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 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, 5-11, 13-15, 17-23,25-31,33-35 and 37-40 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Regarding claims 1 and 21: While Applicant’s disclosure does provide support for only positioning an infrared light source at the upper portion of the processing chamber and perhaps only intending to perform deposition on the surface facing the lower portion of the chamber, the original disclosure does not appear rise to the level of disclosing “an infrared light source to transmit light…and not to the first surface of the substrate”, “a controller configured to control the infrared light source and to heat the substate to at least 500 degrees Celsius via the transmission of light to only the second surface of the substrate…during deposition of a film on only the first surface of the substrate” (emphasis added) as presently claimed in claims 1 and 21, since it is silent on these matters (Note: claim 21 is drawn to essentially the same invention except the first and second surface of the substrate are claimed oppositely and thus has the same issues, but in reverse). Regarding only transmitting light to the surface of the substrate facing the upper portion, Examiner notes that is possible that light might be transmitted by reflection and/or that a substrate may be comprised of a material that allows for light to be transmitted to the surface not facing the infrared source. With respect to deposition only on the surface facing the lower portion, it is well-known in the art that deposition may inadvertently be deposited on an opposite surface, especially if there is no specific step or claimed feature for preventing the same. It has been found that silence itself in an original disclosure does not generally suffice to support a negatively claimed limitation. See MPEP 2173.05. In order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written, wherein prior art that appears to have the same intentions and configurations (even optional intentions and configurations) for providing what appears to be the intended and desired light transmittance or what appears to be the intended and desired deposited film to claimed surfaces of the substrate is at least considered to render the features at issue obvious. Additional, specific evidence and original support is requested for Examiner’s consideration as to the sufficiency of the original disclosure in teaching the claimed invention as now recited.
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, 5-11, 13-15, 17-23,25-31,33-35 and 37-40 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.
It is unclear how the features of the claimed invention perform the claimed invention to the extent claimed. See above rejections based on original disclosure. It does not seem that the features as claimed even with a BRI (including an interpretation considered in light of the specification) makes it clear how the claimed invention is performed to the extent claimed and argued. For example, it is not clear how the infrared light source or the controller explicitly or implicitly performs as claimed without further claimed or disclosed features teaching and/or enabling the same. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 18-21, 28-29 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0183834 to Rogers et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0024399 to Kim et al. and U.S. Patent No. 6,015,503 to Butterbaugh et al.
Regarding claim 1: Rogers et al. disclose a plasma processing chamber for depositing a film on a substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a lower portion (e.g., lower portion of 300); an upper portion (e.g., upper portion of 300) that covers the lower portion; a pedestal (multiple structures, including, e.g. 331, 334, 336, 341, 337, 339 and 316) that is located within the lower portion, the pedestal to: vertically support a substrate (200) above a top surface (e.g., at 320) of the pedestal (e.g., using 334); distribute a precursor (using 331 in 316) between the top surface of the pedestal and a first/bottom surface (206) of the substrate; a window (314) that covers an opening in the upper portion; a light source (301) to transmit light through the window to a second/upper surface of the substrate and not the first/lower surface of the substrate; and a controller (350) configured to control the light source to heat the substrate to at least 500 degrees Celsius via the transmission of light to only the second/upper surface through the window by the light source (the disclosure of Rogers et al. only explicitly illustrate transmitting light to the second/upper surface, but mentions that light can alternatively be transmitted to the second /upper surface and/or the first/lower surface), during plasma deposition of a film on only the first/lower surface of the substrate (the disclosure of Rogers et al. only explicitly disclose/teach providing a coating on the first/lower surface and is silent regarding depositing on the second/upper surface), wherein the second/upper surface is opposite the first/lower surface of the substrate (also see, e.g., paras. 31-50).
However, although Rogers et al. disclose that plasma may be used during deposition of the film and that the method and structures are not particularly limited, Rogers et al. fail to disclose the plasma created by the pedestal electrically connected to one of ground potential and a radio frequency potential; or a grid that is coupled to the upper portion, the grid to be electrically connected to the other one of the ground potential and the radio frequency potential.
Kim et al. disclose a similar plasma processing chamber comprising an alternative means for providing plasma for plasma processing a second/lower substrate surface of a substrate using a pedestal in a lower portion thereof and electrically connected to one of ground potential and a radio frequency potential (see, e.g., para. 45); and a grid (200) that is coupled to an upper portion, the grid to be electrically connected to the other one of the ground potential and the radio frequency potential for the purpose of generating a plasma at surface of the substate to be plasma processed (see, e.g., paras. 37 and 45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided an alternate means for providing plasma for film deposition created by the pedestal electrically connected to one of ground potential and a radio frequency potential; and a grid that is coupled to the upper portion, the grid to be electrically connected to the other one of the ground potential and the radio frequency potential in Rogers et al. in order to create plasma to process the first/lower surface of the substrate taught by Kim et al.
