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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along a vertical axis” such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520), and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al is presented below.
The Examiner notes that the prior art for this rejection remains the same because the prior art teaches this limitation as it is too broad. The Examiner notes that without a size or shape of the channel to define where the channel ends and begins, any part of the channel that “vertically” overlaps is considered to fulfill the limitations. Additionally, modification of the channel, as per the teachings of Zhao have been added into the rejection via a figure to explain how this modification would found in the prior art.
The Examiner also notes that previously cited art Tomita also addresses a similar shape to the instant application’s desired purge gas line profile.
The rejection below is thus made FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520), and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al.
In regards to Claim 1, ‘820 teaches semiconductor processing tool Fig. 1, 2, comprising: a chamber 102, 106, 108; a displaceable column 204 (see bellows 146, 204,) that passes through a surface 108 of the chamber, wherein the column comprises: a base plate 280 (made of metal, 280 [0026]); a pedestal 208 over the base plate; and an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate (as it surrounds the base plate 276), and the pedestal 208, wherein a fluidic path (in blue) is provided between the edge ring and the pedestal [0025-0059].
‘820 teaches a substrate processing region 112 (yellow) over the pedestal (which is defined as the space directly above the substrate and the arrows in Fig. 1), the substrate processing region having a footprint (as it is the overlap under the substrate 140), which is interpreted as the processing region directly above the substrate, in lieu of the disclosure of the instant application and the positioning of the channel 211 of the instant application in Fig. 2.
‘820 also teaches that a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘820 further teaches a channel (in red) formed by the step of the base plate and the edge ring, the channel extending into but not entirely through the top surface of the baseplate, the channel being fluidically coupled to the fluidic path and wherein the channel is entirely outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region as it is not underneath the substrate.
‘820 also teaches “the fluidic path blocked from exiting a bottom of the displaceable column”, as the channel is in between the fluidic path and the channel has no openings in the bottom (it does have a side opening) that goes into the base, but the positive pressure of the gas through the channel to the fluidic path implicitly prevent the fluidic path gas from exiting a bottom of the displaceable bottom.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘820 does not expressly teach an insulator over the base plate such that the pedestal is over the insulator layer.
‘520 teaches a chamber 102 Fig. 1, 2 with a displaceable column 138 Fig. 2 that comprises: a base plate 280; an insulator layer 210 over the base plate [0037, 0043-0045]; a pedestal 202 over the insulator layer; a substrate processing region 112 Fig. 1 over the pedestal, the substrate processing region having a footprint (overlap of substrate 140); an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate [0048; 0030-0083].
PNG
media_image3.png
250
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
‘520 also teaches a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in yellow above.
‘520 teaches that the insulator layer 210 forms a channel 290 (for purge gas, analogous to 268 of ‘820) in between the base plate 280 and the insulator plate 210, the channel being partially formed in the base plate 280 and the insulator plate or variations thereof [0050].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use the base plate of ‘520 which is formed of an insulator plate and a base plate to form the gas channel, as per the teachings of ‘520 in ‘820. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
‘820 in view of ‘520 does not expressly teach the channel extends vertically beneath the pedestal; i.e., a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis.
Zhao teaches an annular channel 53 analogous to the channel of '820 that extends vertically beneath the pedestal 31 (a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis), as shown in the stepped in portion of 31 over 53 in the annotated copy of Fig. 2B (Col. 5 line 1-Col. 17 line 26), while still being outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region.
PNG
media_image4.png
616
883
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the channel or the pedestal that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a pedestal with an indentation in the pedestal or having the channel extending vertically under the pedestal, as art analogous shapes for the pedestal or the channel. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the pedestal edge shape of ‘820 in view of ‘520, as per the teachings of Zhao, as an art analogous shape of a pedestal and fluidic path and a channel.
Furthermore, though the components of ‘820, 520 and Zhao teaches different shapes of the fluidic path or channel, further adjustments to shape of the fluidic path or channel would also be obvious, as it has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of fluidic path or channel that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a desired shape as claimed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The Examiner notes that the teachings of Zhao, when applied to ‘820, and the shape of the fluidic path and the channel, where in the channel has a smaller inner diameter than the fluidic path or is wider, would implicitly result in a structure as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
328
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 8, ‘820 teaches the pedestal is a vacuum chuck [0008].
In regards to Claim 9, ‘820 teaches a showerhead assembly 118 above the column.
In regards to Claim 13, ‘820 teaches an assembly 138 Fig. 1, 2 for holding a substrate 140 in a semiconductor processing tool Fig. 1, 2, wherein the assembly comprises: ‘820 teaches semiconductor processing tool Fig. 1, 2, comprising: a chamber 102, 106, 108; a displaceable column 204 (see bellows 146, 204,) that passes through a surface 108 of the chamber, wherein the column comprises: a base plate 280 (made of metal, 280 [0026]); a pedestal 208 over the base plate; and an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate (as it surrounds the base plate 276), and the pedestal 208, wherein a fluidic path (in blue) is provided between the edge ring and the pedestal [0025-0059].
‘820 teaches a substrate processing region 112 (yellow) over the pedestal (which is defined as the space directly above the substrate and the arrows in Fig. 1), the substrate processing region having a footprint (as it is the overlap under the substrate 140), which is interpreted as the processing region directly above the substrate, in lieu of the disclosure of the instant application and the positioning of the channel 211 of the instant application in Fig. 2.
‘820 also teaches that a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘820 further teaches a channel (in red) formed by the step of the base plate and the edge ring, the channel extending into but not entirely through the top surface of the baseplate, the channel being fluidically coupled to the fluidic path and wherein the channel is entirely outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region as it is not underneath the substrate.
‘820 also teaches “the fluidic path blocked from exiting a bottom of the displaceable column”, as the channel is in between the fluidic path and the channel has no openings in the bottom (it does have a side opening) that goes into the base, but the positive pressure of the gas through the channel to the fluidic path implicitly prevent the fluidic path gas from exiting a bottom of the displaceable bottom.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘820 does not expressly teach an insulator over the base plate such that the pedestal is over the insulator layer.
‘520 teaches a chamber 102 Fig. 1, 2 with a displaceable column 138 Fig. 2 that comprises: a base plate 280; an insulator layer 210 over the base plate [0037, 0043-0045]; a pedestal 202 over the insulator layer; a substrate processing region 112 Fig. 1 over the pedestal, the substrate processing region having a footprint (overlap of substrate 140); an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate [0048; 0030-0083].
PNG
media_image6.png
260
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
‘520 also teaches a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in yellow above.
‘520 teaches that the insulator layer 210 forms a channel 290 (for purge gas, analogous to 268 of ‘820) in between the base plate 280 and the insulator plate 210, the channel being partially formed in the base plate 280 and the insulator plate or variations thereof [0050].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use the base plate of ‘520 which is formed of an insulator plate and a base plate to form the gas channel, as per the teachings of ‘520 in ‘820. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
‘820 in view of ‘520 does not expressly teach the channel extends vertically beneath the pedestal; i.e., a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis.
Zhao teaches an annular channel 53 analogous to the channel of '820 that extends vertically beneath the pedestal 31 (a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis), as shown in the stepped in portion of 31 over 53 in the annotated copy of Fig. 2B (Col. 5 line 1-Col. 17 line 26), while still being outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region.
PNG
media_image4.png
616
883
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the channel or the pedestal that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a pedestal with an indentation in the pedestal or having the channel extending vertically under the pedestal, as art analogous shapes for the pedestal or the channel. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the pedestal edge shape of ‘820 in view of ‘520, as per the teachings of Zhao, as an art analogous shape of a pedestal and fluidic path and a channel.
Furthermore, though the components of ‘820, 520 and Zhao teaches different shapes of the fluidic path or channel, further adjustments to shape of the fluidic path or channel would also be obvious, as it has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of fluidic path or channel that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a desired shape as claimed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The Examiner notes that the teachings of Zhao, when applied to ‘820, and the shape of the fluidic path and the channel, where in the channel has a smaller inner diameter than the fluidic path or is wider, would implicitly result in a structure as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
328
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520) and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6296712 to Guo et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 2, 3, 16 and 17, ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao do not expressly teach shadow ring over the edge ring or that the shadow ring has a centering protrusion that interfaces with a centering notch in the edge ring.
Guo teaches a substrate support made of aluminum/base plate 22 (Col. 3 lines 5-27) with a purge gas ring 44, 48 50 (Col. 3 line 25-Col. 4 line 32) that is analogous to the edge ring of '820 as it rests on the base plate and guides purge gas upwards and a purge guide/shadow ring 24 which rests on a liner (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 below), the shadow ring having a centering protrusion 62 that interfaces with a centering notch 60 in the edge ring, as they are alignment pins, the shadow ring having purge holes to create a gas barrier wall to prevent deposition gases from passing around the edge of the substrate (Col. 4 lines 17-31, Col. 3 line 7-Col. 6 line 30).
PNG
media_image7.png
388
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao by adding the shadow ring of Guo, and adding the centering notch and centering protrusion. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to create a gas barrier wall with the holes such that the deposition gases are prevented from passing around the edge of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520) and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0113056 to Sugaya et al and United States Patent Application No. 2020/0388998 to Kraus.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 4, ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao does not expressly teach the pedestal comprises a plurality of channels configured to circulate a coolant in the pedestal that maintains a wafer temperature between approximately -40°C and approximately 200°C.
Sugaya teaches a vacuum/electrostatic chuck 2 Fig. 1, 2 or 40 Fig. 10 [0018-0023, 0061-0063] with cooling channels 40 inside the pedestal/vacuum chuck of 40, the cooling of the substrate can be done more quickly [0084-0086]. Sugaya further teaches that the control system allows for improvement of temperature uniformity [0101, 0046-0101].
Sugaya further teaches that water is used as a coolant [0084].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao with the cooling channels of Sugaya. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of for the improvement of temperature uniformity along with the ability to cool the substrate faster. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao and in further view of Sugaya do not expressly teach that the substrate the pedestal that maintains a wafer temperature between approximately -40°C and approximately 200°C.
Kraus expressly teaches a pedestal 115 Fig. 2A, where the coolant flowed in the channels of 405 are configured to maintain a temperature of the substrate to 0°C to -10°C [0047], [0017-0049].
Kraus further teaches that the coolant is GALDEN, or a coolant fluid capable of cooling to 0°C to -10°C [0084].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao and Sugaya, which teaches the cooling of the substrate with water, with the teachings of Kraus, which teaches that the cooling fluid is GALDEN or a coolant fluid capable of cooling to 0°C to -10°C.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cooling fluid analogous to that of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao and Sugaya out of GALDEN or a coolant fluid capable of cooling to 0°C to -10°C, as taught by Kraus, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520) and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6350320 to Sherstinsky et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 6 and 15, ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao does not expressly teach a gasket between the edge ring and the base plate/ground plate or a gasket between the base plate and the edge ring, wherein the gasket is exposed to a portion of the fluidic path.
Sherstinsky teaches a semiconductor processing tool comprising a chamber 11 Fig. 1, with an assembly comprising displaceable column 32 and a base plate 34 Fig. 1, 4, 5 and an edge ring 76, 74, 72 that is a gas delivery assembly 60/purge gas rings, wherein a gasket 67 in the form of a coil 67 is disposed therein to assist in uniformly delivering the purge gas to the edge of the substrate (Col. 3 line 35-Col. 10 line 45). Sherstinsky teaches that the gaskets are there to ground the gas delivery assembly/edge rings as failure to ground results in a charge build up which may result in arcing (Col. 5 line 65-Col. 6 line 11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao by adding the gasket of Sherstinsky between the edge ring and the base plate/ground plate, wherein the gasket is exposed to a portion of the fluidic path. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to ground the purge gas delivery system to prevent arcing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 10, ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao does not expressly teach the showerhead assembly is electrically coupled to an RF source.
Sherstinsky teaches the showerhead 14 Fig. 1 is connected to an RF power source 14 to allow for plasma to be processed and formed, as is generally known in the art (Col. 3 line 55-Col. 4 line 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the showerhead of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao with the RF power supply as per the teachings of Sherstinsky. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating plasma, as generally known in the art. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 18, Fig. 1, 2, comprising: a chamber 102, 106, 108; a displaceable column 204 (see bellows 146, 204,) that passes through a surface 108 of the chamber, wherein the column comprises: a base plate 280 (made of metal, 280 [0026]); a pedestal 208 over the base plate; and an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate (as it surrounds the base plate 276), and the pedestal 208, wherein a fluidic path (in blue) is provided between the edge ring and the pedestal [0025-0059].
‘820 teaches a substrate processing region 112 (yellow) over the pedestal (which is defined as the space directly above the substrate and the arrows in Fig. 1), the substrate processing region having a footprint (as it is the overlap under the substrate 140), which is interpreted as the processing region directly above the substrate, in lieu of the disclosure of the instant application and the positioning of the channel 211 of the instant application in Fig. 2.
‘820 also teaches that a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘820 further teaches a channel (in red) formed by the step of the base plate and the edge ring, the channel extending into but not entirely through the top surface of the baseplate, the channel being fluidically coupled to the fluidic path and wherein the channel is entirely outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region as it is not underneath the substrate.
‘820 also teaches “the fluidic path blocked from exiting a bottom of the displaceable column”, as the channel is in between the fluidic path and the channel has no openings in the bottom (it does have a side opening) that goes into the base, but the positive pressure of the gas through the channel to the fluidic path implicitly prevent the fluidic path gas from exiting a bottom of the displaceable bottom.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘820 does not expressly teach an insulator over the base plate such that the pedestal is over the insulator layer.
