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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed on 11 September 2025 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 Aug 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 25 Aug 2025 and RCE filed 11 September 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 9, 15 are amended. Claims 19 is withdrawn. Claim 3, 4, 10-14, 20 are canceled.
Drawings
Drawings filed 25 Aug 2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges Specification filed 25 Aug 2025. However, amendments to the claims raises new objections.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a first base” (claim 1 and 15) and “a second base” (claim 1 and 15). Examiner notes that the Specification filed 18 March 2025 recites “a base 113” but does not specify “a first base” and “a second base.”
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 and 15 limitation “generally parallel” is interpreted in light of para. [0039] disclosing that "In one embodiment, generally parallel means within approximately 0° to 15°, and generally opposite means within approximately 0° to 30°" which the Examiner understands to mean "parallel" within a range of 0 to 15 degrees of what is understood to be parallel (i.e. + or - 0 to 15 degrees of parallel). Claim 1 limitation “generally opposite” and claim 15 limitation “generally opposing” is interpreted in light of para. [0039] disclosing that "In one embodiment, generally parallel means within approximately 0° to 15°, and generally opposite means within approximately 0° to 30°" which the Examiner understands to mean “opposite” or “opposing” within a range of 0 to 30 degrees of what is understood to be opposite (i.e. 180 degrees from a reference point, + or – 0 to 30 degrees).
Claim 1 and 15 limitation “one or more sidewalls comprising an outer sidewall and an inner sidewall” is interpreted in light of Fig. 1B and Fig. 2E and para.[0034] and Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of wall and sidewall, to mean comprising one sidewall (i.e. such as a single cylindrical sidewall) with an outer side surface and an inner side surface OR comprising a cylindrical outer sidewall and a cylindrical inner sidewall forming a double walled chamber structure OR multiple sidewalls (i.e. forming a polygonal shaped chamber) having an inner side surface and an outer side surface OR multiple sidewalls each having an outer sidewall and an inner sidewall forming a double walled chamber structure. See annotated Fig. 1B and 2E of the instant application below.
Claim 1 and 15 limitation “a first opening in the outer sidewall” is interpreted as comprising an opening or span of space corresponding with the first injector and in the outer sidewall, wherein the outer sidewall is interpreted as presented above; limitation “a second opening in the outer sidewall” as comprising an opening or span of space corresponding with the second injector and in the outer sidewall, wherein the outer sidewall is interpreted as presented above. See annotated Fig. 1B and Fig. 2E below.
Claim 1 and 15 limitation “a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall” is interpreted as comprising an opening or span of space corresponding with the first injector and at a first base portion/location of the inner sidewall; limitation “a second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall” as comprising an opening or span of space corresponding with the second injector and at a second base portion/location of the inner sidewall. See annotated Fig. 2E below.
Annotated Fig. 1B for claim interpretation of inner sidewall and outer sidewall
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 limitation “process space of the plasma treatment chamber” is interpreted in light of para. [0089] as comprising “a multi-dimensional process space that maps processing parameters to one or more device outcomes on the wafer.” In other words, in the context of the instant application “a process space” is not meant to comprise the physical space in the chamber but rather “a process space” comprises a data/information map.
Claim Objections
Claim objections discussed in the final rejection of 23 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 25 Aug 2025.
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.
Claim 8, 15 (and dependent claims 16-18) is/are rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph discussed in the final rejection of 23 June 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments filed 25 Aug 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita") and Choi (KR20080114427A hereinafter "Choi '427" and referring to English Machine Translation, previously cited not used art from non-final action of 24 Nov 2023) or alternatively Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation).
Regarding independent claim 1 Lewington teaches:
A plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma reactor, Fig. 1, 27, para. [0065],[0090]), comprising:
one or more sidewalls (comprising sidewall 12, Fig. 1, 27, para. [0065], [0090]) comprising an outer sidewall (comprising outer peripheral surface of 12, Fig. 1; comprising outer peripheral surface of 12 and outer peripheral surface of 338 and outer peripheral surface of 342, Fig. 27; Examiner explains that when ring 338, chamber body sidewall 12, and the lid 342 is assembled on top of one another, the outer peripheral surface of the ring 338 and the outer peripheral surface of 342 forms an outer boundary wall with the outer peripheral surface of chamber body sidewall 12. Thus, the outer peripheral surface of ring 338, outer peripheral surface of chamber body sidewall 12, and the outer peripheral surface of 342 form "an outer sidewall.") and an inner sidewall (comprising an inner sidewall surface of 348, see annotated Fig. 27 below);
a support surface (comprising support pedestal 16, Fig. 1 and 27, para. [0065]) within the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12, Fig. 1 and 27) to hold a workpiece (comprising mask 18, Fig. 1 and 27, para. [0065]), wherein the workpiece is not rotated during processing {Examiner notes that the Lewington does not disclose rotating the workpiece, nor any structures configured to rotate the workpiece, and therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the apparatus of Lewington meets claim limitation "wherein the workpiece is not rotated during processing"};
a plurality of gas lines (comprising disconnectable gas flow lines 358 and plurality of short gas supply lines 370, Fig. 28 and 29, para. [0090], [0094]);
a first gas injector (comprising a first one of passage 366 and orifice 32, Fig. 27, para. [0094]; comprising a first one of an orifice 32, Fig. 1) formed in a first space (comprising a first region between the inner surface portion of shoulder 348 and outer surface of 12, Fig. 27) between the outer sidewall (comprising a portion of 12, Fig. 27) and a first base (comprising a first portion near the bottom of the inner sidewall) of the inner sidewall (comprising an inner sidewall of shoulder 348 in lid 342, para. [0090], see annotated Fig. 27 below), the first gas injector (comprising a first one of passage 366 and orifice 32, Fig. 27; comprising a first one of an orifice 32, Fig. 1) connected to a first gas line (comprising a first one of the disconnectable gas flow lines 358 and a first one of 370 corresponding with a first one of 366 and orifice 32, Fig. 28, 29) of the plurality of gas lines (comprising 358 and 370, Fig. 28, 29) through a first opening (comprising a first one of opening of 32 in outer surface of 338, Fig. 27, see annotated figure below) in the outer sidewall (comprising an outer surface of 12, 338, 342) to inject a first gas flow from the first gas injector (comprising a first one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27) through a first opening (comprising a first one of orifice 32 in inner surface of 344, Fig. 27) at the first base of the inner sidewall (see annotated Fig. 27) in a first direction generally parallel (see gas flow in Fig. 30A-30D) to and across a surface of the workpiece (comprising 18, Fig. 1 and 27);
a second gas injector (comprising a second one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27, para. [0094]; comprising a second one of 32, Fig. 1) formed in a second space (comprising a second region between the inner surface portion of shoulder 348 and outer surface of 12, Fig. 27) between the outer sidewall (comprising outer surface of 12 and 338 and 342, Fig. 27) and a second base (comprising a second portion near the bottom of the inner sidewall) of the inner sidewall (comprising a portion of an inner sidewall of shoulder 348 in lid 342, Fig. 27, para. [0090], see annotated Fig. 27 below), the second gas injector (comprising a second one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27) connected to a second gas line (comprising a second one of the disconnectable gas flow lines 358 and short gas supply line 370 corresponding with the second injector 366 and 362, Fig. 28, 29) of the plurality of gas lines (comprising 358 and 270, Fig. 28) through a second opening (comprising a second one of 32 in the outer surface of 338, Fig. 27) in the outer sidewall to inject a second gas flow from the second gas injector through a second opening (comprising a second one of 32 formed at the inner surface of 338, Fig. 27) at the second base of the inner sidewall (see annotated Fig. 27 below) in a second direction generally parallel (see Fig. 30A-30D) to and across the surface of the workpiece (comprising 18, Fig. 27), the second direction different from the first direction (as understood from Fig. 30A-30C, para. [0095]); and
a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065]) vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector (comprising a first one of 32, Fig. 1 and 27) and the second gas injector (comprising a second one of 32, Fig. 1 and 27);
wherein the first gas injector and the second gas injector are configured to provide a cross-flow of gas across (see Fig. 30A-30C, para. [0095]) the workpiece without using a showerhead (Fig. 1 and 27, see also Fig. 8, 14-18, 25 showing no showerhead injecting a top-down flow).
See annotated Fig. 27 below. Examiner explains that the inner sidewall comprises an inner surface of shoulder 348 and that the base of the inner sidewall comprises a bottom region of the inner sidewall wherein the first base of the inner sidewall is a region of the bottom of the inner sidewall which corresponds with the location of the first gas injector and the second base of the inner sidewall is a region of the bottom of the inner sidewall which corresponds with the location of the second gas injector.
PNG
media_image2.png
1018
1033
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lewington does not explicitly teach the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset; the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset; a first pump port located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector.
However, the position of the openings in the sidewall including the vertical offset does not appear to have any particular criticality in the claimed apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset” and “the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" amounts to a change of shape of the injector and a rearrangement of the location of the first opening, second opening, third opening, and fourth opening which would not significantly affect the function/operation of the gas injector to supply gas into the plasma treatment chamber absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, Matsushita teaches a process chamber including a gas injector (comprising 11, Fig. 2A, para. [0038]) comprising an opening in the outer sidewall that is vertically offset from another opening in the inner sidewall. See annotated Fig. 2A of Matsushita below.
PNG
media_image3.png
829
797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of each of the first and second gas injectors (Lewington: comprising 366 and 32, Fig. 27) and rearrange each of the openings (Lewington: comprising 32, Fig. 27) at the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall for each of the first injector and the second injector because Matsushita teaches that a gas injector comprising an opening in the outer sidewall that is vertically offset from another opening in the inner sidewall is a known suitable alternative configuration of a gas injector for supplying gas to a process chamber wherein one of ordinary skill in the would recognize that "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset” and “the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" amounts to a change of shape of the injector and a rearrangement of the location of the first opening, second opening, third opening, and fourth opening which would not significantly affect the function/operation of the gas injector to supply gas into the plasma treatment chamber.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. (In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Lewington in view of Matsushita as applied above does not explicitly teach a first pump port located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector.
However, Lewington already teaches a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065) vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector (comprising a first and second one of 32, Fig. 1, 27).
Additionally, Choi '427 teaches a plasma treatment chamber (plasma chamber equipment, Fig. 2 and 3, page 3 line 1) including a first pump port (comprising one of exhaust holes 131, Fig. 2 and 3) located generally opposite of the first gas injector (comprising one of supply pipe 101, Fig. 2) and below the workpiece (comprising 200, Fig. 2) to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port (comprising a different one of 131, Fig. 2 and 3) located generally opposite of the second gas injector (comprising a different one of supply pipe 101, Fig. 2) and below the workpiece (comprising 200, Fig. 2) to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port (comprising 131, Fig. 2) are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector (comprising 101, Fig. 2) (page 3), wherein the pump ports (comprising 131, Fig. 3) are arranged along a circumference of the support (comprising 310, Fig. 3). Choi '427 teaches that such an arrangement enables control of the reaction gas flow to improve plasma process uniformity (upper page 3, see also page 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pump port of Lewington to include a plurality of pump ports arranged along the circumference of the support (Lewington: comprising 16, Fig. 1 and 27) including a first pump port located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector because Lewington already teaches a pump port vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and because Choi '427 teaches a configuration having pump ports disposed circumferentially around the support such that a first pump port is located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, enables control of the gas flow to improve plasma process uniformity (Choi '427: upper page 3, upper page 4).
Alternatively:
However, Lewington already teaches a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065) vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector (comprising a first and second one of 32, Fig. 1, 27).
Additionally, Yonemura teaches a first gas injector (comprising first gas introduction pipe 12a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a first location; a first pump port (comprising first exhaust pipe 13a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a second location generally opposing the first gas injector (comprising 12a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14); a second gas injector (comprising second gas introduction pipe 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a third location; a second pump port (comprising second exhaust pipe 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a fourth location generally opposing the second gas injector (comprising 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9,14). Yonemura teaches an embodiment wherein the first pump port(comprising first exhaust pipe 13a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9) and the second pump port(comprising second exhaust pipe 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9) are horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9). Yonemura additionally teaches another embodiment wherein the first pump port(comprising first exhaust pipe 13a, Fig. 14) and the second pump port(comprising second exhaust pipe 13b, Fig. 14) are below the workpiece (W, Fig. 14). Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pump port of Lewington to comprising a plurality of pump ports along a circumference of the sidewall including a first pump port located at a second location generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located at a fourth location and generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector because Lewington already teaches a pump port vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and because Yonemura teaches that such an arrangement of opposing injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427:
Limitation “wherein the plasma treatment chamber is configured to use the first and second gas injectors and the first and second pump ports to rotate the first and second gas flows laterally across the workpiece from the one or more sidewalls to provide a multiphase rotating crossflow operation, the multiphase rotating crossflow operation comprising at least a 2-phase cycle” is an intended us limitation.
Examiner notes that Lewington already teaches the first injector comprises a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall and the second injector comprises the second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall, as discussed in detail above. Lewington additionally teaches a plurality of individually controlled valves (comprising 350, Fig. 28 and 29) to control the gas supplied from each injector (comprising 32, Fig. 1, 27) (para. [0090]-[0094]).
Additionally, Choi ‘427 teaches that the exhaust flow from each pump port (comprising 131, Fig. 2 and 3) is individually controlled via valves (comprising 133, Fig. 2) (page 3-page 4).