Modified Rogers et al. fail to explicitly disclose the lamp source as an infrared source and the lamp source explicitly providing light through a grid.
Butterbaugh et al. teach providing a window (108) that covers an opening in an upper portion of a processing chamber; and an infrared light source (e.g., 124) to transmit infrared light through the window and a transmissive showerhead grid (110) to a second/upper surface of a substrate in order to allow for optional top side or underside processing of both sides of a wafer including and heating and providing a gas to a second/upper surface of a substrate to heat the substrate or a processing material as is well-known in the art (see, e.g., Figs. 10-12 and column 10, row 45 through column 11, row 61). Also see, Fig. 1 and column 4, rows 47-54.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a window that covers an opening in the upper portion; and an infrared light source to transmit infrared light through the window and the grid to the second surface of the substrate in order to process and heat the substrate as taught by Butterbaugh et al.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Rogers et al., Kim et al. disclose a radio frequency generator circuit (540) to apply the ground potential and the radio frequency potential to the grid and the pedestal and to strike plasma with the precursor.
With request to claim 9, in modified Rogers et al., Kim et al. disclose a vacuum source (130) to create a vacuum within the processing chamber, as does Rogers et al. at para. 44.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Rogers et al., Butterbaugh et al. teach using a material selected from a group consisting of quartz or sapphire for windows (see, e.g., column 5, rows 14-35).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Rogers et al., in Butterbaugh et al. the infrared light includes at least one infrared light bulb.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Rogers et al., Butterbaugh et al. teach that multiple light sources may be provided in various embodiments thereof. Further, the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). However, while Butterbaugh et al. fail to disclose the use of blue light emitting diodes to generated the infrared light, it does teach that an effective wavelength may be chosen to provide the desired processing (see, e.g., column 3, rows 51-55 and column 5, rows 14-63 and column 12, rows 35-54). -- and the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity and logic to have optimized the type and wavelength of light as desired.
Regarding claim 21: the above relied upon prior art is relied upon to reject claim 21 similarly to claim 1, as it is substantially the same, except Applicant has switched the first surface and the second surface of the substrate and the rejections are thereby modified to account for this change. Please reference above for how the relied upon prior art renders the claimed invention obvious. This interpretation is carried through to all claims dependent on claim 21.
With respect to claim 28, in modified Rogers et al., Kim et al. disclose a radio frequency generator circuit (540) to apply the ground potential and the radio frequency potential to the grid and the pedestal and to strike plasma with the precursor.
With request to claim 29, in modified Rogers et al., Kim et al. disclose a vacuum source (130) to create a vacuum within the processing chamber, as does Rogers et al. at para. 44.
With respect to claim 38, in modified Rogers et al., Butterbaugh et al. teach using a material selected from a group consisting of quartz or sapphire for windows (see, e.g., column 5, rows 14-35).
With respect to claim 39, in modified Rogers et al., in Butterbaugh et al. the infrared light includes at least one infrared light bulb.
With respect to claim 40, in modified Rogers et al., Butterbaugh et al. teach that multiple light sources may be provided in various embodiments thereof. Further, the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). However, while Butterbaugh et al. fail to disclose the use of blue light emitting diodes to generated the infrared light, it does teach that an effective wavelength may be chosen to provide the desired processing (see, e.g., column 3, rows 51-55 and column 5, rows 14-63 and column 12, rows 35-54). -- and the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity and logic to have optimized the type and wavelength of light as desired.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Rogers et al. as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 18-21, 28-29 and 38-40 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,143,081 to Shinriki et al.
Modified Rogers et al. disclose the chamber substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Rogers et al. fail to disclose the grid has an open area of approximately 88 percent or at least 80 percent.
Shinriki et al. teach providing a grid with an optimized opening area for the purpose of directly irradiating rays from above without interference (see, e.g., column 20, rows 6-18). Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the grid with an optimized opening area for the purpose of directly irradiating rays from above without interference as taught by Shinriki et al.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Rogers et al. as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 18-21, 28-29 and 38-40 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0056448 to Marakhtanov et al.
Modified Rogers et al. disclose the chamber substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Rogers et al. fail to disclose the grid includes a coating resistant to fluorine etching such as alumina or yttria.
