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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 11. Amendments to claims 1 and 11 were recited where a second direction is introduced and it is clarified that an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrow than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second direction. Note Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al which illustrates some protrusions which illustrate an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrow than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al
It is further noted that claims 21 and 22 have also been introduced and that the prior art of In Tsukamoto et the first and second directions in Fig. 12 are the radial and circumferential direction which are perpendicular.
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.
Claim 1-14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura et al (US 8,075,730) in view Tsukamoto et al (US 2004/036850).
The prior art of Shimura et al teaches the manufacturing a semiconductor device (wafer W) with a plurality of layers/films and first and second surfaces see Figs 8, 11, 13, 15, 16A, 16B, and 20.
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Shimura et al teaches a multichamber system see Figs. 2-4 and 6 with a plurality of processors (processing chambers). See abstract where the first process chamber where grooves or holes are formed in a film on the wafer and another chamber as illustrated in Fig. 5 where a groove or holes is formed. The support (hot plate 42) as illustrated in Fig. 5 features pins 44 that are provided to contact the wafer.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Tsukamoto et al (US 2004/036850)
The prior art of Shimura et al does not teach that the pins of Shimura et al form depressions or that the depressions are processed into a trench.
The prior art of Tsukamoto et al teachesa vacuum chuck 201 and a plurality of pin contact type protrusions 202 disposed in a grid (matrix) and a peripheral rim type protrusions 203 see [0004] and [0005] and see the design and configuration of the protrusions and depressions on the chuck of Tsukamoto et al esp. 1A, 2-5, 6A and 11A. The contact of the protrusions onto the wafer surface create the depressions and these depressions for trenches.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
418
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1C and 2 of Shimura et al (US 8,075,730)
When these depressions 22 (see Fig. 2) are then processed they are stretched and a trench is formed due to the chucking process see [0006] or exposure see [0006] – [0012] of Tsukamoto et al. See also the discussion of the alignment mark (trenches/scribe lines 12/13/ 101) formed in the wafer see abstract, [0053], [0054], [0056].
See Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al where protrusions are arranged such that there are some protrusions that arranged such that an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrower than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second.
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shimura et al to use pin type protrusions as an alternative to the type of chucks so that a vacuum and/or electrostatic chucking can be used to amply support the wafer to the chuck. Tsukamoto et al teaches that when this type of chuck is used the contact of the protrusions/pins of the chuck to wafer will create a pattern of depressions and protrusions known as alignment marks. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chucks of Tsukamoto et al into the apparatus of Shimura et al.
Furthermore, the motivation to configure and distribute the protrusions as suggested by Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al where protrusions are arranged such that there are some protrusions that arranged such that an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrower than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second is that the design of the protrusions affects the support and formation pattern of the depressions and the trench in the desired optimal configuration. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of Shimura et al and Tsukamoto et al to optimize the distribution and pattern of the protrusions.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: The prior art of Shimura teaches an electrostatic chuck 310 see Fig. 14, but fails teach protrusions formed therefrom.
See the prior art of Tsukamoto et al teaches an electrostatic type of chuck see [0239] and is a known chucking type.
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shimura et al to use pin type protrusions as an alternative to the type of chucks so that a vacuum and/or electrostatic chucking can be used to amply support the wafer to the chuck. Tsukamoto et al teaches that when this type of chuck is used the contact of the protrusions/pins to wafer will create a pattern of depressions and protrusions to complement the pattern on the chuck. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chucks of Tsukamo et al into the apparatus of Shimura et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: The prior art of Shimura fails to teach the support is a vacuum chuck.
The prior art of Tsukamo et al teachesa vacuum chuck 201 and a plurality of pin contact type protrusions 202 disposed in a grid (matrix) and a peripheral rim type protrusions 203 see [0004] vacuum chuck is specified and [0005].
When these depressions are then processed they are stretched and a trench is formed due to the chucking process see [0006] or exposure see [0006] – [0012] of Tsukamoto et al.
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shimura et al to use pin type protrusions as an alternative to the type of chucks so that a vacuum and/or electrostatic chucking can be used to amply support the wafer to the chuck. Tsukamoto et al teaches that when this type of chuck is used the contact of the protrusions/pins to wafer will create a pattern of depressions and protrusions to complement the pattern on the chuck. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chucks of Tsukamo et al into the apparatus of Shimura et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5. The wafer or workpiece processed thereupon is not structurally part of the apparatus, Nevertheless see the prior art of Shimura et al teaches a wafer with a plurality of layers/films and first and second surfaces see Figs 8, 11, 13, 15, 16A, 16B, and 20.
Regarding claims 6-10 and 14: Recall the teachings of the prior art of Shimura et al. The prior art of Shimura et al though teaching the formation of grooves and holes and protrusions from the hot plate. Shimura et al fails to teach that the interval between the depressions adjacent in the first direction of the depressions is narrower than an interval between depressions adjacent in the second direction of the depressions.
See the design and configuration of the protrusions and depressions on the chuck of Tsukamoto et al esp. 1A, 2-5, 6A ,11A, and 12 where the protrusions and depressions are arranged in a matrix. Note that when contacted by the substrate complementary depressions and protrusions would be formed. When these depressions are then processed they are stretched and a trench is formed. The arrangement, dimensions, and configuration of the protrusions is a matter of design choice which would be optimized in order to uniformly chuck the wafer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combined the teachings of Shimura et al with the teachings of vacuum or electrostatic chuck and how the protrusions are arranged.
PNG
media_image5.png
370
626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6A Shimura et al (US 8,075,730)
Regarding claim 11: The prior art of Shimura et al teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus for processing an object having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, multichamber system see Figs. 2-4 and 6. The apparatus of Shimura et al comprising: a first processor (illustrated in Fig 5) including a first housing, a first chamber surrounded by the first housing, and a first stage including a chuck (hot plate 42) in the first chamber, the chuck having a chuck surface configured to chuck the object, the chuck surface having protrusions 44 adjacent to each other along one direction of the chuck surface, a second processor including a second housing, a second chamber surrounded by the second housing, and a second stage (electrostatic chuck 310 see Fig. 14) including a mounting surface for holding the object and an opening, a load port (I/O chamber 58 and load lock chambers 56, 57 with gate valves G) configured to house the object to be transferred from the outside; and a robot (wafer transfer unit 62 and 67) arranged between the first processor and the second processor, between the first processor and the load port, and between the second processor and the load port, and configured to transfer the object to and from each of the load port, the first processor, and the second processor, and load and unload the object on and from each of the load port, the first processor, and the second processor. See also the description of the multichamber apparatus col 8 line 53-col. 10 line 55 of Shimura et al.
PNG
media_image6.png
934
580
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
831
602
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 of Shimura et al (US 8,075,730)
The prior art of Shimura et al fails to teach the protrusions being configured to be pressed against the second surface to form depressions adjacent to each other along one direction on the second surface. The prior art of Shimura et al further fails to teach that the mounting surface in the second processor is configured to expose the second surface to a chemical solution in a second chamber to process the depressions into a trench, the trench extending along the one direction on the second surface; or that the mounting surface including a protrusion in contact with the second surface of the object, the opening facing the second surface of the object and configured to supply chemical solution to the second surface of the object .
The prior art of Tsukamoto et al teachesa vacuum chuck 201 and a plurality of pin contact type protrusions 202 disposed in a grid (matrix) and a peripheral rim type protrusions 203 see [0004] and [0005].
When these depressions are then processed they are stretched and a trench is formed due to the chucking process see [0006] or exposure see [0006] – [0012] of Tsukamoto et al.
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shimura et al to use pin type protrusions as an alternative to the type of chucks so that a vacuum and/or electrostatic chucking can be used to amply support the wafer to the chuck. Tsukamoto et al teaches that when this type of chuck is used the contact of the protrusions/pins to wafer will create a pattern of depressions and protrusions to complement the pattern on the chuck. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chucks of Tsukamo et al into the apparatus of Shimura et al.
See Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al above where there are some protrusions (especially closer to the center of the chuck) that have an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrower than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second direction. Note in Fig. 12 the directions are the radial and circumferential directions.
The motivation to configure and distribute the protrusions as suggested by Tsukamoto et al is that the design of the protrusions affects the support and formation pattern of the depressions and the trench in the desired optimal configuration. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of Shimura et al and Tsukamoto et al with the suggested distribution of the protrusions.
Regarding claims 21 and 22: The discussion of the apparatus resulting from modifying the prior art of Shimura et al with the teachings of the prior art of Tsukamoto et al was discussed above. See Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al above where there are some protrusions that have an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrower than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second direction. Note in Fig. 12 the directions are the radial and circumferential direction.
The motivation to configure and distribute the protrusions as suggested by Fig. 12 of Tsukamoto et al is that the design of the protrusions affects the support and formation pattern of the depressions and the trench in the desired optimal configuration. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of Shimura et al and Tsukamoto et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horiuchi (US 2015/0311108) teaches a base 4 with projections 9 see Figs. esp. Fig. 1.
Iwabuchi et al (US 2017/0345702) teaches a holding device with a base body having a plurality of protrusions 20 see Fig. 2. See [0032] where it is recited that the protrusions can be arranged in a variety of shapes.
Shah et al (US 2020/0135530) see Fig. 2D which illustrate an electrostatic chuck with protrusions that are arranged with an interval between protrusions adjacent in the first direction of the protrusions is narrow than an interval between protrusions adjacent in the second direction.
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716