‘520 teaches a chamber 102 Fig. 1, 2 with a displaceable column 138 Fig. 2 that comprises: a base plate 280; an insulator layer 210 over the base plate [0037, 0043-0045]; a pedestal 202 over the insulator layer; a substrate processing region 112 Fig. 1 over the pedestal, the substrate processing region having a footprint (overlap of substrate 140); an edge ring 258 surrounding a perimeter of the base plate [0048; 0030-0083].
PNG
media_image6.png
260
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
‘520 also teaches a portion of the fluidic path that is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel and is vertically separated from the channel, as shown in yellow above.
‘520 teaches that the insulator layer 210 forms a channel 290 (for purge gas, analogous to 268 of ‘820) in between the base plate 280 and the insulator plate 210, the channel being partially formed in the base plate 280 and the insulator plate or variations thereof [0050].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use the base plate of ‘520 which is formed of an insulator plate and a base plate to form the gas channel, as per the teachings of ‘520 in ‘820. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
‘820 in view of ‘520 does not expressly teach the channel extends vertically beneath the pedestal; i.e., a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis.
Zhao teaches an annular channel 53 analogous to the channel of '820 that extends vertically beneath the pedestal 31 (a portion of the fluidic path is over the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel such that the pedestal vertically overlaps with the channel along the vertical axis), as shown in the stepped in portion of 31 over 53 in the annotated copy of Fig. 2B (Col. 5 line 1-Col. 17 line 26), while still being outside of the footprint of the substrate processing region.
PNG
media_image4.png
616
883
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the channel or the pedestal that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a pedestal with an indentation in the pedestal or having the channel extending vertically under the pedestal, as art analogous shapes for the pedestal or the channel. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the pedestal edge shape of ‘820 in view of ‘520, as per the teachings of Zhao, as an art analogous shape of a pedestal and fluidic path and a channel.
Furthermore, though the components of ‘820, 520 and Zhao teaches different shapes of the fluidic path or channel, further adjustments to shape of the fluidic path or channel would also be obvious, as it has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of fluidic path or channel that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a desired shape as claimed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The Examiner notes that the teachings of Zhao, when applied to ‘820, and the shape of the fluidic path and the channel, where in the channel has a smaller inner diameter than the fluidic path or is wider, would implicitly result in a structure as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
328
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao does not expressly teach the showerhead assembly is electrically coupled to an RF source.
Sherstinsky teaches the showerhead 14 Fig. 1 is connected to an RF power source 14 to allow for plasma to be processed and formed, as is generally known in the art (Col. 3 line 55-Cp;/ 4 line 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the showerhead of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao with the RF power supply as per the teachings of Sherstinsky. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating plasma, as generally known in the art. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Furthermore, though the components of ‘820, 520, Zhao and Sherstinsky teaches different shapes of the fluidic path or channel, further adjustments to shape of the fluidic path or channel would also be obvious, as it has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of fluidic path or channel that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a desired shape as claimed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520) and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0139556 to Kagami et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 7 and 14, ‘820 does not expressly teach the fluidic path has a width that is approximately 1 mm or smaller or that a width of the second channel and a width of the third channel is approximately 1 mm or smaller.
Kagami teaches that a gas ejection passage 14/fluidic path, which is between the base plate 2 and the ring of 13 [0020], and thus analogous to the width of the gas passages of ‘820, has a width of 0.1-5 mm. Kagami teaches that the combination of the gas passage 14 and size and the chamber of 15, allows for the distribution of the purge gas can be ejected uniformly over the entire circumference of the wafer [0025], [0015-0030, 0002-0012].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao to create a distribution chamber before ejecting the gas through the gas passages along the circumference of the pedestal/insulation layer (i.e., 14 of Kagami) and making those passages have a width of 0.1-5 mm, as per the teachings of Kagami. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of uniform distribution of the purge gas over the entire circumference of the wafer. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao and in further view of Kagami expressly teach the width of the fluidic path is a range that overlaps the claim with sufficient specificity to fulfill the claimed limitation, it is noted that the disclosed range can also be optimized, as per the express teachings of uniformity over the entire circumference is an implicit teachings of a result effective variable for the width of the fluidic passage, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520) and United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6350320 to Sherstinsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2017/0345625 to Lim et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 11, ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao does not expressly teach the base plate is grounded.
Sherstinsky teaches a semiconductor processing tool comprising a chamber 11 Fig. 1, with an assembly comprising displaceable column 32 and a base plate 34 Fig. 1, 4, 5 and an edge ring 76, 74, 72 that is a gas delivery assembly 60/purge gas rings, wherein a gasket 67 in the form of a coil 67 is disposed therein to assist in uniformly delivering the purge gas to the edge of the substrate (Col. 3 line 35-Col. 10 line 45). Sherstinsky teaches that the gaskets are there to ground the gas delivery assembly/edge rings as failure to ground results in a charge build up which may result in arcing (Col. 5 line 65-Col. 6 line 11).
Sherstinsky therefore implies that the base plate or pedestal is grounded.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao by making the assembly/base plate grounded as per the teachings of Sherstinsky. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to ground the purge gas delivery system to prevent arcing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Lim expressly teaches a grounding path 222, 510 that connects the edge ring 280 to the base 260 (made of aluminum, [0052]) thereby grounding the base through the grounding path 222 [0036-0070]. The liner unit 510, 500, 530 protects the outer surface of the support unit and the inner surface of the chamber body 110 [0064-0067].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520 and Zhao and Sherstinsky to add the liner of Lim, which effectively grounds the baseplate and the ring. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting the outer surface of the support unit and the inner surface of the chamber body. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, which would thus also create a grounded path between the ring and the base (and thus also through the gasket of Sherstinsky).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520), United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, United States Patent No. 6350320 to Sherstinsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2017/0345625 to Lim et al, as applied to Claim 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0023139 to Yasui et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 12, ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim does not expressly teach the pedestal is coupled to an RF bias source and/or a DC bias source.
Yasui teaches a pedestal Fig. 2 with a vacuum/exhaust 221, 222 connected to the top surface with a heat transfer gas 219, 220 and an electrostatic chuck electrode 224, 223 which have DC power sources 227, 228 to apply a to the wafer to create a DC bias source (as self-bias potential and the DC power source for chucking is calculated, [0044-0045], the heat transfer gas and exhaust system working with the electrostatic chuck [0031-0069]. Yasui further teaches the combination of the electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas source and exhaust for low pressure applications allows for [0006-0020], to bring the wafer temperature distribution close to a desired temperature distribution and to expand the control range of the wafer temperature.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim by adding the electrostatic chuck with the bias DC power and the heat transfer gas with exhaust line system to reduce the pressure (which is analogous to vacuum chucking as there is a reduced pressed underneath the substrate), as per the teachings of Yasui. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating the ability to bring the wafer temperature distribution close to a desired temperature distribution and to expand the control range of the wafer temperature.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0069820 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘820) in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0136520 to Yudovsky et al (hereinafter ‘520), United States Patent No. 6179924 to Zhao et al, United States Patent No. 6350320 to Sherstinsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2017/0345625 to Lim et al, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6296712 to Guo et al.
The teachings of ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 19 and 20, ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim do not expressly teach a liner surrounding the edge ring; and a shadow ring or that the shadow ring is supported by the liner when the column is in a first position relative to the showerhead assembly, and wherein the shadow ring is supported by the edge ring when the column is in a second position relative to the showerhead assembly, wherein the pedestal is closer to the showerhead assembly when the column is in the second position than when the column is in the first position.
Guo teaches a substrate support made of aluminum/base plate 22 (Col. 3 lines 5-27) with a purge gas ring 44, 48 50 (Col. 3 line 25-Col. 4 line 32) that is analogous to the edge ring of ‘820 as it rests on the base plate and guides purge gas upwards and a purge guide/shadow ring 24 which rests on a liner (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 below), the shadow ring having a centering protrusion 62 that interfaces with a centering notch 60 in the edge ring, as they are alignment pins, the shadow ring having purge holes to create a gas barrier wall to prevent deposition gases from passing around the edge of the substrate and that the pedestal is elevated in the chamber for processing (Col. 4 lines 3-16), as shown in Fig. 2 and lowered for the transfer of the substrate and relative to the showerhead assembly (Col. 3 line 67-Col. 4 line 3), such that the column is in a first position relative for transfer the substrate, and wherein the shadow ring is supported by the edge ring when the column is in a second position relative to the showerhead assembly, as during when the substrate is being processed, wherein the pedestal is closer to the showerhead assembly when the column is in the second position than when the column is in the first position (Col. 4 lines 17-31, Col. 3 line 7-Col. 6 line 30).
PNG
media_image7.png
388
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘820 in view of ‘520, Zhao, Sherstinky and Lim by adding the shadow ring of Guo, and the positioning of the shadow ring as per the teachings of Guo. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to create a gas barrier wall with the holes such that the deposition gases are prevented from passing around the edge of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716