Marakhtanov et al. teach providing a grid comprising a coating, such as alumina or yttria, which is resistant to fluorine plasma for the purpose of providing plasma resistance, electrical conduction, and thermal conduction to plasma processes to a component may be exposed (see, e.g., paras. 54 and 69).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the grid comprising a coating such as alumina or yttria, which is resistant to fluorine plasma in order to provide plasma resistance, electrical conduction, and thermal conduction to plasma processes to a component may be exposed as taught by Marakhtanov et al.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14-15, 17, 30-31, 33-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Rogers et al. as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 18-21, 28-29 and 38-40 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0127895 to Shao et al.
Modified Rogers et al. disclose the chamber substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, regarding claims 10-11 and 30-31, modified Rogers et al. fail to disclose a second window that is coupled to the upper portion, wherein the infrared light source is to transmit the infrared light through the window, the grid, and the second window to the upper surface of the substrate, wherein the second window is located between the grid and the substrate.
Shao et al. teach providing a plurality of plates as a combined window and grid (and therefore a second window), for purpose of separately providing a plurality of process gases to a process space at a position below a radiation source (see, e.g., paras. 48, 61, 70-75).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applciant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Rogers et al. a plurality of plates as a combined window and grid (and therefore a second window), in order to separately provide a plurality of process gases to a process space at a position below a radiation source as taught by Shao et al.
With respect to claim 13 and 33, the second window of Shao et al. may include a plurality of holes (see, e.g., paras. 48, 61, 70-75).
With respect to claims 15 and 35, modified Rogers et al. fails to explicitly teach that a first thickness of the window is greater than a second thickness of the second window. However, Shao et al. teach that a thickness of a window (and other features of the apparatus) may be optimized in accordance with a process to be performed (see, e.g., para. 105). Additionally, the courts have ruled that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 14 and 34, in modified Rogers et al., Shao et al. disclose conduits 66A and 66B for injecting a gas between the window and the second window, such that a gas may flow through the plurality of holes in the second window toward the second surface of the substrate. Regarding the type of gas, which is a limitation based on intended use, the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claims 17 and 37, in modified Rogers et al., Butterbaugh et al. teach using a material selected from a group consisting of quartz or sapphire for windows (see, e.g., column 5, rows 14-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been modified to address Applicant’s amended claim language and remarks.
The above rejection has been modified and no longer relies upon Anderson. However, Examiner does not agree that fairly interpreted Anderson et al. teaches away from the invention and specifically the feature at issue, as interpreted by Applicant. In particular, Anderson et al. teach providing a controller (see, e.g., Fig. 2, 114-155, 118, 124 and 128) configured to control an infrared light source (110 and/or 120), and via the infrared light source, heat a substrate to at least 500 degrees Celsius for the purpose of providing controlled temperature gradients of a wafer (i.e. substrate) and a susceptor while ramping temperature during a semiconductor deposition or growth process and to therefore achieve uniform results (see, e.g., abstract, column 3, rows 29-57 and column 4, row 43 through column 5, row 26). Regarding providing heat via the infrared source to only one side of the substrate, Anderson et al., additionally teaches that as an alternative to using infrared sources on both a top side and a bottom side of a substrate, alternatively, only the bottom infrared source 120 may be used or only the top infrared source may be used (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4 and column 7, rows 16-57).
A similar teaching regarding the positioning of lamps sources is also found in Rogers et al. and is relied upon above. Rogers is now relied upon as it is viewed by Examiner as providing the necessary teachings, while also potentially streamlining the issues related to Applicant’s implicit and explicit arguments concerning teaching away, negative limitations, analogous art, intended use, etc. Nevertheless, both Anderson et al. and Rogers et al. teach what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic -- lamp sources can be provided above or below a substrate for heating processing to a desired temperature from one or both directions.
Examiner also respectfully reminds Applicant that the current rejection is based on the combined teachings of the relied upon prior art references. The courts have ruled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); the courts have also ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Finally, it is pointed out that while Examiner previously invited Applicant to clarify the claims to limit to a method wherein heating to a specific temperature is performed on one surface of a substrate only and deposition is performed on the opposing surface only using the controller, the invitation also specified that such claims should be based on and supported by the original disclosure. As detailed above, Examiner does not find that such a specific method is set forth in the original disclosure as presently claimed and rejections under 35 USC 112, para. a,b have been applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. Nos. 2001/0052517 and 2012/0234240 discloses using a controller to control an infrared light source to control substrates to temperatures of at least 500 degrees Celsius during deposition. USP 6,230,650 disclose a plasma deposition apparatus for performing deposition processing from a lower surface of a substrate and heating processing (less than 500 degrees) from a top surface of the substrate.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716