Since Lewington in view of Choi ‘427 teaches all of the structural limitations including first and second gas injectors as well as first and second pump ports configured with individually controllable valves, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Alternatively, regarding claim 2 and Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura:
Examiner notes that Lewington already teaches the first injector comprises a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall and the second injector comprises the second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall, as discussed in detail above. Lewington additionally teaches a plurality of individually controlled valves (comprising 350, Fig. 28 and 29) to control the gas supplied from each injector (comprising 32, Fig. 1, 27) (para. [0090]-[0094]).
Yonemura further teaches individually controlling the exhaust flow rates from each pump port (para. [0029]-[0031],[0044]-[0045]) and wherein the chamber (comprising substrate processing apparatus including processing chamber 11, Fig. 1 and 2) is configured to use the first and second gas injectors (comprising 12a and 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9) and the first and second pump ports (comprising 13a and 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9) to rotate (i.e. gas flow in a constant circular direction, para. [0012], [0077]) the first and second gas flows laterally across the workpiece from the one or more sidewalls (11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9) to provide a multiphase rotating crossflow operation, the multiphase rotating crossflow operation comprising at least a 2-phase cycle (para. [0012],[0020]-[0072], [0077]; Fig. 3, 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 6, 7, 8, 9(1), 9(2), 9(3), 12, 13).Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure plasma treatment chamber to use the first and second gas injectors and the first and second pump ports to rotate the first and second gas flows laterally across the workpiece from the one or more sidewalls to provide a multiphase rotating crossflow operation, the multiphase rotating crossflow operation comprising at least a 2-phase cycle because Yonemura teaches that such a configuration would enable providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
Thought taught in the prior art (Yonemura), limitations: “a multi-phase cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector through a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector through a second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction” this is an intended use limitation. Since Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura teaches all of the structural limitations including first and second gas injectors as well as first and second pump ports with individually controllable valves, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above. Lewington further teaches the first gas flow and the second gas flow are switched on and off to control gas flow (para. [0090]-[0094] discloses independent control of each injector (comprising 32, Fig. 27) and Fig. 30A-30C shows different injectors being on or off). Regarding limitation “to control gas flow rotation,” this is an intended use limitation. Since Lewington in view of Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the structural limitations and since Lewington additionally teaches individual control of each gas injector (Lewington: para. [0090]-[0094]), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above. Lewington further teaches gas inlet valves (comprising valves 350, Fig. 28 and 29) coupled to the gas lines (comprising 370, Fig. 28 and 29) to apply a modulating function (i.e. controlling/adjustment) to a flow rate (i.e. on or off; open or closed) of at least one of the first and second gas flows (para. [0090]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Regarding claim 7 and Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427:
Lewington already teaches a plurality of gas injectors (comprising 32 and 366, Fig. 1 and 27) along a circumference of the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12, Fig. 1 and 27) including a third gas injector (comprising a third one of 366 and 32, Fig. 17).
Further, when modifying Lewington in claim 1 rejection to include the plurality of pump ports along a circumferential direction of the support as taught by Choi ‘427, the resulting apparatus would have had a third pump port since Cho ‘427 additionally teaches a third pump port (comprising 131, Fig. 2 and 3) and teaches pump ports (comprising 131, Fig. 2 and 3) are arranged along the circumference of the support (comprising 310, Fig. 2 and 3).
Thus, the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 would meet limitation “wherein the plasma treatment chamber further comprises a third gas injector and an opposing third pump port to provide a third injector-pump port pair.”
Regarding limitation “to provide…a 3-phase rotating crossflow operation,” this is an intended use limitation, since Lewington in view of Choi ‘427 teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 7 and since Lewington and Choi ‘427 further teach individually controllable a plurality of individually controlled valves (Lewington: comprising 350, Fig. 28 and 29, para. [0090]-[0094]; Choi ‘427 comprising 133, Fig. 2, page 3-page 4), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Alternatively, regarding claim 7 and Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura:
Lewington already teaches a plurality of gas injectors (comprising 32, Fig. 1 and 27) along a circumference of the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12, Fig. 1 and 27) including a third gas injector (comprising a third one of 366 and 32, Fig. 17).
Further, when modifying Lewington in claim 1 rejection to include the plurality of pump ports along a circumferential direction of the sidewall of the chamber, as taught by Yonemura the resulting apparatus would have had a third pump port since Yonemura teaches a third pump port.
Yonemura further teaches wherein the plasma treatment chamber further comprises a third gas injector (comprising third gas introduction pipe 12c, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) and an opposing third pump port (comprising third gas exhaust pipe, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) (para. [0017]-[0018]) to provide a third injector-pump port pair and a 3-phase rotating crossflow operation (as understood from Fig. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13)(para. [0011],[0020],[0077]). Yonemura teaches that such a configuration would enable providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plasma treatment chamber to comprise a third gas injector and an opposing third pump port to provide a third injector-pump port pair and a 3-phase rotating crossflow operations because Yonemura teaches that that such a configuration would enable providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above. Lewington further teaches wherein at least one of the first gas injector and the second gas injector (comprising 32, Fig. 27) comprises a single vent (as understood from Fig. 27) (para. [0090]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a first and second gas injector but does not clearly and explicitly teach that the first and second gas injector comprise a gas injector array of individual gas injectors coupled to respective gas lines.
However, Lewington teaches an embodiment comprising a first gas injector and second gas injector comprising a gas injector array of individual gas injectors (comprising 32a or 32b, Fig. 31; nozzles 32c can be considered comprising first gas injector or 32d and nozzles 32d can be considered comprising the second gas injector, Fig. 32)(para. [0096]) coupled to respective gas lines (comprising disconnectable gas lines 358 and 370, Fig. 29 and 29). Lewington teaches that such a configuration enables control over a plurality of individual gas injectors oriented at a particular direction (para. [0096]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second gas injector comprise a gas injector array of individual gas injectors coupled to respective gas lines because Lewington teaches that such a configuration enables control over a plurality of individual gas injectors oriented at a particular direction (para. [0096]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita") and Choi (KR20080114427A hereinafter "Choi '427" and referring to English Machine Translation, previously cited not used art from non-final action of 24 Nov 2023) or alternatively Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation) as applied in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 above and further in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6,531,069 B1 hereinafter “Srivastava”) or alternatively Hosaka et al. (US 2016/0260582 A1 hereinafter "Hosaka").
Regarding claim 21, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 including a first pump port (Choi ‘427: comprising a first one of 131, Fig. 2 and 3; alternatively, Yonemura: comprising 13a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14), and a second pump port (Choi ‘427: comprising a second one of 131, Fig. 2 and 3; alternatively, Yonemura: comprising 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14), but does not explicitly teach a first pressure control valve coupled to the first pump port, the first pressure control valve comprising two or more sections; two or more first actuators coupled to respective sections of the first pressure control valve to raise and lower the respective sections of the first pressure control valve within the first pump port; a second pressure control valve coupled to the second pump port, the second pressure control valve comprising two or more sections; and two or more second actuators coupled to respective sections of the second pressure control valve to raise and lower the respective sections of the second pressure control valve within the second pump port.
However, Srivastava teaches a plasma treatment chamber (Fig. 8) comprising a pressure control valve (comprising valves V1 and V25, Fig. 8) coupled to the pump port (comprising exhaust manifold EM, Fig. 8) , the pressure control valve comprising two or more sections (comprising individual ones of V1 through 25, Fig. 8); two or more actuators (comprising solenoid S1 through S25, Fig. 8) coupled to respective sections of the pressure control valve (comprising V1 through V25) to raise and lower the respective sections of the pressure control valve within the pump port (comprising exhaust manifold EM, Fig. 8)(col 8 line 58- col 9 line 16). Srivastava teaches that such a configuration enables modifying the flow direction of gas/ions in the etching plasma to creating a rotating flow pattern while the wafer/workpiece remains stationary (col 9 line 4-6; col 3 line 55-58, col 4 line 6-16, col 4 line 36-42, col 5 line 54-58).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a pressure valve with multiple sections would obviously modify the pressure at the location of each respective section.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide to each of the first and second pump ports a pressure control valve comprising two or more valve sections and two or more actuators coupled to respective sections of the pressure control valve of each pump port such that the actuators raise and lower the respective sections of the valve within the respective pump ports because Srivastava teaches that this is a known pump port, actuator, and valving structure that would enable producing a rotating gas flow pattern without rotating the workpiece (Srivastava: col 5 line 54-58; col 9 line 4-6 ) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a pressure valve with multiple sections would obviously enabling adjusting the pressure at the location of each respective valve section and thus enable controlling the pressure at the location of the respective valve section.
Alternatively, Hosaka teaches a plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma processing apparatus 10, Fig. 1, para. [0031]-[0034]) comprising a pump port (comprising second space S2, Fig. 1, para. [0047]; note how S2 is similar to exhaust port 120 of the instant invention), a pressure control valve (comprising 60, Fig. 1 and 2) coupled to the pump port (comprising S2, Fig. 1), the pressure control valve (comprising baffle structure 60, Fig. 1) comprising two or more sections (comprising plurality of second members 62, Fig. 2, para. [0051]-[0052, [0063]); two or more actuators (comprising driving devices/motors 70, Fig. 2) coupled to respective sections of the pressure control valve to raise and lower the respective sections of the pressure control valve within the pump port (comprising S2, Fig. 1). Hosaka teaches that such a configuration enables adjusting the difference between the pressure in the pump port (comprising S2, Fig. 1) and the processing space (comprising S1, Fig. 1) and providing a circumferential change in pressure (para. [0071]).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a pressure valve with multiple sections would obviously modify the pressure at the location of each respective section.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide, to each of the first and second pump ports, a pressure control valve comprising two or more valve sections and two or more actuators coupled to respective sections of the pressure control valve of each pump port such that the actuators raise and lower the respective sections of the valve within the respective pump ports because Hosaka teaches that this is a known pump port, actuator, and valving structure that would enable providing circumferential change in pressure (Hosaka: para. [0071]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a pressure valve with multiple sections would obviously enable adjusting the pressure in the pump port at the location of each respective valve section and thus enable controlling the pressure at the location of the respective valve section.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any specific criticality to an embodiment having two valve sections with respective actuators over an embodiment having a unitary pressure valve construction with corresponding actuator, in light of para. [0065] of the instant Specification. Examiner notes that the specification does not disclose a particular advantage of having a valve with multiple sections over an embodiment a single unitary body. Examiner notes that providing two valve sections having respective actuators in a pump port appears to be a mere duplication of parts, wherein the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04. VI. B.). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing multiple valve sections in a pump port would enable control of the pressure at each location of the valve sections.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita") and Choi (KR20080114427A hereinafter "Choi '427" and referring to English Machine Translation, previously cited not used art from non-final action of 24 Nov 2023) or alternatively Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation) as as applied to 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 above further in view of Guha et al. (US 2018/0082826 A1 hereinafter “Guha”) and Sawlani et al. (US 2023/0049157 A1 hereinafter “Sawlani”).
Regarding claim 22, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Choi ‘427 {or alternatively Yonemura} as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches one or more processors (Lewington: comprising process controller 60, Fig. 1, para. [0067], [0089], [0102]) coupled to the plasma treatment chamber, but does not explicitly teach that the one or more processors generate from a combination of a statistical model and a physical model one or more machine learning (ML) models that model a process space of the plasma treatment chamber; add as calibration data to the one or more ML models, wafer outcomes and metrology data from a design of experiment (DoE) of wafers; adjust a model prediction to account for specific chamber or wafer conditions identified by the DoE; predict optimized process parameters to achieve a desired wafer outcome for wafers processed in the plasma treatment chamber; and query the one or more machine learning (ML) models to control timing of the first gas flow and the second gas flow based on the optimized process parameters.
However, Guha teaches a plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma reactor 100, Fig. 1, 5, 7A, para. [0048]-[0049]) including one or more processors (comprising controller 120, Fig. 1, para. [0049]) wherein the one or more processors generate from a statistical model (comprising 184, Fig. 1, para. [0065]) one or more machine learning models (comprising machine learning engine 180, para. [0063]) that model a process space of the plasma treatment chamber (i.e. virtual space, para. [0061]), add as calibration data to the one or more ML models, wafer outcomes and metrology data from a design of experiment (DoE) of wafers (i.e. test substrates, para. [0078],[0088]); adjust a model prediction to account for specific chamber or wafer conditions identified by the DoE (para. [0078], [0088], [0089],[0123]-[0124]); predict optimized process parameters to achieve a desired wafer outcome for wafers processed in the plasma treatment chamber (para. [0123]-[0124]); wherein the one or more processes (comprising controller 120 including multivariate processing 103, Fig. 1) query the one or more machine learning (ML) models (i.e. "multivariate processing 130 is configured to utilize machine learning to compare desired processing state values detected from data streams captured by sensors of the plasma reactor, and utilize machine learning to determine what adjustments are required to the specific tuning knobs so that the current processing state values match or closely approximate the desired processing state values", para. [0055]) to control the various operating parameters/tuning knobs of the plasma chamber including run time and duration of gas flows (i.e. timing of the gas flows) based on the optimized (i.e. desired) process parameters (para. [0052], [0055], [0123]-[0124]). Guha teaches that such a configuration ensures that the plasma treatment chamber can take correct decisions in a timely and real-time manner to predict the desired state and tune the process much faster and thus reduce process development time and reduce dependence on user experience level (para. [0123]-[0124]).
Further, regarding limitation "generate from a combination of a statistical model and a physical model", Sawlani teaches that using a combination of a statistical model (i.e. data driven, reduced order models) and physical model (i.e. physics-based model; atomistic/quantum simulation, chamber scale simulations) provide opportunity to construct relationships between various factors and response variables and improves the predictive accuracy of the machine learning model (Fig. 8, abstract, para. [0006], [0007], [0054]), wherein Sawlani teaches that a controller/processor configured to generate machine learning models would reduce time spent between design, fabrication, and testing phases of a project, resulting in faster solutions and reduction in the cost of products (para. [0006]).
Additionally, Lewington teaches the one or more processor (comprising process controller 60, Fig. 1) controls the gas flow of the injectors (comprising 32 and 366, Fig. 1 and 27)(para. [0067],[0098]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the one or more processors to generate from a combination of a statistical model and a physical model one or more machine learning (ML) models that model a process space of the plasma treatment chamber; add as calibration data to the one or more ML models, wafer outcomes and metrology data from a design of experiment (DoE) of wafers; adjust a model prediction to account for specific chamber or wafer conditions identified by the DoE; predict optimized process parameters to achieve a desired wafer outcome for wafers processed in the plasma treatment chamber; and query the one or more machine learning (ML) models to control timing of the first gas flow and the second gas flow based on the optimized process parameters because Guha teaches that such a configuration enables real-time/faster process tuning and reduced dependence on user experience level for adjustment of process parameters (Guha: para. [0123]-[0124]) and because Sawlani teaches that generating a machine learning model from a combination of statistical model and physical model improves the predictive accuracy of the machine learning model and that configuring the processor to generate machine learning models would reduce time spent between design, fabrication, and testing phases of a project, resulting in faster solutions and reduction in the cost of products (abstract, para. [0006]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita"), Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation)} and Ko et al. (US 2003/0066605 A1 hereinafter "Ko").
Regarding independent claim 15, Lewington teaches:
A plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma reactor, Fig. 1, 27, para. [0065],[0090]), comprising:
one or more sidewalls (comprising sidewall 12, Fig. 1, 27, para. [0065], [0090]) comprising an outer sidewall (comprising outer peripheral surface of 12, Fig. 1; comprising outer peripheral surface of 12 and outer peripheral surface of 338 and outer peripheral surface of 342, Fig. 27; Examiner explains that when the injector assembly ring 338, top of chamber body 12 and the lid 342 is assembled on top of one another, the outer peripheral surface of the ring 338 and the outer peripheral surface of 342 forms an outer boundary wall with the outer peripheral surface of chamber body sidewall 12. Thus, the outer peripheral surface of ring 338, outer peripheral surface of chamber body sidewall 12, and the outer peripheral surface of 342 form "an outer sidewall.") and an inner sidewall (comprising an inner sidewall surface of 348, see annotated Fig. 27 below);
a support surface (comprising support pedestal 16, Fig. 1 and 27, para. [0065]) within the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12, Fig. 1 and 27) to hold a workpiece (comprising mask 18, Fig. 1 and 27, para. [0065]), wherein the workpiece is not rotated during processing (examiner notes that the Lewington does not disclose rotating the workpiece, nor any structures configured to rotate the workpiece, and therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the apparatus of Lewington meets claim limitation "wherein the workpiece is not rotated during processing");
a first gas injector(comprising a first one of gas passage 366 and orifice 32, Fig. 27, para. [0094]; comprising a first one of an orifice 32, Fig. 1) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12 including outer peripheral surface of 12, 338, 342, Fig. 27) at a first location, the first gas injector (comprising a first one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27) formed in a first space (comprising a first region between the inner surface portion of shoulder 348 and outer surface of 12, Fig. 27) between the outer sidewall (comprising a portion of 12, Fig. 27) and a first base (comprising a first portion near the bottom of the inner sidewall) of the inner sidewall, the first gas injector (comprising a first one of 366 and orifice 32, Fig. 27; comprising a first one of an orifice 32, Fig. 1) connected to a first gas line (comprising a first one of the disconnectable gas flow lines 358 and a first one of 370 corresponding with a first one of 366and orifice 32, Fig. 28, 29) of a plurality of gas lines (comprising 358 and 370, Fig. 28, 29) in a first opening (comprising a first opening of 32 in outer surface of 338, Fig. 27, see annotated figure below in the outer sidewall (comprising outer peripheral surface of 12, 338, 342, Fig. 27) in the outer sidewall to inject a first gas flow from the first gas injector through a second opening at a first base of the inner sidewall (see annotated Fig. 27 below);
a second gas injector (comprising a second one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27, para. [0094]; comprising a second one of 32, Fig. 1)along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 12 including outer peripheral surface of 12, 338, 342, Fig. 27) at a third location, the second gas injector formed in a second space (comprising a second region between the inner surface portion of shoulder 348 and outer surface of 12, Fig. 27) between the outer sidewall and a second base (comprising a second portion near the bottom of the inner sidewall) of the inner sidewall, the second gas injector (comprising a second one of 366 and 32, Fig. 27) connected to a second gas line (comprising a second one of the disconnectable gas flow lines 358 and short gas supply line 370 corresponding with the second injector 366 and 362, Fig. 28, 29) of the plurality of gas lines (comprising 358 and 370, Fig. 28, 29) through a third opening (comprising a second one of 32 in the outer surface of 338, Fig. 27) in the outer sidewall to inject a second gas flow from the second gas injector through a fourth opening (comprising a second one of 32 formed at the inner surface of 338, Fig. 27) at the second base of the inner sidewall (see annotated Fig. 27 below);
wherein the first gas injector and the second gas injector are configured to provide a cross-flow of gas across (see Fig. 30A-30C, para. [0095]) the workpiece without using a showerhead (Fig. 1 and 27, see also Fig. 8, 14-18, 25 showing no showerhead injecting a top-down flow); and
a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065]) vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector (comprising a first one of 366 and 32, Fig. 1 and 27) and the second gas injector (comprising a second one of 366 and 32, Fig. 1 and 27).
Lewington does not explicitly teach the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset; the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset; a first pump port horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls at a second location generally opposing the first gas injector and below the workpiece; a second pump port horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls at a fourth location generally opposing the second gas injector and below the workpiece; and a multiphase rotating cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" and "the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" amounts to a change of shape of the injector and a rearrangement of the location of the first opening, second opening, third opening, and fourth opening which would not significantly affect the function/operation of the gas injector to supply gas into the plasma treatment chamber.
Additionally, Matsushita teaches a process chamber including a gas injector (comprising 11, Fig. 2A) comprising an opening in the outer sidewall that is vertically offset from another opening in the inner sidewall. See annotated Fig. 2A of Matsushita below.
PNG
media_image3.png
829
797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the gas injector and rearrange the openings at the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall for each of the first injector and the second injector because Matsushita teaches that a gas injector comprising an opening in the outer sidewall that is vertically offset from another opening in the inner sidewall is a known suitable alternative configuration of a gas injector for supplying gas to a process chamber wherein one of ordinary skill in the would recognize that "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset” and “the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" amounts to a change of shape of the injector and a rearrangement of the location of the first opening, second opening, third opening, and fourth opening which would not significantly affect the function/operation of the gas injector to supply gas into the plasma treatment chamber.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. (In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Lewington in view of Matsushita as applied above does not explicitly teach a first pump port horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls at a second location generally opposing the first gas injector and below the workpiece; a second pump port horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls at a fourth location generally opposing the second gas injector and below the workpiece; and a multiphase rotating cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector.
However, Lewington already teaches a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065) vertically offset form locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector (comprising a first and second one of 32, Fig. 1, 27).
Additionally, Yonemura teaches a first gas injector (comprising first gas introduction pipe 12a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a first location; a first pump port (comprising first exhaust pipe 13a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a second location generally opposing the first gas injector (comprising 12a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14); a second gas injector (comprising second gas introduction pipe 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a third location; a second pump port (comprising second exhaust pipe 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) along the one or more sidewalls (comprising 11, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) at a fourth location generally opposing the second gas injector (comprising 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9,14). Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pump port of Lewington to comprise a plurality of pump ports circumferentially arranged around the support or along the sidewall and configured to include a first pump port located at a second location generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas flow; a second pump port located at a fourth location and generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector because Lewington already teaches a pump port vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and because Yonemura teaches that such an arrangement of opposing injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
Lewington in view of Matsushit and Yonemura as applied above does not explicitly teach that the first pump port horizontally abuts the one or more sidewalls, the second pump port horizontally abuts the one or more sidewalls; a multi-phase rotating cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction.
However, Lewington teaches that a pump port (comprising opening at the bottom of the apparatus which is connected to the vacuum pump 15, Fig. 1, para. [0065]) which appears to horizontally abut the sidewall (comprising 12, Fig. 1).
Further, Ko teaches a plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma-processing chamber module 100, Fig. 3, para. [0027]) including a construction/structural configuration of a first pump port (comprising opening 124a and duct 125a, Fig. 3, para. [0029]-[0030]) and a second pump port (comprising opening 124b and duct 125b, Fig. 3, para. [0029]-[0030]) arranged horizontally abutting a sidewall and below the workpiece (comprising wafer 1, Fig. 3). See annotated Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
749
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first and second pump port such that each of the first and second pump ports are horizontally abutting the one or more sidewalls and below the workpiece because Ko teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative exhausting configuration having a first and second pump port for exhausting process gases in a plasma treatment chamber.
Additionally, see relevant case law regarding rearrangement of parts MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the pump ports being "horizontally abutting" the sidewalls does not appear to have any particular criticality in light of para. [0036] disclosing that "the gas injectors 118 and/or pump ports 120 may be located in a sidewall or horizontally abutting or adjacent to the sidewall, or located in an outer periphery region of the chamber top or an outer periphery of the chamber bottom" without further providing any particular benefit for the arrangement of the pump ports being "horizontally abutting" the sidewalls.
Regarding limitations: “a multi-phase cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction” this is an intended use limitation.
Examiner notes that Lewington already teaches the first injector comprises a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall and the second injector comprises the second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall, as discussed in detail above. Lewington additionally teaches a plurality of individually controlled valves (comprising 350, Fig. 28 and 29) to control the gas supplied from each injector (comprising 32, Fig. 1, 27) (para. [0090]-[0094]).
Additionally, Yonemura teaches a multiphase cross-flow operation comprising a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector (comprising 12a, Fig. 1, 2, 5(1), 9 (1), 14), a first gas flow (comprising gas introduction amount q1, Fig. 3, 5(1), 7, 9(1)) in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port (comprising 13a, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14), the first gas flow (para. [0031], [0046]-[0048], [0057]); and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector (comprising 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5(2), 9(2), 14), a second gas flow in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port (comprising 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5(2), 9(2), 14), the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction. Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration of gas inlet/injection flow enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]) to ensure substrate processing uniformity (para. [0041]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura and Ko such that the apparatus is capable of performing a multiphase cross flow operations comprising a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector through a first opening at the first base of the inner sidewall in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector through a second opening at the second base of the inner sidewall in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction (i.e. via control of the valves at the first and second gas injectors and control of the valves at the first and second pump ports), because Yonemura teaches that such a gas flow configuration enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate and ensuring substrate processing uniformity (para. [0012], [0041],[0042], [0077]).
Thought taught in the prior art (i.e. at least teachings of Yonemura), claim limitation “a multiphase rotating cross-flow operation comprising at least: a first phase comprising injecting, by the first gas injector, a first gas flow from the first gas injector in a first direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the first pump port, the first gas flow; and a second phase comprising injecting, by the second gas injector, a second gas flow from the second gas injector in a second direction generally parallel to and across the surface of the workpiece, and pumping out, by the second pump port, the second gas flow, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction,” as currently claimed, is an intended use/functional limitation. Since Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura and Ko teaches all of the structural limitations including first and second gas injectors as well as first and second pump ports, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita") and Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation) and Ko et al. (US 2003/0066605 A1 hereinafter "Ko") as applied in claim 15 above and further in view of Fairburn et al. (US 6,077,157 hereinafter “Fairburn”).
Regarding claim 16, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura and Ko teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above.
Lewington further teaches a first gas inlet valve (comprising a respective one of 350 connected to a first gas injector, Fig. 28 and 29) coupled to a first gas injector (comprising a first one of 32, Fig. 28 and 29) and a second gas inlet valve (comprising a respective second one of 350, Fig. 28 and 29) coupled to the second gas injector (comprising a second one of 32, Fig. 28 and 29) (para. [0090]-[0094]).
Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura and Ko as applied above does not explicitly teach a first pressure control valve coupled to the first pump port, and a second pressure control valve coupled to the second pump port.
However, Yonemura teaches a control unit (not shown, disclosed in para. [0011], [0019]) controlling the flow of gas introduced into chamber by the first and second gas injectors (comprising 12a and 12b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) and the amount of gas exhausted through the first and second pump ports (comprising 13a and 13b, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14) (para. [0019]).
Additionally, Fairburn teaches an apparatus comprising a pressure control valve (comprising throttle valve 724, Fig. 22A) coupled to a pump port (comprising exhaust channel 619, Fig. 22A) (col 16 line 34-40). Fairburn teaches that such a configuration enables regulating the pressure in the chamber (col 16 line 35) and further teaches regulating the pressure by regulating the size of the opening of the throttle valve to reach a desired pressure (col 23 line 40-61).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a first pressure control valve and to then couple the first pressure control valve to the first pump port and to also add/provide a second pressure control valve and to then couple the second pressure control valve to the second pump port because Fairburn teaches that such a configuration would enable controlling the amount of gas exhausted from each of the first and second pump ports which would additionally enable regulating the pressure in the chamber (Fairburn: col 23 line 40-61).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington et al. (US 2008/0099450 A1 hereinafter “Lewington”) in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0066778 A1 hereinafter "Matsushita"), Yonemura (JP2001110728A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation)} and Ko et al. (US 2003/0066605 A1 hereinafter "Ko") and Fairburn et al. (US 6,077,157 hereinafter “Fairburn”) as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Sandhu (US 2005/0098108A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura, Ko Fairburn teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as applied above including valves, and Lewington further teaches a controller (comprising process controller 60, Fig. 1) coupled to the plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma reactor, Fig. 1 and 27; para. [0067], [0089], [0102]).
Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura, Ko Fairburn as applied above do not clearly and explicitly teach that the controller is configured to during the first phase, start the first gas flow by fully opening the first gas inlet valve and partially opening the second gas inlet valve; and open the first pressure control valve and close the second pressure control valve.
However, Sandhu further teaches that the first gas inlet valve (comprising one of active diffusers 58a-58f which are piezoelectric gas valves, Fig. 12, para. [0034]-[0036]) coupled to the first gas injector (comprising one of gas delivery nozzles 36a-36f corresponding with the one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0036]) and the second gas inlet valve (comprising a different one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0034]-[0036]) coupled to a second gas injector (comprising a different one of gas delivery nozzles 36a-36f with corresponds with the different one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0036]) is configured to have varying “open” states enabling a wide range of desired process gas flows (para. [0034]).
Additionally, Yonemura further teaches, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 3, that during the first phase (i.e. at time t0), the first gas flow (q1, Fig. 3) from the first gas injector has an amount of gas flow is at a maximum setting (qmax) and the second gas flow (q2) from the second gas injector has an amount of gas flow that is at a value q that is not 0 (para. [0020],[0031], see also Fig. 5(1)). See annotated Fig. 3 of Yonemura below.
PNG
media_image5.png
419
696
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yonemura additionally teaches another embodiment Fig. 7 the during the first phase the first gas flow (q1) from the first gas injector starts at qmax and during the phase between t0 and t1 the second flow (q2) from the second gas injector gradually changes from qmin=0 to equal to the gas flow of q1 at time t1 (see also Fig. 9(1) and 9(2)). See annotated Fig. 7 of Yonemura below.
PNG
media_image6.png
430
607
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner further explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when an inlet valve is at a fully open position a maximum flow rate (qmax) to the injector is provided, when an inlet valve is in a completely closed position qmin of 0 is provided, and when an inlet valve is at a partially open position a value between qmax and 0 is provided.
Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration of gas inlet flow as shown in at least Fig. 3 and 7 enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the valves (Lewington: comprising valves 350, Fig. 28 and 29) to have the capabilities of Sandhu (i.e. configure the valves to be piezoelectric valves) and configure the controller to control the position of both the first inlet valve and the second inlet valve such that during the first phase the first gas flow is started by fully opening the first gas inlet valve (i.e. at qmax) and partially opening the second gas inlet valve, in view of teachings of Sandhu and Yonemura, in the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura, Ko Fairburn to enable providing circular gas flow without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (Yonemura: para. [0012], [0042], [0077]).
Further regarding limitation “open the first pressure control valve and close the second pressure control valve”:
Fairburn teaches regulating the pressure by regulating the size of the opening of the throttle valve to reach a desired pressure (col 23 line 40-61).
Yonemura teaches that in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8, during the first phase the flow rate (Q1) of at the first pump port is at qmax at t0 and the flow rate (Q2) at the second pump port is at Qmin at t0 and the flow rate Q1 at the first pump port gradually decreases while the flow rate Q2 at the second pump port gradually increases (para. [0051], [0057]-[0058], see also Fig. 9(1) and 9(2)).
See annotated Fig. 8 of Yonemura below. Examiner explains that when the pressure control valve is fully open (i.e. size of opening is at maximum) the exhaust rate is understood to be at maximum exhaust rate (i.e. Qmax) and when the pressure control valve is fully closed (i.e. size of opening is at minimum) the exhaust rate is at a minimum (i.e. Qmin).
PNG
media_image7.png
357
820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration of gas exhaust flow as shown in at least Fig. 8 enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to control the position of both the first pressure control valve and the second pressure control valve such that the first pressure control valve is open (i.e. Qmax) and the second control valve is closed (i.e. Qmin), in view of teachings of Fairburn and Yonemura, in the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura, Ko, Fairburn and Sandhu to enable providing circular gas flow without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (Yonemura: para. [0012], [0042], [0077]). {Examiner further notes that Yonemura Fig. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 are substantially similar to Applicant’s Fig. 2C}.
Regarding claim 18, Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura, Ko, Fairburn and Sandhu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 and 17 as applied above including valves, and Lewington further teaches a controller (comprising process controller 60, Fig. 1) coupled to the plasma treatment chamber (comprising plasma reactor, Fig. 1 and 27; para. [0067], [0089], [0102]).
Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura, Ko, Fairburn and Sandhu as applied above do not clearly and explicitly teach that the controller is configured to begin to close the first gas inlet valve near a transition between the first phase and the second phase, and rotate a direction of gas flow by fully opening the second gas inlet valve to being the second phase and partially opening the first gas inlet valve; and open the second pressure control valve and close the first pressure control valve.
However, Sandhu further teaches that the first gas inlet valve (comprising one of active diffusers 58a-58f which are piezoelectric gas valves, Fig. 12, para. [0034]-[0036]) coupled to the first gas injector (comprising one of gas delivery nozzles 36a-36f corresponding with the one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0036]) and the second gas inlet valve (comprising a different one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0034]-[0036]) coupled to a second gas injector (comprising a different one of gas delivery nozzles 36a-36f with corresponds with the different one of active diffusers 58a-58f, Fig. 12, para. [0036]) is configured to have varying “open” states enabling a wide range of desired process gas flows (para. [0034]).
Yonemura additionally teaches embodiment Fig. 7 the during the first phase the first gas flow (q1) from the first gas injector starts at qmax and during time between t0 and t1 the second flow (q2) from the second gas injector gradually changes from qmin=0 to equal to the gas flow of q1 at time t1 (see also Fig. 9(1) and 9(2)) and at t2 the first gas flow (q1) from the first gas injector reaches qmin = 0 and the second gas flow (q2) from the second gas injector reaches qmax. See annotated Fig. 7 of Yonemura below.
PNG
media_image8.png
517
606
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner further explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when an inlet valve is at a fully open position a maximum flow rate (qmax) to the injector is provided, when an inlet valve is in a completely closed position qmin of 0 is provided, and when an inlet valve is at a partially open position a value between qmax and 0 is provided.
Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration of gas inlet flow as shown in at least Fig. 3 and 7 enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to control the first gas inlet valve and the second gas inlet valve such that the first gas inlet valve begins to close near a transition between the first phase and the second phase, and rotation a direction of gas flow by fully opening the second gas inlet valve to being the second phase and partially opening the first gas inlet valve, in view of teachings of Sandhu and Yonemura, in the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura, Ko, Fairburn and Sandhu to enable providing circular gas flow without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (Yonemura: para. [0012], [0042], [0077]). {Examiner further notes that Yonemura Fig. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 are substantially similar to Applicant’s Fig. 2C}.
Regarding limitations “open the second pressure control valve and close the first pressure control valve”:
Fairburn teaches regulating the pressure by regulating the size of the opening of the throttle valve to reach a desired pressure (col 23 line 40-61).
Yonemura teaches that in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8, during the first phase the flow rate (Q1) of at the first pump port is at qmax at t0 and the flow rate (Q2) at the second pump port is at Qmin at t0 and the flow rate Q1 at the first pump port gradually decreases to Qmin while the flow rate Q2 at the second pump port gradually increases to reach Qmax (para. [0051], [0057]-[0058], see also Fig. 9(1) and 9(2)).
See annotated Fig. 8 of Yonemura below. Examiner explains that when the pressure control valve is fully open (i.e. size of opening is at maximum) the exhaust rate is understood to be at maximum exhaust rate (i.e. Qmax) and when the pressure control valve is fully closed (i.e. size of opening is at minimum) the exhaust rate is at a minimum (i.e. Qmin).
PNG
media_image9.png
405
681
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Yonemura further teaches that such a configuration of gas exhaust flow as shown in at least Fig. 8 enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (para. [0012], [0042], [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to control the position of both the first pressure control valve and the second pressure control valve such that the second pressure control valve is open (i.e. Qmax) and the first control valve is closed (i.e. Qmin), in view of teachings of Fairburn and Yonemura, in the apparatus of Lewington in view of Matsushita, Yonemura, Ko, Fairburn and Sandhu to enable providing circular gas flow without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate and thus no dust/particles are generated which maintains the cleanliness of the substrate (Yonemura: para. [0012], [0042], [0077]). {Examiner further notes that Yonemura Fig. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 are substantially similar to Applicant’s Fig. 2C}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 Aug 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments as discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 15) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, Lewington, Choi, Yonemura, Ko, Srivastava, alone or in combination does not teach or suggest "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" and "the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 and 15 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Matsushita, Choi or alternatively Yonemura. Examiner notes the position of the openings in the sidewall including the vertical offset does not appear to have any particular criticality in the claimed apparatus. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the gas injector and rearrange the openings at the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall for each of the first injector and the second injector because Matsushita teaches that a gas injector comprising an opening in the outer sidewall that is vertically offset from another opening in the inner sidewall is a known suitable alternative configuration of a gas injector for supplying gas to a process chamber wherein one of ordinary skill in the would recognize that "the first opening in the outer sidewall and the second opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset; the third opening in the outer sidewall and the fourth opening in the inner sidewall being vertically offset" amounts to a change of shape of the injector and a rearrangement of the location of the first opening, second opening, third opening, and fourth opening which would not significantly affect the function/operation of the gas injector to supply gas into the plasma treatment chamber. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. (In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C. See also cited art not relied upon showing other examples of gas injectors having an opening at the outer sidewall vertically offset from another opening at an inner sidewall.
Applicant argues (remarks page 17-19) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, that none of the cited prior art (Lewington, Choi, Yonemura) teaches or suggests the specific configuration of vertically offset pump ports located generally opposite to the corresponding gas injectors as claimed. The examiner has not explained why one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Lewington's single bottom pump port or Choi's circumferential exhaust arrangement to achieve this specific positioning of the pump ports and gas injectors that enables the claimed multiphase rotating cross-flow operation. None of the references teach gas injectors are formed in openings along the sidewall AND pump ports are positioned both vertically offset AND generally opposite to corresponding gas injectors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that independent claim 1 does not require a multiphase rotating cross-flow operation. Additionally, independent claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Lewington, Matsushita, Yonemura, and Ko. Applicant has not provided any arguments toward Ko. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Lewington, Choi, Yonemura), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, regarding claim 1 rejection of Lewington in view of Matsushita, Choi: Lewington teaches first and second gas injectors and a single pump port that is vertically offset from the first and second gas injectors. Choi teaches a plurality of pump ports along a circumference of the substrate support, wherein the pump ports are below the workpiece, and vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and having the first and second gas injectors generally opposing (see claim interpretation section in the final rejection regarding "generally opposite"). Choi teaches such a configuration enables controlling of the reaction gas flow to improve plasma process uniformity. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of pump ports arranged along the circumference of the support including a first pump port located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas; a second pump port generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector because Lewington already teaches a pump port vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and because Choi teaches a configuration having pump ports disposed circumferentially around the support such that a first pump port is located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas low; a second pump port located generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, enables control of the gas flow to improve plasma process uniformity.
Regarding alternative rejection of independent claim 1 (and claim 15 rejection), over Lewington in view of Matsushita and Yonemura, Yonemura teaches different embodiments of an apparatus configured to perform multi-phase rotating cross-flow operation, including an embodiment of first and second gas injectors being vertically offset from respective pump ports (Fig. 14) and an embodiment wherein the first and second gas injectors are located along the one or more sidewall and generally opposing respective first and second pump ports (Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9). Yonemura teaches that such a configuration enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate to ensure substrate processing uniformity (Yonemura: para. [0041]). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of pump ports arranged along the circumference of the support including a first pump port located generally opposite of the first gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the first gas; a second pump port generally opposite of the second gas injector and below the workpiece to pump out the second gas flow, wherein locations of the first pump port and the second pump port are vertically offset from locations of the first gas injector and the second gas injector because Lewington already teaches a pump port vertically offset from first and second gas injectors and because Yonemura teaches that such an arrangement of opposing injectors and pump ports enables providing a circular flow of gas without the need of mechanically rotating the substrate to ensure substrate processing uniformity (Yonemura: para. [0041]).
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 15 are rejected. Additionally, the dependent claims 2, 5-9, 16-18, 21-22 are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches examples of gas injectors having an opening in an outer sidewall which is vertically offset from an opening in an inner sidewall:
Salzman (US 5,597,439) see Fig. 3 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Young et al. (US5851294) see Fig. 4 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Maydan et al. (US 5885358) see Fig. 3 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Kamaishi et al. (US 2006/0060141A1) see Fig. 1-3 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Choi et al. (US2006/0112876A1) see Fig. 1 and 2 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Lee et al. (US 2008/0289576 A1) see Fig. 1C and Fig. 2 and corresponding teachings disclosed in the Specification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716