DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 6/17/2026.
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.
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 21-23, 27-32, and 34 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 15-20, 24-26, and 33 are cancelled.
Claim 34 is new.
Claims 1, 8, 21, and 23 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 21-23, 27, 29-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices; and a gas supply system directly coupled to the second gas scrubbing device and indirectly coupled to the first gas scrubbing device through the second gas scrubbing device and the conduit” is regarded as new matter.
Particularly, the disclosure does not appear to describe or support where two different gas scrubbing devices are interconnected via a conduit in the claimed manner.
Instant Fig. 1 depicts a gas scrubbing device #130 and a conduit #152 that connects to a remote plasma source #108 and gas regulator #154, as well as showerhead #106. Gas supply #112 is depicted connected to various components, where instant pars. [0022]-[0023] describe where the dashed lines can include gas conduits.
Instant par. [0021] describes where a gas scrubbing device #130 comprises a gas conduit #152, an opening #120, and a gas regulator #154. As such, the gas regulator #154 is regarded as a sub-component of a single gas scrubbing device, not a second gas scrubbing device.
The Drawings, therefore, do not depict the claimed arrangement of first and second gas scrubbing devices connected via conduit in the claimed manner, as the Drawings do not even depict a second gas scrubbing device.
Instant par. [0021] describes where multiple gas scrubbing devices #130 can be utilized in the apparatus, but does not describe their relative arrangement or connection via conduit, as claimed.
For at least these reasons, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 7, 27, and 30-31, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites: “wherein the first gas scrubbing device is disposed on a first side of the thermal distributor, and wherein the second gas scrubbing device is disposed on a second side of the thermal distributor opposite to the first side of the thermal distributor; and a gas outlet disposed on the first side of the thermal distributor” that is regarded as new matter.
Particularly the phrase: “is disposed on a side” requires that the first/second gas scrubbing devices are physically located on a side of the thermal distributor. No support for such an arrangement can be found.
Regarding claims 22-23 and 29, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites a particular location of the shower head along the conduit relative to the first and second gas scrubbing devices. This is regarded as new matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 21-23, 27, 29-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices; and a gas supply system directly coupled to the second gas scrubbing device and indirectly coupled to the first gas scrubbing device through the second gas scrubbing device and the conduit” is regarded as indefinite claim language in light of the disclosure.
As explained above in the §112(a) rejection, the disclosure does not appropriately describe the above limitation in sufficient detail to render the claim definite in scope.
The Examiner submits that the limitation above in light of the disclosure as a whole creates multiple interpretations that renders the claim indefinite in scope. Namely, the Applicant may be trying to claim the gas connection structure between gas scrubbing device #130 and gas regulator #154 as supplied by the left-most gas supply #112 (Fig. 1). Alternatively, Applicant may genuinely be trying to claim the connection structure of the first and second disclosed gas scrubbing devices, but lacks sufficient disclosure to describe the “directly coupled to” limitation in a way that would make the boundaries of the claim clear.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as reading: “a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices; and a gas supply system directly or indirectly coupled to the first gas scrubbing device and second gas scrubbing device via the conduit”.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 7, 27, and 30-31, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites: “wherein the first gas scrubbing device is disposed on a first side of the thermal distributor, and wherein the second gas scrubbing device is disposed on a second side of the thermal distributor opposite to the first side of the thermal distributor; and a gas outlet disposed on the first side of the thermal distributor” that is regarded as indefinite claim language in light of the disclosure.
Particularly the phrase: “is disposed on a side” requires that the first/second gas scrubbing devices are physically located on a side of the thermal distributor. However, Fig. 1 shows where at least gas scrubbing device #130 is located adjacent to the thermal distributor to one side. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the claim is interpreted as such.
Regarding claims 22-23 and 29, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites a particular location of the shower head along the conduit relative to the first and second gas scrubbing devices. This is regarded as indefinite claim language for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as reading: “wherein the showerhead, first gas scrubbing device, and second gas scrubbing device are disposed along the conduit.”
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 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), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), and Yoshida (US 6,508,990), with Aitani (US Patent 5,902,403) as an evidentiary reference for claim 30.
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, conduit, or gas supply system coupled thereto.
However, Taylor teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in the chamber by measuring a signature (Taylor – [0043] and Fig. 2A, one or more sensors #252 to detect chamber cleanliness); first and second gas scrubbing devices configured to provide a decontamination gas to remove the impurities from the chamber based on the signature (Taylor – [0039] and Fig. 2A, multiple nozzles #212; [0038]: gas from #208 is a cleaning gas), wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively (Taylor – Fig. 2A, depicts sidewall and lower wall positioning of #212; would be arranged in the claimed locations when combined with Hayashi); a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices (Taylor – Fig. 2A, line from #208 connects to a nozzle #212, thus would also connect to any other nozzles #212 despite not being explicitly shown as a matter of necessity); and a gas supply system directly or indirectly coupled to the first gas scrubbing device and second gas scrubbing device via the conduit (see explanation immediately preceding; interpreted in accordance with the §112(b) rejection).
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]).
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.
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 (Taylor) via a thermal detection device/method (Yoshida).
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 Taylor teaches a cleaning gas, mixed gas, or an aerosolized solid/gas, as well as the capability of adjusting the gas via valves and thermal elements (par. [0038]), it is regarded as capable of performing the functional limitation above.
