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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1,10 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US2014/0068962) in view of Dunn et al (US9,202,727) in view of Kurita et al (US2006/0054090).
With regards to claim 1, Mori et al discloses a substrate support for use in a microwave degas chamber (substrate support 102 in a degas chamber 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
a support plate for supporting a substrate (substrate support 102 is a plate like shape for supporting substrate 104, Fig. 1)
a susceptor comprising a plate disposed on the support plate (heat source 106 disposed inside substrate support 102, Fig. 1).
Mori et al does not disclose the support plate having one or more support features for supporting a substrate;
wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings, wherein the one or more support features extend through corresponding ones of the one or more openings; and
a metal foil disposed beneath a side of the susceptor facing the support plate, wherein the metal foil is disposed vertically below a central portion of the susceptor.
Dunn et al teaches the support plate having one or more support features for supporting a substrate (portion 32 has through holes 36 for sleeves 38 that hold lift pins 40, Fig. 6);
wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings (susceptor 18 includes through holes 42, Fig. 6), wherein the one or more support features extend through corresponding ones of the one or more openings (lift pins 40 extend to through holes 42, Fig. 6); and
a metal foil disposed beneath a side of the susceptor facing the support plate (foil shim 70 disposed beneath a side of susceptor 18 and facing portion 32, Fig. 6), and a metal foil disposed beneath a side of the susceptor facing the support plate, wherein the metal foil is disposed vertically below a central portion of the susceptor (shim 70 is disposed beneath a bottom side of susceptor 18 facing the heating portion 32, wherein the shim 70 is disposed below a central portion of susceptor 18, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al and Dunn et al before him or her, to modify the substrate support of Mori et al to include the susceptor, heater and shim of Dunn et al because the shim of Dunn et al prevents thermal fusion between a susceptor and heater which greatly reduces downtime and consumable cost.
Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach wherein an outer diameter of the metal foil is less than an outer diameter of the susceptor.
Kurita et al teaches wherein an outer diameter of the metal foil is less than an outer diameter of the susceptor (susceptor support 200 comprises support plates 29 wherein a shim may be placed between the support plate 29 and the shaft 234 wherein the support plates 29 along with the shim have a smaller diameter of susceptor support 200, Fig. 2A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al before him or her, to modify the substrate support of Mori et al and Dunn et al to include the shim of Kurita et al because the combination allows for increased support for a susceptor.
With regards to claim 4, Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al does not teach wherein the support plate is made of a material that is more transparent to microwave radiation than the susceptor. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the support plate and susceptor of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that wherein the support plate is made of a material that is more transparent to MW radiation than the susceptor solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the support plate and susceptor of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al.
With regards to claim 5, Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al does not teach wherein the susceptor is made of a material that has a thermal conductivity of about 190 wats per meter Kelvin (W/mK) or greater. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the susceptor of Mori et al and Dunn et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that the susceptor is made of a material that has a thermal conductivity of about 190 wats per meter Kelvin (W/mK) or greater. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the susceptor of Mori et al and Dunn et al.
With regards to claim 6, Mori et al discloses wherein the support plate and the susceptor comprise a single unitary body (heat source 106 disposed inside substrate support 102 to form a unitary body, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 7, Dunn et al teaches wherein the support plate and the susceptor both include one or more lift openings configured to accommodate one or more lifters therethrough (portion 32 has openings 36 and susceptor 18 has openings 42 for accommodating lift pins 40, Fig. 6).
With regards to claim 8, Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al teaches wherein the metal foil is directly coupled to a center of the susceptor and support plate (foil shim 70 is coupled to a center of susceptor 18 and portion 32, Fig. 6). Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al does not teach the metal foil has an outer diameter less than an outer diameter of the susceptor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the metal foil of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 9, Dunn et al teaches a lift mechanism having one or more lifters that extend through corresponding lift openings of the susceptor and the support plate, wherein the lift mechanism is configured to selectively raise or lower the substrate with respect to the susceptor (lift pins 40 extend through openings 36 of portion 32 and openings 42 of susceptor 18 and configured to selectively raiser or lower substrate 16 for loading and unloading, col 3, lines 51-55).
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US2014/0068962) in view of Dunn et al (US9,202,727).
With regards to claim 10, Mori et al discloses a substrate support for use in a microwave degas chamber (substrate support 102 in a degas chamber 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
a support plate for supporting a substrate (substrate support 102 is a plate-like shape for supporting substrate 104, Fig. 1)
a susceptor comprising a flat plate that is circular (to heat circular substrate 443, Fig. 4) and disposed on the support plate (heat source 106 disposed inside substrate support 102, Fig. 1).
Mori et al does not disclose the support plate having one or more support features that are fixed to the support plate for supporting a substrate;
wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings, wherein the one or more support features extend through corresponding ones of the one or more openings; and
a metal foil coupled to a center of the susceptor on a side of the susceptor facing the support plate.
Dunn et al teaches the support plate having one or more support features that are fixed to the support plate for supporting a substrate (portion 32 has through holes 36 for sleeves 38 that hold lift pins 40, Fig. 6);
wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings (susceptor 18 includes through holes 42, Fig. 3), wherein the one or more support features extend through corresponding ones of the one or more openings (lift pins 40 extend through each through hole 42, Fig. 6); and
a metal foil coupled to a center of the susceptor on a side of the susceptor facing the support plate (foil shim 70 disposed beneath a side of susceptor 18 and facing portion 32, Fig. 6) and disposed at least partially within the central opening of the support plate (foil shim 70 disposed within a side of susceptor 18 and facing portion 32, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al and Dunn et al before him or her, to modify the substrate support of Mori et al to include the susceptor, heater and shim of Dunn et al because the shim of Dunn et al prevents thermal fusion between a susceptor and heater which greatly reduces downtime and consumable cost.
Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach the susceptor is made of a material having a thermal conductive of about 190 wats per meter (W/mK) or greater. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a susceptor with a specific thermal conductive as taught by Mori et al and Dunn et al since the applicant has not disclosed that a susceptor which is made of a material having a thermal conductive of about 190 wats per meter (W/mK) or greater solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the susceptor as taught Mori et al and Dunn et al.
With regards to claim 12, Mori et al and Dunn et al teaches wherein the one or more support features extend above the susceptor to support the substrate (lift pins 40 extend above susceptor 18 to support a substrate, Fig. 6). Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach the support features extend about 1 to about 4 mm above the susceptor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the lift pins of Mori et al and Dunn et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 13, Mori et al and Dunn et al teaches wherein the metal foil is directly coupled to a center of the susceptor and support plate (foil shim 70 is coupled to a center of susceptor 18 and portion 32, Fig. 6). Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach the metal foil has an outer diameter less than an outer diameter of the susceptor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the metal foil of Mori et al and Dunn et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suka et al (US 20050079690).
With regards to claim 2, Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al teaches the metal foil is aluminum foil (foil shim 54 having a thickness of .1 mm and is made from aluminum, col 4, lines 40-45).
Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al does not teach wherein the susceptor is fabricated from silicon carbide (SIC).
Suka et al teaches wherein the susceptor is fabricated from silicon carbide (susceptor 20 is made up graphite coated with silicon carbide, paragraph 0048, lines 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al, Kurita et al and Suka et al before him or her, to modify the susceptor of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al to include the susceptor of Suka et al because the susceptor coated with silicon carbide allows for operating at a high temperature while maintaining integrity.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al and Dunn et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Suka et al.
With regards to claim 11, Mori et al and Dunn et al teaches the metal foil is aluminum foil (foil shim 54 having a thickness of .1 mm and is made from aluminum, col 4, lines 40-45).
Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach wherein the susceptor is fabricated from silicon carbide (SIC).
Suka et al teaches wherein the susceptor is fabricated from silicon carbide (susceptor 20 is made up graphite coated with silicon carbide, paragraph 0048, lines 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Suka et al before him or her, to modify the susceptor of Mori et al and Dunn et al to include the susceptor of Suka et al because the susceptor coated with silicon carbide allows for operating at a high temperature while maintaining integrity.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sajoto et al (US 6,035,101).
With regards to claim 3, Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al teaches wherein the metal foil is coupled to the susceptor or to the support plate (foil shim 70 is coupled to the susceptor 18 and heater 22, Fig. 6).
Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al does not teach wherein the support plate is disposed between the metal foil and the susceptor.
Sajoto et al teaches a high temperature alloy heater having the support plate is disposed between the metal foil and the susceptor (the inner core subassembly is then arranged with the top shell plate 13A and the bottom shell plate 13B with a layer of about 35% gold-65% copper braze alloy that has been rolled into a foil between the inner core assembly and the top shell plate and another such braze foil between the inner core assembly and the bottom shell plate, col 16, lines 58-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al, Kurita et al and Sajoto et al before him or her, to modify the heating unit of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Kurita et al to include the foil between an inner core and bottom shell plate as taught by Sajoto et al because the combination allows for adequate temperature control of a heater at is surface.
Claim(s) 14, 17,18,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US2014/0068962) in view of Dunn et al (US9,202,727) in view of Fujita et al (JP2002075870A).
With regards to claim 14, Mori et al discloses microwave degas chamber for processing a substrate (degas chamber 100 for processing substrate 104, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber body having an interior volume (chamber body, paragraph 0009, lines 1-2);
a support plate made of a first material disposed in the interior volume (substrate support 102 can be composed of standard materials, paragraph 0024, lines 1-2)
a microwave source coupled to the chamber body and configured to supply microwave radiation to heat the substrate (variable frequency microwave radiation source 108 configured to supply microwave radiation to heat the substrate 104, Fig. 1).
Mori et al does not disclose a support plate having one or more support features for supporting the substrate and wherein the support plate is a ring having a central opening;
a susceptor comprising a plate made of a second material disposed on the support plate, wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings corresponding with the one or more support features;
and a metal foil disposed vertically between a central portion of the susceptor and the microwave source.
Dunn et al teaches a support plate having one or more support features for supporting the substrate (portion 32 having openings 36 for supporting lift pins 40 to support a substrate, Fig. 6) and wherein the support plate is a ring having a central opening (portion 32 has openings 36 is the central part, Fig. 6);
a susceptor comprising a plate made of a second material disposed on the support plate (susceptor 18 comprising a plate made of a material on the portion 32, Fig. 6), wherein the susceptor includes one or more openings corresponding with the one or more support features (susceptor 18 includes openings 42 to accommodate lift pins 42, Fig. 6);
and a metal foil disposed vertically between a central portion of the susceptor and the microwave source such that the metal foil has a direct line of sight to the microwave source (foil shim 70 disposed vertically between a central portion of susceptor 18 and any heating source outside of chamber 10, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al and Dunn et al before him or her, to modify the substrate support of Mori et al to include the susceptor, heater and shim of Dunn et al because the shim of Dunn et al prevents thermal fusion between a susceptor and heater which greatly reduces downtime and consumable cost.
Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach a microwave source coupled to the chamber body below the susceptor.
Fujita et al teaches a microwave source coupled to the chamber body below the susceptor (a microwave oscillator 7 below processing chamber 4 and susceptor 1, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Fujita et al before him or her, to modify the microwave source of Mori et al and Dunn et al to include the microwave source below the chamber of Fujita et al because the combination allows for an improvement and efficient temperature gradient of a processing chamber.
With regards to claim 17, Mori et al discloses wherein the microwave source is configured to supply microwave radiation at a frequency of about 5 to about 7 gigahertz (the frequency range of the variable frequency microwave energy 112 can be a specific range of frequencies, such as a range from 5.85 GHz to 7.0 GHz, paragraph 0030, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 18, Dunn et al teaches wherein the one or more support features include one or more pins that extend from the support plate and through the one or more openings of the susceptor (lift pins 40 extend through openings 36 of portion 32 and openings 42 of susceptor 18 and configured to selectively raiser or lower substrate 16 for loading and unloading, col 3, lines 51-55).
With regards to claim 19, Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach wherein the first material is the same as the second material. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the support plate and susceptor of Mori et al and Dunn et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that the first and second material made of a same material solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the susceptor and support plate of Mori et al and Dunn et al.
With regards to claim 20, Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach wherein the support plate is made of a polymer material and the susceptor is made of silicon carbide. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the support plate and susceptor of Mori et al and Dunn et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that wherein the support plate is made of a polymer material and the susceptor is made of silicone carbide solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the susceptor and support plate of Mori et al and Dunn et al.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al and Dunn et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gautam et al (US2020/0378006).
With regards to claim 15, Mori et al and Dunn et al does not teach a temperature sensor coupled to the chamber body and configured to take a temperature reading of the substrate.
Gautam et al teaches a temperature sensor coupled to the chamber body and configured to take a temperature reading of the substrate (temperature sensor 316 is disposed in the sidewall of the chamber body and configured to measure a temperature of a bottommost substrate, paragraph 0036, lines 1-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mori et al, Dunn et al and Gautam et al before him or her, to modify the chamber body of Mori et al and Dunn et al to include the temperature sensor of Suka et al because the temperature sensor of Gautam et al allows for precise controlling of a heating chamber.
With regards to claim 16, Gautam et al teaches a pump coupled to the chamber body via a pump inlet and a mesh coupled to the chamber body at the pump inlet (pump 130 coupled to chamber body via a pump adapter 128 and mesh screen 314 coupled to the chamber body at the pump adapter 128, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Claim 1 was amended to include “wherein an outer diameter of the metal foil is less than an outer diameter of the susceptor”. Kurita et al teaches wherein an outer diameter of the metal foil is less than an outer diameter of the susceptor (susceptor support 200 comprises support plates 29 wherein a shim may be placed between the support plate 29 and the shaft 234 wherein the support plates 29 along with the shim have a smaller diameter of susceptor support 200, Fig. 2A). Dunn et al teaches the support plate having a metal foil disposed beneath a side of the susceptor facing the support plate, wherein the metal foil is disposed vertically below a central portion of the susceptor (shim 70 is disposed beneath a bottom side of susceptor 18 facing the heating portion 32, wherein the shim 70 is disposed below a central portion of susceptor 18, Fig. 6). Applicant further argues that the shim of Dunn et al is not a metal foil. Dunn et al discloses the shim is a metal has a cross-sectional thickness between 0.1 mm and 2 mm, although any suitable cross-sectional thickness may be utilized and in one preferred implementation, the shim cross-sectional thickness is approximately 0.5 mm (col 4, lines 36-42). A metal foil is just a very thin sheet of metal which is exactly what the shim of Dunn et al is defined as.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 3.
Examiners response: Claim 3 was amended to include “wherein the support plate is disposed between the metal foil and the susceptor”. Sajoto et al teaches a high temperature alloy heater having the support plate is disposed between the metal foil and the susceptor (the inner core subassembly is then arranged with the top shell plate 13A and the bottom shell plate 13B with a layer of about 35% gold-65% copper braze alloy that has been rolled into a foil between the inner core assembly and the top shell plate and another such braze foil between the inner core assembly and the bottom shell plate, col 16, lines 58-65).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 10.
Examiners response: Claim 10 was amended to include “a metal foiled coupled to a center of the susceptor on a side of the susceptor facing the support plate and disposed at least partially within the central opening of the support plate”. Dunn et al teaches a metal foil coupled to a center of the susceptor on a side of the susceptor facing the support plate (foil shim 70 disposed beneath a side of susceptor 18 and facing portion 32, Fig. 6) and disposed at least partially within the central opening of the support plate (foil shim 70 disposed within a side of susceptor 18 and facing portion 32, Fig. 6).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 14.
Examiners response: Claim 14 was amended to include “a metal foil disposed vertically between a central portion of the susceptor and the microwave source”. Dunn et al teaches a metal foil disposed vertically between a central portion of the susceptor and the microwave source (foil shim 70 disposed vertically between a central portion of susceptor 18 and any heating source outside of chamber 10, Fig. 6).
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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761