DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 3/20/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 21-23, and 25-33 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 15-20, and 24-26 are cancelled.
Claims 30-33 are new.
Claims 1, 8, 21, and 29 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a gas supply system” in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The Examiner notes the par. [0022] of the instant PG-Pub states that gas supply system “can include any suitable components, such as a gas source (e.g., a gas cylinder …) and a gas flow controller (e.g., a mass flow controller…) that can provide the gas to chamber 160”.
As an additional note, the Examiner cannot find any description of the gas supply system comprising a processor and memory, thus the recited functional language of the gas supply system is merely an intended use of the apparatus and not structurally limiting.
The “gas supply system” is therefore construed in accordance with the above for purposes of prosecution.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606) in view of Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Yoshida (US 6,508,990), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), with Aitani (US Patent 5,902,403) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus, comprising: a deposition apparatus (C5, L58 and Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #102); a thermal distributor in the chamber (C7, L61 and Fig. 1, heat plates #220/#230), wherein a top surface of the thermal distributor comprises a reflective material (C9, L43-44).
Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the reflective material is a mirror-coated material (although the Examiner posits that Hayashi teaches an infrared reflector that would act as a mirror-coated material).
However, Koelmel teaches wherein a reflective material is a mirror-coated material (Koelmel – [0022] and Fig. 2, reflector plate #28 comprises gold or multi-layer mirror).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a mirror coating for the thermal distributor of Hayashi in order to efficiently reflect heat and uniformly distribute heat to a substrate (Koelmel – [0022]).
Modified Hayashi does not teach the claimed detection module, gas scrubbing devices, or gas supply system.
However, Ries teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in the chamber (Ries – C12, L9-18) by measuring a signature (Ries – C12, L10) and a first gas scrubbing device configured to remove the impurities (Ries – C12, L9-18: plasma cleaning), and a gas supply system (Ries – C11, L30-35: fluorinated cleaning gases supplied).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Hayashi apparatus with the detection scheme of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61).
Modified Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the detection module is configured to project towards an upper surface of the thermal distributor and detect impurities in the chamber by measuring a thermal signature of the thermal distributor (Ries is silent as to the exact mechanism of the detection module).
However, Yoshida teaches a detection module configured to project inside a processing chamber (Yoshida – C13, L46-64) and detect impurities in the chamber by measuring a thermal signature (Yoshida – C13, L52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular detection module of Yoshida with the modified Hayashi apparatus in order to measure and determine types/amounts of contaminants inside the processing chamber (Yoshida – C13, L46-64).
Thus, as a combination of references, the thermal distributor of modified Hayashi (Hayashi) would be subjected to characteristic impurity detection (Ries) via a thermal detection device/method (Yoshida).
Modified Hayashi does not teach a second gas scrubbing device, wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively.
However, Taylor teaches a second gas scrubbing device (Taylor – [0038] and Fig. 2A, lower nozzle #212), wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively (Taylor – Fig. 2A, nozzle locations of #212 are positioned such that they would be located in the correct positions if incorporated into Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding the limitation: “configured to determine a form of the decontamination gas”, the limitation is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus since the gas supply system is not construed as having independent programming. Since Ries describes a gas supply system with variable density cleaning plasma (Ries – C11, L23-46), modified Hayashi is regarded as capable of performing the function.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Hayashi teaches wherein the deposition apparatus further comprises: a chuck housed in the chamber (Fig. 1, stage #120); and a showerhead disposed over the chuck (Fig. 1, member #146).
Modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed under the chuck.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed under the chuck (Taylor – Fig. 2A, nozzle locations of #212 are positioned such that they would be located in the correct positions if incorporated into Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Hayashi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ries teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in the chamber (Ries – C12, L9-18) by measuring a signature (Ries – C12, L10) and a first gas scrubbing device configured to remove the impurities (Ries – C12, L9-18: plasma cleaning).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Hayashi apparatus with the detection scheme of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61). For clarity, the limitation: “further configured to improve a reflectivity of the top surface” is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus. As Ries teaches a cleaning process utilized for the infrared reflectors of Hayashi, the resulting cleaned member is regarded as having improved reflectivity due to the elimination of surface contaminants.
Modified Hayashi does not teach a second gas scrubbing device.
However, Taylor teaches a second gas scrubbing device (Taylor – [0038] and Fig. 2A, lower nozzle #212).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the intended uses. Evidentiary reference Aitani teaches wherein nitrogen trifluoride plasma is commonly used to clean tungsten from a process chamber (Aitani – C6, L1-8).
Regarding claim 31, modified Hayashi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ries teaches wherein a control device is further configured to determine the form of the decontamination gas among a plasma (Ries – C11, L23-46: describes a variable density cleaning plasma from a fluorinated gas).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Hayashi apparatus with the detection scheme of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Yoshida (US 6,508,990), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30-31 above, further in view of Willis (US Pub. 2004/0004708).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30-31 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the detection module comprises: an image sensor configured to detect a visual/temperature signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor; and a fiber sensor configured to detect a temperature signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor (Ries teaches a generic sensor/detector, but is silent as to its exact nature).
However, Willis teaches an image sensor configured to detect a visual signature associated with impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0037]: sensor spans UV, visible, and near-IR wavelengths, all of which are “thermal” wavelengths; [0042]: controller uses information from measurement device #50 to analyze the plasma system), and a fiber sensor configured to detect impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0036]-[0038] and Figs. 1-2, measurement device #50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the sensors of Willis in the apparatus/method of modified Hayashi in order to observe and analyze the performance of the chamber with improved data collection/handling and manipulation (Willis – [0027]).
Claims 8, 12, 14, 28, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606) in view of Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), Yoshida (US 6,508,990), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), with Aitani (US Patent 5,902,403) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus, comprising: a deposition apparatus (C5, L58 and Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a chuck configured to hold a substrate (C6, L44 and Fig. 1, stage #120); a showerhead above the chuck and configured to provide a material to be deposited on the substrate (Fig. 1, wall #146; C7, L10-14 details process gas supply); a thermal distributor configured to control a temperature uniformity of the substrate (C7, L61 and Fig. 1, heat plates #220/#230), wherein the thermal distributor is disposed under the chuck (see Fig. 1), and a gas supply system (Fig. 1, gas supply source #112) coupled to the showerhead (see Fig. 1, is rigidly connected to upper part of reactor that supplies gas to plate #146), wherein the gas supply system is configured to: provide the material to the showerhead (Fig. 1, provides gas to intermediate chamber and then plate #146).
Hayashi does not teach the detection module, the gas scrubbing devices, or wherein the gas supply system is coupled to the first and second gas scrubbing devices.
However, Ries teaches a detection module (Ries – C12, L9-18), a first gas scrubbing device configured to maintain a reflectivity based on an intensity difference (Ries – C12, L9-18: plasma cleaning; C12, L10: do contaminants remain; Fig. 7, detection step #1007 to cleaning step #1030), and a gas supply system coupled thereto (Ries – C11, L30-35: fluorinated cleaning gases supplied).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Hayashi apparatus with the method of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61).
Modified Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the reflective material is a mirror-coated material (although the Examiner posits that Hayashi teaches an infrared reflector that would act as a mirror-coated material).
However, Koelmel teaches wherein a reflective material is a mirror-coated material (Koelmel – [0022] and Fig. 2, reflector plate #28 comprises gold or multi-layer mirror).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a mirror coating for the thermal distributor of modified Hayashi in order to efficiently reflect heat and uniformly distribute heat to a substrate (Koelmel – [0022]). For clarity, the limitation: “configured to maintain a mirror-reflectivity” is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus. As Ries teaches a cleaning process utilized for the infrared reflectors of Hayashi coated with the mirror coating of Koelmel, the resulting cleaned member is regarded as having mirror reflectivity maintained due to the elimination of surface contaminants.
Modified Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the detection module comprises an optical interferometer configured to emit a first optical signal towards the thermal distributor and measure a second optical signal reflected from the thermal distributor (Ries is silent as to the exact mechanism of the detection module).
However, Yoshida teaches an optical interferometer configured to emit a first optical signal towards an object in a chamber and measure a second optical signal reflected from said object (Yoshida – C13, L46-64).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular detection module of Yoshida with the modified Hayashi apparatus in order to measure and determine types/amounts of contaminants inside the processing chamber (Yoshida – C13, L46-64).
Modified Hayashi does not teach a second gas scrubbing device, wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively.
However, Taylor teaches a second gas scrubbing device (Taylor – [0038] and Fig. 2A, lower nozzle #212), wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively (Taylor – Fig. 2A, nozzle locations of #212 are positioned such that they would be located in the correct positions if incorporated into Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches wherein the deposition apparatus further comprises: a chuck housed in the chamber (Fig. 1, stage #120); and a showerhead disposed over the chuck (Fig. 1, member #146).
Modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed under the chuck.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed under the chuck (Taylor – Fig. 2A, nozzle locations of #212 are positioned such that they would be located in the correct positions if incorporated into Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi teaches wherein the deposition apparatus further comprises a chamber to house the thermal distributor (C5, L66 and Fig. 1, chamber #102).
Modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the detection module is disposed outside the chamber (Ries discloses a generic sensor but is silent as to its exact positioning).
However, Yoshida teaches wherein the detection module is disposed outside the chamber (Yoshida – see Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular detection module of Yoshida with the modified Hayashi apparatus in order to measure and determine types/amounts of contaminants inside the processing chamber (Yoshida – C13, L46-64).
Regarding claim 28, Hayashi wherein the thermal distributor (C7, L61 and Fig. 1, heat plates #220/#230) is further configured to reflect a thermal radiation towards the chuck in a manner of reflection (C7, L61).
Modified Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the reflective material is a mirror-coated material (although the Examiner posits that Hayashi teaches an infrared reflector that would act as a mirror-coated material).
However, Koelmel teaches wherein a reflective material is a mirror-coated material (Koelmel – [0022] and Fig. 2, reflector plate #28 comprises gold or multi-layer mirror).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a mirror coating for the thermal distributor of modified Hayashi in order to efficiently reflect heat and uniformly distribute heat to a substrate (Koelmel – [0022]).
Regarding claims 32-33, each claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the intended uses. Evidentiary reference Aitani teaches wherein nitrogen trifluoride plasma is commonly used to clean tungsten from a process chamber (Aitani – C6, L1-8).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606), Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), Yoshida (US 6,508,990), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 28, and 32-33 above, further in view of Willis (US Pub. 2004/0004708).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 28, and 22-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the detection module comprises: an image sensor configured to detect a visual/temperature signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor; and a fiber sensor configured to detect a temperature signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor (Ries teaches a generic sensor/detector, but is silent as to its exact nature).
However, Willis teaches an image sensor configured to detect a visual signature associated with impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0037]: sensor spans UV, visible, and near-IR wavelengths, all of which are “thermal” wavelengths; [0042]: controller uses information from measurement device #50 to analyze the plasma system), and a fiber sensor configured to detect impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0036]-[0038] and Figs. 1-2, measurement device #50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the sensors of Willis in the apparatus/method of modified Hayashi in order to observe and analyze the performance of the chamber with improved data collection/handling and manipulation (Willis – [0027]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606) in view of Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707).
Regarding claim 21, Hayashi teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus, comprising: a deposition apparatus (C5, L58 and Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #102), comprising: a chuck configured to hold a substrate (C6, L44 and Fig. 1, stage #120); a thermal distributor configured to control a temperature uniformity of the substrate (C7, L61 and Fig. 1, heat plates #220/#230), wherein the thermal distributor is disposed under the chuck (see Fig. 1).
Hayashi does not teach the claimed detection module, gas scrubbing devices, or control device determination.
However, Ries teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in a chamber (Ries – C12, L9-18), output data about characteristics of the detected impurities (Ries – C12, L10: do contaminants remain), a first gas scrubbing device configured to reduce the thickness of the impurities so that the thickness of the impurity is below a predefined upper limit (Ries – C12, L9-18: plasma cleaning; C12, L10: do contaminants remain; Fig. 7, detection step #1007 to cleaning step #1030; is regarded as teaching where a non-zero thickness is detected and a cleaning step is enacted to reduce the non-zero thickness to a zero thickness), wherein a control device (Ries – C2, L21-22) is further configured to determine the form of the decontamination gas among a plasma (Ries – C11, L23-46: describes a variable density cleaning plasma from a fluorinated gas)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Hayashi apparatus with the method of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61).
Modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the characteristics comprise a thickness of the impurities.
However, Le Claire teaches wherein impurity thickness and coverage are both known methodologies for monitoring surface contamination (Le Claire – C12, L37-53).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize either surface coverage detection (Ries) or thickness detection (Le Claire) to monitor and adjust contamination on the modified Hayashi apparatus to qualify the efficiency/completeness of the cleaning process (Le Claire – C12, L37-53).
Additionally, since Le Claire teaches surface coverage and thickness are both known criteria for evaluating surface contamination, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either/both known methods to obtain a predictable result.
Modified Hayashi does not teach a second gas scrubbing device, wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed under a backside of the chuck and over and under the thermal distributor, respectively.
However, Taylor teaches a second gas scrubbing device (Taylor – [0038] and Fig. 2A, lower nozzle #212).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hayashi apparatus to include the additional gas scrubbing devices of Taylor in order to enable efficient in-situ chamber cleaning while not breaking vacuum to achieve higher cleaning efficiency (Taylor – [0024]-[0025]).
While Taylor does not, on its own, explicitly teach wherein the gas scrubbing devices are disposed under a backside of the chuck and over/under the thermal distributor, this limitation would be met by the combination of references, notably the structure as disclosed in Hayashi.
As depicted in Fig. 1 of Hayashi, various locations appear to be accessible below the chuck and above/below the thermal distributor (as claimed), among other locations.
Taylor explicitly teaches wherein the nozzle assembly #212 may be provided in a plurality (par. [0039]) and arranged at various locations around a process chamber, notably sidewalls and bottom walls (pars. [0039]-[0040]).
Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would have a suitable motivation to add one or more nozzles of Taylor into the Hayashi apparatus (see explicitly provided rationale above), and would be able to locate said nozzles in the claimed orientation as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi teaches a gas extraction system configured to exhaust gas from the chamber through a gas outlet (Fig. 1, exhaust device #140 with opening to exhaust pipe #138).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 8,283,606), Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, further in view of Willis (US Pub. 2004/0004708).
The limitations of claims 21 and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 22, modified Hayashi does not teach wherein the detection module comprises: an image sensor configured to detect a visual signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor; and a fiber sensor configured to detect a temperature signature associated with the impurity on the thermal distributor (Ries teaches a generic sensor/detector, but is silent as to its exact nature).
However, Willis teaches an image sensor configured to detect a visual signature associated with impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0037]: visual sensor; [0042]: controller uses information from measurement device #50 to analyze the plasma system), and a fiber sensor configured to detect impurities in a chamber (Willis – [0036]-[0038] and Figs. 1-2, measurement device #50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the sensors of Willis in the apparatus/method of modified Hayashi in order to observe and analyze the performance of the chamber with improved data collection/handling and manipulation (Willis – [0027]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 8,283,606), Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, further in view of Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136).
The limitations of claims 21 and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 29, Hayashi does not teach the added limitations of the claim. (although the Examiner posits that Hayashi teaches an infrared reflector that would act as a mirror material).
However, Koelmel teaches wherein a reflective material is a mirror-coated material (Koelmel – [0022] and Fig. 2, reflector plate #28 comprises gold or multi-layer mirror).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a mirror coating for the thermal distributor of Hayashi in order to efficiently reflect heat and uniformly distribute heat to a substrate (Koelmel – [0022]).
Response to Argument
Applicant has corrected the dependency of claim 29, thus the previous §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art of record, notably Ries, continues to meet the limitations of the claims.
As an aside, the Examiner notes that the only structurally limiting recitation of the added “determination” limitation is in claim 21. Claim 1 recites this limitation functionally as an intended use of the apparatus, and claim 8 does not recite it at all. As such, the Examiner directs the rebuttal specifically to claim 21 while noting it may also be applied to claim 1 (although not required based upon the amendments).
In particular, the Examiner notes the large breadth of the limitation: “a control device configured to determine a form of the decontamination gas among a gas, a plasma, an atomic beam, a molecular beam, and a radical” as added to claim 21.
First, the limitation does not clearly define “a gas, a plasma, an atomic beam, a molecular beam, and a radical” as the “forms” of the decontamination gas. The Examiner respectfully submits the BRI of the limitation, even considering the entire instant disclosure, does not limit the claim to this interpretation.
Second, the limitation does not specifically require that the controller perform a “determination” of all of these “forms” – merely that one of these “forms” is selected.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Ries teaches using a gas/plasma (which would necessarily also include radicals as a byproduct of plasma generation) with variable density to perform a cleaning process (see the body of the rejection for the specific citation). Additionally, the Examiner has supplied the Aitani reference as evidence of knowledge in the art of using NF3 to remove tungsten contamination (see the body of the rejection for the specific citation).
Conclusion
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights