DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “wherein the one or more openings are in fluid communication with a gas source and configured to provide a flow of a-backside gas to the support region and a flow of purge gas from the support region past the plurality of spaced apart posts bounding the support region to provide an active flow path around the wafer edge”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Han teaches a substrate support pedestal 120 Fig. 1 comprising a support body 120 having a top surface (top of 120) and a bottom surface (bottom of 120) defining a thickness (thickness of 120), a top surface having an outer edge, as shown below, and having a support region (the region below W) configured to support a wafer having an wafer edge, an outer band (the concentric ring region around W that 300 occupies in plan view) between the outer edge and the support region, an outer region (the region that is concentrically outside of 300, 140), the outer band comprising a plurality of spaced apart posts bounding the support region and separating the support region from the outer region, as shown in Fig. 2, the support region comprising one or more openings 520 (see Fig. 3), the plurality of spaced apart posts 300 extending a height from the top surface of the support body above the support region and the outer region, as shown in yellow in the annotated copy of Fig. 3 below, the plurality of spaced apart posts having a sidewall (as shown in Fig. 6A, 6B, having the vertical sidewall of 300 therein), extending substantially perpendicular to the top surface of the support body, wherein each of the spaced apart posts has a cross sectional width as shown in Fig. 1-5, Col. 3 line 15-Col. 7 line 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Han teaches a substrate support pedestal 120 Fig. 1 which has guiding blocks or posts 300 that are adjustable to set relative locations of said posts to be set at a distance of 0.5 mm – 2.0 mm from the outer circumference of the substrate/wafer W which has a diameter of 300 mm (Col. 5 lines 25-39; Col. 3 line 16-Col. 7 line 5). Han and spaced the posts are 0.5-2.0 mm outside the circumference of substrate, such that with a 300 mm diameter of a substrate would result in a circumference of the support region = π * (300+(1mm:4mm)) = 945.6-955 mm.
Han does not expressly teach a diameter or width of the post.
Blomiley teaches a substrate support 30 Fig. 1-4 with projections 48 that have widths of 0.25-1.0 centimeters, or 2.5-10 mm, and that the projections occupy less than 10% and preferably less than 3% of the circumference of the substrate, to minimize any disruption of gas flow across the substrate [0046-0051].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Han by applying the size dimension of a width of 2.5-10 mm, as per the teachings of Han, thus occupying less than 3% of the circumference of the substrate, and thus implicitly less than 3% of the support region which has a greater circumference than that of the substrate, as per the teachings of Han. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of minimizing gas flow disruption across the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the projections 48 of Blomiley and the posts 300 of Han are art analogous structures for creating a peripheral sidewall, as they surround the substrate and provide for alignment of the substrate implicitly, and as such using the dimensions of 48 in Blomiley (of 2.5 mm X 6) would be obvious to use in Han for dimensions alone and for the predictable result of not reducing gas flow as needed, thus resulting in a combined width being less than or equal to 50% of a circumference of the support region.
Han in view of Blomiley do not expressly teach wherein the one or more openings are in fluid communication with a gas source and configured to provide a flow of a-backside gas to the support region and a flow of purge gas from the support region past the plurality of spaced apart posts bounding the support region to provide an active flow path around the wafer edge.
Morita teaches in Fig. 14 a gas source (nitrogen gas source 53) that supplies gas to the backside of the substrate through lift pin openings and that controlling said gas is performed by a flow controller (flow regulating valve 59), pressure gauge 61, pump (pump of 31) and feedback circuit (controller 39, memory 44 and steps for S1-S17 and the lines connecting 39 and 44 to other structures in Fig. 14), see steps S5-S7, which finds the set pressure, Fig. 15) connected to the gas line (through 57 for the switch valve) to control a flow of gas through the gas line into the support region; a controller (39 and 44 only) configured to control and/or receive information from one or more of the flow controller 59, pressure gauge 61, or feedback circuit (lines formed therein); or that the flow controller 59 is upstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line (line of 55 at 59), the pressure gauge is downstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line (line of 55 at 59) and the pump 31 is downstream of the pressure gauge and in fluid communication with the gas line (as 31 suctions from the exhaust), and the feedback circuit (Fig. 15) is configured to measure pressure in the gas line and adjust the flow controller to maintain a uniform pressure within the gas line (Col. 5 line 1-Col. 12 line 67).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add the purge gas steps to the lift pins as per the teachings of Morita. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of uniform heat treatment (see Morita, Summary of the Invention). See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches the combined widths of the spaced apart posts is less than or equal to 25% of the circumference of the support region, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 4, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches the combined widths of the spaced apart posts is less than or equal to 10% of the circumference of the support region, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 5, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches when a substrate is present in the support region, the outer band provides a physical boundary to keep the substrate centered within the band, as a guiding block in Han provides for alignment.
In regards to Claim 6, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches there is substantially no dead volume around the substrate, as there is a gap underneath the substrate and there are no other structures than the posts around the substrate and Blomiley expressly teaches that gas flow is not reduced, as per the rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 7, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches a substrate W is present in the support region, the outer band is spaced from an outer peripheral edge of the substrate, as shown in Fig. 2, wherein Han teaches the spacing is by an average distance in the range of about 0.5-2.0 mm, a range that overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-5.0 mm, which is a distance between posts, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 9, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita teaches the spacing between the posts are substantially the same, as shown in Fig. 2 of Han.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 5645646 to Beinglass et al.
The teachings of Han in view of Blomiley are relied upon as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 8, Han in view Blomiley do not expressly teach the spaced apart posts each have a height from 0.2-5 mm.
Beinglass teaches substrate support pedestal (susceptor 20 Fig. 1 and shaft 22 combined) comprising a support body 32 Fig. 4, 5 having a top surface 34 and a bottom surface (bottom of 32) defining a thickness (thickness of 32), the top surface having a support region (region that overlaps with 30 indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 5), an outer band (circular region of 38), and an outer region (region outside of 38), the outer band bounding the support region and separating the support region from the outer region, the support region configured to support a wafer during processing so that the wafer is not positioned within a pocket (interpreted as the support region not having a recess, pocket or indentation as shown in Fig. 1-6, the pocket thus not being positively limited) formed in the support region, the support region comprising one or more openings (recesses that are formed in opposite to the supports posts 36 that support the substrate) in the top surface of the support body (as shown in Fig. 4), the outer band comprising a plurality of spaced apart posts 38 extending a height from the top surface of the support body above the support region and the outer region (as shown in Fig. 4), the posts having a sidewall extending substantially perpendicular to the top surface of the support body (as shown in the vertical walls of Fig. 4), each of the spaced apart posts having a cross-sectional width, the posts of 38 and 36 having similar diameters that are 1-3 millimeters, there being six (6) posts of 38, such that the combined width is 24 mm (Col. 3 lines 63-67, Col. 3 line 30-Col. 5 line 27), which is less than 10% of the circumference of the support region as generally shown in Fig. 5 and as also evidenced by the teachings of Imai (Imai, Col. 1 line 65-Col. 2 line 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
530
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Beinglass teaches wherein the each of the spaced apart posts has a height in the range of about 0.2 mm to about 5 mm, as the length/height is 0.5 mm longer than 36 (0.5-10mm, or 1 mm; Col. 3 line 56-Col. 4 line 12).
It has been held that change of size or portion is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the height of the posts in relation to the wafer positioning that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the height of the posts of Blomiley of 1 mm, which are art analogous teaches for a post. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A, applying the teachings of the dimensions of the posts as an art analogous equivalent
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0235866 to Kataigi et al.
The teachings of Han in view of Blomiley are relied upon as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claims 11, 13, 14 and 15, Han in view of Blomiley do not expressly teach the support body is an electrostatic chuck comprising electrodes, a pedestal shaft extending from the bottom surface of the support body, or the pedestal shaft comprises a gas line extending through the pedestal shaft to the one or more opening in the support region or that wherein the one or more openings in the support region are in fluid communication with one or more of a vacuum source, a reactive gas source or a purge gas source.
Kataigi teaches a substrate support 100 Fig. 1-4 that has a support region 12b, that vacuum chucks (see 28, 28b [0058]) and also has an electrostatic chuck electrode 18 that electrostatic chucks [0018-0020], which allows for the substrate to be held on the mounting surface 12b regardless of the pressure around the substrate support and thus prevents the upper surface of the substrate support from corrosion [0122], such that the combination of the vacuum chuck and the electrostatic chuck has this specific benefit [0037-0153].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Han in view of Blomiley by adding the electrostatic chuck of Kataigi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of using both the vacuum chuck and the electrostatic chuck to be able to chuck the substrate regardless of the pressure around the substrate holder, as per the teachings of Kataigi. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 13 and 14 and 15, Kataigi teaches a pedestal shaft 36 is connected to the bottom surface of the support body 10 has a penetration hole 38 and hole 40 that are a gas line and an exhaust line formed inside the shaft that extend through the pedestal shaft to one or more openings in the support region and connect the support body openings to a gas purge source and a vacuum system source [0068-0069]. Kataigi further teaches that the purge gas is supplied to move horizontally underneath the substrate to remove stagnating corrosive gas in the vicinity of the outer edge of the substrate [0070].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Han in view of Blomiley, by adding the purge gas system of Kataigi to the substrate support. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of forming openings for the purge gas in the support region such that the purge gas is moved horizontally underneath the substrate to remove stagnating corrosive gas in the vicinity of the outer edge of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Furthermore, as it is known to form a substrate support as a pedestal with a body with a shaft, as taught by Kataigi, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Han in view of Blomiley to include the shaft, gas lines, and a vacuum source or a purge gas source. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide a mechanism for vacuum chucking and supplying purge gas to the substrate support. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 16-18, Han in view of Blomiley and Kataigi teaches a purge gas source but does not expressly teach does not expressly teach comprising a flow controller, pressure gauge, pump and feedback circuit connected to the gas line to control a flow of gas through the gas line into the support region; a controller configured to control and/or receive information from one or more of the flow controller, pressure gauge, pump or feedback circuit; or that the flow controller is upstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line, the pressure gauge is downstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line and the pump is downstream of the pressure gauge and in fluid communication with the gas line, and the feedback circuit is configured to measure pressure in the gas line and adjust the flow controller to maintain a uniform pressure within the gas line.
Morita teaches in Fig. 14 a gas source (nitrogen gas source 53) that supplies gas to the backside of the substrate and that controlling said gas is performed by a flow controller (flow regulating valve 59), pressure gauge 61, pump (pump of 31) and feedback circuit (controller 39, memory 44 and steps for S1-S17 and the lines connecting 39 and 44 to other structures in Fig. 14), see steps S5-S7, which finds the set pressure, Fig. 15) connected to the gas line (through 57 for the switch valve) to control a flow of gas through the gas line into the support region; a controller (39 and 44 only) configured to control and/or receive information from one or more of the flow controller 59, pressure gauge 61, or feedback circuit (lines formed therein); or that the flow controller 59 is upstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line (line of 55 at 59), the pressure gauge is downstream of and in fluid communication with the gas line (line of 55 at 59) and the pump 31 is downstream of the pressure gauge and in fluid communication with the gas line (as 31 suctions from the exhaust), and the feedback circuit (Fig. 15) is configured to measure pressure in the gas line and adjust the flow controller to maintain a uniform pressure within the gas line (Col. 5 line 1-Col. 12 line 67).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have substituted the generic flow/pressure control of Han in view of Blomiley and Kataigi with the detailed flow/pressure control of Morita. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0093473 to Moon et al.
The teachings of Han in view of Blomiley are relied upon as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 12, Han in view of Blomiley do not expressly teach the support body comprises heater coils within the thickness of the support body.
Moon teaches a substrate support 200 Fig. 5 where there is a support body (body of 200) that supplies gas to a backside of the substrate/wafer [0060] which has an electrostatic chuck in 200 with a heater coil 230 [0058] in the body, the heater being used to heat the substrate to a specific temperature [0058; 0054-0089].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have substituted the generic substrate support platen Han with the detailed substrate support that has a heater coil support plate, as per the teachings of Moon. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to heat the substrate to a specific temperature in a processing apparatus. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 7458762 to Han et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0180084 to Blomiley et al and United States Patent No. 7432476 to Morita et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0251020 to Franken et al.
The teachings of Han in view of Blomiley and Morita are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 19, Han in view of Blomiley and Morita do not expressly teach a plurality of gas distribution assemblies spaced around an inside of the processing chamber each of the gas distribution assemblies configured to direct a flow of gas toward the top surface of the support body.
Franken teaches a processing chamber 1, 2 Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a substrate support assembly 6, 7 comprising a plurality of substrate support pedestals 7, each of the substrate support pedestals comprising a support body (body of 7) having a top surface (top of 7) and a bottom surface (bottom of 7) defining a thickness (thickness of 7), the top surface having a support region (surface of 7 that holes the substrate), the substrate support assembly rotatable around a central axis 5 [0027]; and a plurality of gas distribution assemblies spaced around in inside of the processing chamber, each of the gas distribution assemblies 15, 16, 17 configured to direct a flow of gas toward the top surface of the support body (as it supplies gas around the peripheral edge of 7 through the pocket of 10) [0013-0031].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Han in view of Blomiley and Morita by adding the gas supply of Franken as an art analogous structure for gas in a processing chamber. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 4931135 to Horiuchi also teaches lift pin hole gas.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights