (Ar), because Dickinson teaches this structure would enable the pressure and flow with the foreline to be controlled to reduce maintenance and possibility of failure of components. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 30-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 8, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the pulsing the foreline purge gas, a gas ratio between the process gas and a process purge gas in the processing region remains about constant.
Dickinson teaches the flow of cleaning gas may be varied between intermittent or continuous supply (See Dickinson, paragraphs 4, 24, and 28.) Examiner is considering nitrogen or a cleaning gas to be equivalent to a process purge gas. Examiner is considering varying the times when the cleaning gas is supplied to be equivalent to varying the ratio of the cleaning gas supplied to the process gas supplied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have during the pulsing the foreline purge gas, a gas ratio between the process gas and a process purge gas in the processing region remains about constant, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the ratio of timing for gas supply relative to the process runs, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal operating and cleaning conditions. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 4, 6-8, 24-28, 30-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
The previous rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) as applied to claim 5 in view of US Pat. Pub. 20050268694 A1 to Moriya et al (hereinafter Moriya) and “Instructions Variable Leak Valve Model Nos. 951-5100 and 951-5106” by Varian, Palo Alto Vacuum Division, 87-400 085, October 1980, p. 17 (hereinafter Varian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030215569 A1 to Mardian et al (hereinafter Mardian) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120222813 A1 to Pal et al (hereinafter Pal) as applied to claim 5 in view of US Pat. Pub. 20050268694 A1 to Moriya et al (hereinafter Moriya) and “Instructions Variable Leak Valve Model Nos. 951-5100 and 951-5106” by Varian, Palo Alto Vacuum Division, 87-400 085, October 1980, p. 17 (hereinafter Varian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030215569 A1 to Mardian et al (hereinafter Mardian).
Regarding claim 9, Shinriki teaches the processing system further comprises a secondary outtake system (line including 27 and 29) , comprising: a gas outtake line (line including 27 and 29) fluidly coupled to the chamber body (1). (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach the processing system further comprises a secondary outtake system, comprising:… one or more gas leak lines fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line; and one or more leak valves disposed in the one or more gas leak lines.
Moriya is directed to an exhaust path in a processing system.
Moriya teaches the processing system further comprises a secondary outtake system, comprising: a gas outtake line (rough pumping line 200) fluidly coupled to the chamber body (110) ; one or more gas leak lines (lines connected to leak valve equivalents a, b) fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line; and one or more leak valves (leak valve equivalents a, b) disposed in the one or more gas leak lines. (Moriya, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 77.) Examiner is considering valves in a gas outtake line (rough pumping line) to be equivalent to two leak lines fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line with a leak valve disposed in each of the gas leak line based on Varian which teaches leak valves used as roughing valves in coordination with a roughing pump and a roughing line. ( See Varian, page 17, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the processing system further comprises a secondary outtake system, comprising: a gas outtake line fluidly coupled to the chamber body; one or more gas leak lines fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line; and one or more leak valves disposed in the one or more gas leak lines, because Moriya teaches this structure would enable the rate of the exhaust gas to be controlled. (Moriya, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 77.)
Regarding claim 9, Shinriki does not explicitly teach wherein the gas outtake line is fluidly coupled to the exhaust channel within the chamber body.
Mardian is directed to an exhaust path in a processing system.
Mardian teaches the gas outtake line (36) is fluidly coupled to the exhaust channel (22) within the chamber body (10). (Moriya, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 77.) ( Examiner is considering gas outtake line (36) to be fluidly coupled to the exhaust channel (22) within the chamber body (10) based on the gas outtake line (36) and the exhaust channel (22) being connected within the plenum chamber (30). ) (See Mardian, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 17-22, 25, 28.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gas outtake line is fluidly coupled to the exhaust channel within the chamber body, because Mardian teaches this would reduce the unwanted deposition of the surface of components. (See Mardian, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 17-22, 25, 28.)
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).
Regarding claim 11, Shinriki teaches the secondary outtake system further (pipeline including 29 and 27) comprises a vacuum pump (29) fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line. (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Regarding claim 12, Shinriki does not explicitly teach processing system comprising two gas leak lines and two leak valves.
Moriya teaches the processing system comprising two gas leak lines (lines attached to leak valve equivalents a, b) two leak valves ( leak valve equivalents a, b). (Moriya, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 77.) Examiner is considering valves in a gas outtake line (rough pumping line) to be equivalent to two leak lines fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line with a leak valve disposed in each of the gas leak line based on Varian which teaches leak valves used as roughing valves in coordination with a roughing pump and a roughing line. ( See Varian, page 17, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the processing system further comprises a secondary outtake system, comprising: a gas outtake line fluidly coupled to the chamber body; one or more gas leak lines fluidly coupled to the gas outtake line; and one or more leak valves disposed in the one or more gas leak lines, because Moriya teaches this structure would enable the rate of the exhaust gas in the rough pumping line to be controlled. (Moriya, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 77.)
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).
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) in view of US Pat. Pub. 20050268694 A1 to Moriya et al (hereinafter Moriya) and “Instructions Variable Leak Valve Model Nos. 951-5100 and 951-5106” by Varian, Palo Alto Vacuum Division, 87-400 085, October 1980, p. 17 (hereinafter Varian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030215569 A1 to Mardian et al (hereinafter Mardian) as applied to claim 9 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090120464 A1 to Rasheed et al (hereinafter Rasheed) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080041414 A1 to Watson et al (hereinafter Watson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20120222813 A1 to Pal et al (hereinafter Pal) in view of US Pat. Pub. 20050268694 A1 to Moriya et al (hereinafter Moriya) and “Instructions Variable Leak Valve Model Nos. 951-5100 and 951-5106” by Varian, Palo Alto Vacuum Division, 87-400 085, October 1980, p. 17 (hereinafter Varian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030215569 A1 to Mardian et al (hereinafter Mardian) as applied to claim 9 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090120464 A1 to Rasheed et al (hereinafter Rasheed).
Regarding claim 10, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the secondary outtake system further comprises one or more sensors fluidly coupled to the one or more gas leak lines
Rasheed teaches end point detectors are located at specific sections of the pipe. (See Rasheed, paragraphs 22, 25, 29 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the secondary outtake system further comprises one or more sensors fluidly coupled to the one or more gas leak lines as an art recognized equivalent configuration for detecting when the cleaning cycle of the process has ended. (See Rasheed, paragraphs 22, 25, 29 and Figs. 1-2.)
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).
The previous rejection of claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220283029 A1 to Zhu et al (hereinafter Zhu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200105509 A1 to Drewery et al (hereinafter Drewery) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 21, Shniriki teaches a processing system (reaction chamber 1 and vacuum chamber), comprising:
a process chamber (1) having a workpiece entry and exit opening (200),
a workpiece support (2), an intake system (10) comprising one or more process gas sources fluidly coupled to an inlet (12) disposed to face the workpiece support (2);
a processing region (between 14 and 12) disposed between the workpiece support (2) and the inlet (12),
an exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) fluidly coupled to the processing region, and a first gas outtake system (between line including 26 and 25) and a second gas outtake system (between line including 26 and 25) directly fluidly coupled to the exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) ;
the first gas outtake system (between line including 26 and 25) comprising a first exhaust conduit (between line including 26 and 25) extending from the exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) to a first output pump (26), a first outtake valve (25) configured to at least selectively restrict the flow of gas from the processing region, through the exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) and through the first exhaust conduit (between line including 26 and 25) to the first output pump (26). (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki teaches a chamber (12, 26, 28) and a ceiling (top of chamber ) defining a processing region (region below ceiling), an intake portal opening (12) in the ceiling fluidly connected to the processing region and workpiece support (14) disposed within the processing region and having a support surface thereon facing intake portal opening, and a workpiece opening (gate valve 200) extending through the chamber body, the substrate support located at a processing position above the substrate exchange opening (200) and below the intake portal opening or gas diffuser (12) below the intake portal opening and at the side of the substrate support in the substrate processing region. (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach a purge gas source fluidly coupled to the first exhaust conduit through a purge gas line at a location between the first output pump and the first outtake valve, and a purge gas valve interposed in the purge gas line.
Zhu is directed to a process chamber (102) with a foreline using cleaning processes.
Zhu teach a purge gas source (116) fluidly coupled to the first exhaust conduit through a purge gas line (104) at a location between the first output pump (115) and the first outtake valve (110), and a purge gas valve (112) interposed in the purge gas line (portion of 104 adjacent 116). (See Zhu, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1E, and paragraphs 23, 25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a purge gas source fluidly coupled to the first exhaust conduit through a purge gas line at a location between the first output pump and the first outtake valve, and a purge gas valve interposed in the purge gas line, because Zhu to maintain safe conditions within the process system. (See Zhu, Abstract, Figs. 1A-1E, and paragraphs 23, 25.)
Shinriki teaches the second gas outtake system comprising a second exhaust conduit extending from the exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) to a second outtake pump (29) , a second outtake valve (27) disposed to throttle the flow of gas through the second conduit (portion of line extending between 27 and 1) from the exhaust channel (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) to the second outtake pump (29). (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach at least one sensor selectively fluidly communicable with the second exhaust conduit at a location between the exhaust channel and the second outtake pump.
Drewery teaches a processing chamber that can perform deposition where byproducts can build up in the vacuum pump system fluidly coupled to the processing chamber.
Drewery teaches sensors in the vacuum pump system are used to determine if purge operations are sufficiently long enough so that deposition byproducts are not detected in the vacuum pump system. (See Drewery, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraph 76.) (Examiner is considering a sensor in the vacuum pump system to be equivalent to one sensor selectively fluidly communicable with the second exhaust conduit at a location between the exhaust channel and the second outtake pump.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one sensor selectively fluidly communicable with the second exhaust conduit at a location between the exhaust channel and the second outtake pump; because sensors in the vacuum pump system are used to determine if purge operations are sufficiently long enough so that deposition byproducts do not build up in the system. (See Drewery, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraph 76.)
Further regarding claim 21, Shinriki does not explicitly teach a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising:
supplying a process gas into a processing region of the processing chamber;
supplying a purge gas into the first exhaust conduit;
and pulsing the purge gas in the first exhaust conduit, the pulsing the purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve.
Dickinson teaches a controller coupled to the purge gas valve (112), the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: supplying a process gas into a processing region of the processing chamber; supplying a purge gas (non-reactive gas) into the first exhaust conduit (102) ; and pulsing the purge gas in the first exhaust conduit (turn valve off and on, intermittent supply) , the pulsing the purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve(turn valve off and on). (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 7-8, 24-26, 30-31, 37-39 and Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising:
supplying a process gas into a processing region of the processing chamber;
supplying a purge gas into the first exhaust conduit;
and pulsing the purge gas in the first exhaust conduit, the pulsing the purge gas comprising: alternately opening and closing the purge gas valve, because Dickinson teaches this structure would enable the optimal conversion of the exhaust gas. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 29-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Further regarding claim 21, Shinriki teaches flow residual gas (reactant gas) in the process chamber into the foreline (50 via 52) downstream of the connection into the purge gas line into the foreline. (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, Abstract, and paragraphs 53 and 71-81.)
Shinriki does not explicitly teach a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: … pulsing the purge gas into the first exhaust conduit, pulsing the purge gas comprising: flowing, through the second exhaust conduit and into the first exhaust conduit at a location thereof between the exhaust channel and the first outtake pump, residual gas remaining in the process chamber after the processing of a workpiece in the processing region thereof.
Dickinson teaches a controller may be provided and coupled to various components of the substrate processing system to control the operation thereof. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 27, 29-30, and 40, Abstract.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller coupled to the purge gas valve, the controller configured to perform a method of controlling conductance in the processing region of the processing chamber, the method comprising: … pulsing the the purge gas into the first exhaust conduit, pulsing the purge gas comprising: flowing, through the second exhaust conduit and into the first exhaust conduit at a location thereof between the exhaust channel and the first outtake pump, residual gas remaining in the process chamber after the processing of a workpiece in the processing region thereof, because Dickinson teaches this structure would enable the optimal conversion of the exhaust gas and allow for coordinated control of reagent flow and foreline pressure control. (See Dickinson, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 6-8, 25-27, 29-31, 37-40 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 22, Shinriki teaches the exhaust conduit ( line including portion between 26 and 25) is selectively fluidly communicable with the first exhaust conduit ( line including 27 and 29) through the second exhaust conduit (extending from 14 to 25 or 27 ) . (See Shinriki, Figs. 1, 5, 7, Abstract, paragraphs 7-8, 41- 42, 48, 50-55, 63-69.)
The previous rejection of claims 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20050229848 A1 to Shinriki et al (hereinafter Shinriki) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220283029 A1 to Zhu et al (hereinafter Zhu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200105509 A1 to Drewery et al (hereinafter Drewery) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190282956 A1 to Dickinson et al (hereinafter Dickinson) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220403522 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 23, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the sensor is a gas sensor for detecting the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit.
Kim is directed to method and system for performing leak checks of gas-phase reactor systems.
Kim teaches the sensor is a gas sensor for detecting the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 20-21 and 44.) Examiner is considering closing the valve between the gas detector system prior to the step of analyzing the gas for a gas flow rate to be equivalent to the sensor is configured to detect the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensor is a gas sensor for detecting the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit, because Kim teaches this would enable the analysis of the gas flow rate to be used to determine the next step. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 20-21 and 44.)
Regarding claim 24, Shinriki does not explicitly teach the sensor is configured to detect the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit.
Kim teaches a sensor valve interposed between the sensor and the second exhaust conduit. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 20-21 and 44.) Examiner is considering closing the valve between the gas detector system prior to the step of analyzing the gas for a gas flow rate to be equivalent to the sensor is configured to detect the presence of a gas leaking into the second exhaust conduit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sensor valve interposed between the sensor and the second exhaust conduit, because Kim teaches this would enable the gas detector to be used to analysis flow of gas selectively. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 20-21 and 44.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5-12 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US Pat. Pub. No. 20120222813 A1 to Pal et al (hereinafter Pal) is now being used as a supporting reference for independent claim 5.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-24 have been considered, but are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 18, third paragraph of the Remarks Section that:
“None of Shinriki, Zhu, Drewery, Dickinson, or Kim disclose an intake portal opening in the ceiling fluidly connected to the processing region and a substrate support disposed within the processing region and having a support surface thereon facing intake portal opening, and a substrate exchange opening extending through the chamber body, the substrate support located at a processing position above the substrate exchange opening and below the intake portal opening during substrate processing; and an outtake system comprising: an exhaust channel coupled to the chamber processing region at a location between the substrate exchange opening and the ceiling, below the intake portal opening and at the side of the substrate support in the substrate processing position as in amended Claim 21.”
Examiner disagrees as this structure is shown in Shinriki Fig. 1. (See explanation above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20050103265 A1 to Gianoulakis et al teaches a foreline (340) with a separate outtake line (318). (See Fig. 3A of Gianoulakis.) US Pat. Num. 6,294,466 B1 to Chang teaches a foreline (114). US Pat. Pub. No. 20110265884 A1 to Xu et al teaches a foreline (230) with a separate outtake line (line extending from 216 to 224). US Pat. Pub. No. 20080264453 A1 to Taylor teaches an inert gas supply (219) can be placed upstream or downstream on a foreline. US Pat. Pub. No. 20110195202 A1 to Dahm teaches an inert gas supply (281) can be placed on a foreline.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717