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, the entire 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 use. As Taylor teaches a cleaning process with first/second gas scrubbing devices and Hayashi modified by Koelmel teaches the thermal distributor, the entire modified Hayashi apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function (the resulting cleaned member is regarded as having improved reflectivity due to the elimination of surface contaminants).
Regarding claim 30, the entire 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 use. Evidentiary reference Aitani teaches wherein nitrogen trifluoride plasma is commonly used to clean tungsten from a process chamber (Aitani – C6, L1-8), thus modified Hayashi is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function.
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), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), and Yoshida (US 6,508,990), as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30 above, further in view of Willis (US Pub. 2004/0004708).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30 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.
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]).
Claim 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), and Yoshida (US 6,508,990), as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30 above, further in view of Ries (US Patent 9,534,294).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 7, 27, and 30 are set forth above.
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 8, 12, 14, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606) in view of Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), and Yoshida (US 6,508,990), with Aitani (US Patent 5,902,403) as an evidentiary reference for claim 32.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, 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 claimed detection module, gas scrubbing devices, conduit, or gas supply system coupled thereto.
However, Taylor teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in the chamber by measuring a signature (Taylor – [0043] and Fig. 2A, one or more sensors #252 to detect chamber cleanliness); first and second gas scrubbing devices configured to provide a decontamination gas to remove the impurities from the chamber based on the signature (Taylor – [0039] and Fig. 2A, multiple nozzles #212; [0038]: gas from #208 is a cleaning gas), wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively (Taylor – Fig. 2A, depicts sidewall and lower wall positioning of #212; would be arranged in the claimed locations when combined with Hayashi); a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices and the showerhead (Taylor – Fig. 2A, line from #208 connects to a nozzle #212, thus would also connect to all other nozzles #212 despite not being explicitly shown as a matter of necessity); and a gas supply system coupled to the showerhead and the first and second gas scrubbing devices, wherein the gas supply system is configured to provide the decontamination gas to the first and second gas scrubbing devices (Fig. 2A, #208 provided to each nozzle #212 which, when combined with Hayashi, would lead to all three areas interconnected).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the 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]).
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 Taylor 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.
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).
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.
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 claim 32, 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 use. Evidentiary reference Aitani teaches wherein nitrogen trifluoride plasma is commonly used to clean tungsten from a process chamber (Aitani – C6, L1-8).
Regarding claim 34, Hayashi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the showerhead, first gas scrubbing device, and second gas scrubbing device are disposed along the conduit (interpreted in accordance with the §112(b) rejection) (Taylor – Fig. 2A, line from #208 connects to a nozzle #212, thus would also connect to all other nozzles #212 despite not being explicitly shown as a matter of necessity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the 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]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Patent 8,283,606), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), Koelmel (US Pub. 2012/0070136), and Yoshida (US 6,508,990), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 28, 32, and 34 above, further in view of Willis (US Pub. 2004/0004708).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 28, 32, and 34 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.
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 Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Ries (US Patent 9,534,294).
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), and a gas outlet disposed on the first side of the thermal distributor (Fig. 1, outlet for #138/#140).
Hayashi does not teach the claimed detection module, gas scrubbing devices, conduit, or gas supply system coupled thereto.
However, Taylor teaches a detection module configured to detect impurities in the chamber during a deposition process and output data about characteristics of the detected impurities (Taylor – [0043] and Fig. 2A, one or more sensors #252 to detect chamber cleanliness); first and second gas scrubbing devices configured to provide a decontamination gas to remove the impurities from the chamber based on the signature (Taylor – [0039] and Fig. 2A, multiple nozzles #212; [0038]: gas from #208 is a cleaning gas), wherein the first and second gas scrubbing devices are disposed over and under the thermal distributor, respectively (Taylor – Fig. 2A, depicts sidewall and lower wall positioning of #212; would be arranged in the claimed locations when combined with Hayashi), wherein the first gas scrubbing device is disposed on a first side (Taylor – Fig. 2A: left side), wherein the second gas scrubbing device is disposed on a second side opposite to the first side (Taylor – Fig. 2A: bottom side opposite the side)
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]).
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 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 wherein a control device is further configured to determine the form of the decontamination gas among a gas, a plasma, an atomic beam, and a radical.
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 modified Hayashi apparatus with the detection scheme of Ries in order to maximize substrate throughput by eliminating cleaning downtime (Ries – C1, L55-61).
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi teaches a gas extraction system configured to exhaust gas from the chamber through the 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), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), 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.
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), Taylor (US Pub. 2018/0311707), Le Claire (US Patent 8,182,609), and Ries (US Patent 9,534,294), 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, modified 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 modified Hayashi in order to efficiently reflect heat and uniformly distribute heat to a substrate (Koelmel – [0022]).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments merely assert that the added features of claims 1, 8, and 21 distinguish over the prior art of record without a reasoned technical argument supporting said assertions or disputing the Examiner’s mapping of the claim elements relative to the prior art.
Applicant asserts that “Taylor fails to teach” the following features:
“a conduit interconnecting the first and second gas scrubbing devices” (Remarks, pg. 8);
“the first and second gas scrubbing devices are interconnected with the showerhead through a conduit” (pg. 9, Id.); and
“the second gas scrubbing device is disposed on a second side of the thermal distributor opposite to the first side of the thermal distributor” (pg. 9, Id.).
However, the Applicant has offered no explanation for how the above elements would distinguish over the prior art of record, notably Taylor. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that Taylor does teach the above limitations, as is set forth in detail herein.
Conclusion
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