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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “laser drilling apparatus”, as recited in claims 1, 10, 17, and 20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 appears to be directed toward two separate methods: 1. The method of fabricating a faceplate; and 2. The method of using the faceplate.
Claim 16 is objected to due to being dependent upon a objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant is put on notice of the Examiner’s understanding of certain claim limitations. Specifically, the limitation “partially”, as recited in claims 1 and 10, is read in light of paragraph [0047] of the instant publication that states “the first portion 422 may extend at least about or greater than halfway, or at least about or greater than 75% of the way through a thickness of the faceplate”. In other words, the term “partially” will be interpreted as “about or greater than halfway”.
Additionally, the limitation “detecting a center of each first portion using a laser drilling apparatus”, as recited in claims 1 and 10, is read in light of the specification. Specifically, the specification is silent in regards to what inputs are for detecting a center (i.e., image data from a camera or coordinates retrieved from stored memory) or the outputs for detecting a center (i.e., directly to a motor or to some sort of image analysis circuitry). In view of the above, the Examiner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to include retrieving coordinates from stored memory to read on the detecting a center.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first surface of a faceplate” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this is referring to the previously introduced faceplate or a new faceplate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "first portions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “detecting a center of each first position using a drill apparatus” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what structure the Applicant intends to perform this function. A review of the instant specification failed to provide any disclosure of a sensor, detector, camera, ect. that performed the above function.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations and is rejected for the same reason stated above.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a diffuser portion” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced diffuser portion, or new element.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
The term “generally” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
The term “generally” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a faceplate” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new element.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the diffuser portions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
The term “generally” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “performing one or more substrate processing operations using the faceplate; and generating one or more film thickness profiles for the one or more substrate processing operations” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how the use of the faceplate is necessary to the fabrication of the faceplate. In the instant case, “performing one or more substrate processing operations using the faceplate” is not required in the fabrication of the faceplate.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a laser drilling apparatus” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced laser drilling apparatus, or new element.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "second portions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “generally” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a faceplate for a processing chamber” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these terms are referring to the previously introduced faceplate and processing chamber, or new elements.
Claims 3-9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20040216668 (hereinafter Lindfors) in view of US-5010232 (hereinafter Arai).
Regarding claim 1, Lindfors discloses a faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors) for a processing chamber (vacuum chamber 101, Fig. 1, Lindfors), comprising: drilling a first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Lindfors) of each of a plurality of apertures (apertures 150, 154, and 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) in a first surface (top surface) of a faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors), each first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) extending at least partially (about halfway through, Fig. 1, Lindfors) through a thickness of the faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors); Lindfors) using a laser drilling apparatus (apertures can be made by laser drilling, paragraph [0042], Lindfors). As Lindfors discloses laser drilling, Lindfors inherently discloses a laser drilling apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lindfors discloses drilling a diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure, Lindfors) in each of the plurality of apertures (Fig. 1, Lindfors) using the laser drilling apparatus (Lindfors inherently discloses a laser drilling apparatus), wherein each diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure, Lindfors) is centered with respect to a respective one of the first portions (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lindfors does not explicitly disclose detecting a center of an opening with a laser drilling apparatus.
Arai is directed toward perforating a metal/ceramic composite board. Arai teaches a laser drilling apparatus (apparatus, col. 3, ll. 33-37 and Fig. 4, reproduced below, Arai).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arai teaches detecting a center (irradiating “the center of the bottom of the hole”, col. 2, ll. 34-36, Arai) of an opening with a laser drilling apparatus (“160 is lowered to drill the copper foil layer on the upper side of the printed circuit board 110 so as to form a pilot hole 5 as shown in FIG. 3(a). Subsequently, the X- and Y-tables 102, 103 are moved to bring the pilot hole 5 to a position immediately under the laser processing head 108.”, col. 3, ll. 58-63 and Figs 3A-3B, reproduced below, Arai). As Arai teaches irradiating the center of a pilot hole, it logically follows that Arai also teaches a way of detecting (manually or automatically) the center of an opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lindfors to incorporate the teachings of Arai to include detecting a center of an opening with a laser drilling apparatus, because doing so would “offer[] a highly reliable perforation by the laser beam” (col. 4, ll. 54-55, Arai).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein: at least one diffuser portion of the plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure below on the left, Lindfors) has a different diameter (wider diameter) than a diffuser portion of at least one other aperture of the plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure below on the right, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
628
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein: each diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 above, Lindfors) is characterized by a generally cylindrical profile.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach each first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) is characterized by a substantially cylindrical profile.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 4, which claim 5 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach drilling a second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors) of each of the plurality of apertures (apertures 152, 156, and 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) in a second surface (bottom surface) of the faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors) that is opposite the first surface (top surface), each second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors) extending from the second surface (bottom surface) to the diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 above, Lindfors).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 5, which claim 6 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors) is characterized by a generally frustoconical profile (Fig. 1, Lindfors).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 5, which claim 7 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) and the second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors). Lindfors also discloses machining the gas exchange plate 116 with a drill 402 and a laser (paragraph [0047] and Fig. 4, Lindfors).
However, the cited prior art references, as currently applied, do not explicitly teach the same hole is drilled with a mechanical means and then a laser.
Arai is directed toward perforating a metal/ceramic composite board. Arai teaches the same hole is drilled with a mechanical means and then a laser (“first with the drill 160…. The laser beam is then applied to this undrilled portion of the resin 4’ which forms the bottom of the pilot hole”, col. 4, ll. 28-36, Arai).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lindfors to incorporate the teachings of Arai to include the same hole is drilled with a mechanical means and then a laser, because doing so would “offer[] a highly reliable perforation by the laser beam” (col. 4, ll. 54-55, Arai).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein: the first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) extends through at least 50% of the thickness of the faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach a diameter of each first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) is greater than a diameter of each respective diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure below, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lindfors discloses a faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors) for a processing chamber (vacuum chamber 101, Fig. 1, Lindfors), comprising: drilling a first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Lindfors) of each of a plurality of apertures (apertures 150, 154, and 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) in a first surface (top surface) of a faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors), each first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) extending at partially (about halfway through, Fig. 1, Lindfors) through a thickness of the faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors); drilling a second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors) of each of the plurality of apertures (apertures 152, 156, and 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) in a second surface (bottom surface) of the faceplate (gas exchange plate 116, Fig. 1, Lindfors) that is opposite the first surface (top surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lindfors discloses drilling a diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure, Lindfors) in each of the plurality of apertures (Fig. 1, Lindfors) using a laser drilling apparatus (apertures can be made by laser drilling, paragraph [0042], Lindfors). As Lindfors discloses laser drilling, Lindfors inherently discloses a laser drilling apparatus.
Lindfors discloses wherein each diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure, Lindfors) extends between a respective the first portions (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) and a respective second portion (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lindfors also discloses machining the gas exchange plate 116 with a drill 402 and a laser (paragraph [0047] and Fig. 4, Lindfors).
However, Lindsfors does not explicitly disclose wherein each first portion and each second portion are drilled using a mechanical drill.
Arai is directed toward perforating a metal/ceramic composite board. Arai teaches a laser drilling apparatus (apparatus, col. 3, ll. 33-37 and Fig. 4, reproduced below, Arai).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arai teaches detecting a center (irradiating “the center of the bottom of the hole”, col. 2, ll. 34-36, Arai) of an opening with a laser drilling apparatus (“160 is lowered to drill the copper foil layer on the upper side of the printed circuit board 110 so as to form a pilot hole 5 as shown in FIG. 3(a). Subsequently, the X- and Y-tables 102, 103 are moved to bring the pilot hole 5 to a position immediately under the laser processing head 108.”, col. 3, ll. 58-63 and Figs 3A-3B, reproduced below, Arai). As Arai teaches irradiating the center of a pilot hole, it logically follows that Arai also teaches a way of detecting (manually or automatically) the center of an opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lindfors to incorporate the teachings of Arai to include the same hole is drilled with a mechanical means and then a laser, because doing so would “offer[] a highly reliable perforation by the laser beam” (col. 4, ll. 54-55, Arai).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein: the plurality of apertures comprises a first plurality of apertures (apertures 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) and a second plurality of apertures (apertures 150 and 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors); and the diffuser portions of each of the first plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure below on the right, Lindfors) have different diameters (more narrow diameter) than the diffuser portions of each of the second plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure below on the left, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
628
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 17 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach detecting (either by manually or automatically) a center of (irradiating “the center of the bottom of the hole”, col. 2, ll. 34-36, Arai) each first portion (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors) using a laser drilling apparatus (apertures can be made by laser drilling, paragraph [0042], Lindfors). As Lindfors discloses laser drilling, Lindfors inherently discloses a laser drilling apparatus.
Lindfors discloses wherein each diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 with an arrow pointing to the corresponding structure, Lindfors) is centered with respect to a respective one of the first portions (distributor passages 150, Fig. 1, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 18 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein: the second portions (apertures 152, Fig. 1, Lindfors) each comprise a generally frustoconical profile (Fig. 1, Lindfors); and a height of the second portion of at least one of the plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 presented 1 with the long arrow corresponding to the recited structure, Lindfors) is different than a height of the second portion of at least one other of the plurality of apertures (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 presented 1 with the short arrow corresponding to the recited structure, Lindfors).
PNG
media_image6.png
546
628
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 19 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the diffuser portion (see annotated snippet of Fig. 1 above, Lindfors) of each of the plurality of apertures (apertures 150, 152, 154, 156, and 157, Fig. 1, Lindfors) has a diameter of less than about 20 mils (“diameter is preferably selected from a range of about 2-10 mm”, paragraph [0042], Lindfors).
Claims 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20060086318 (hereinafter Matsubara) in view of US-5010232 (hereinafter Arai).
Regarding claim 10, Matsubara discloses a faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Matsubara) for a processing chamber (reaction chamber 1, Fig. 1, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image7.png
396
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Matsubara discloses drilling (“[h]oles are formed in the gas diffusion plate using a normal drill”, paragraph [0049], Matsubara) a first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, reproduced below, Matsubara) of each a plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) in a first surface (top surface) of a faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara), each first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) extending partially through a thickness (depth D, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) of the faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara); drilling (“[h]oles are formed in the gas diffusion plate using a normal drill”, paragraph [0049], Matsubara) a second portion (cylindrical portion c, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) of each of the plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) in a second surface (bottom surface) of the faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara) that is opposite the first surface (top surface), wherein each first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) and each second portion (cylindrical portion c, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) are drilled using a mechanical drill (“[h]oles are formed in the gas diffusion plate using a normal drill”, paragraph [0049], Matsubara); wherein each diffuser portion (cylindrical portion b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) extends between a respective first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) and a respective second portion (cylindrical portion c, Fig. 2B, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image8.png
442
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Matsubara does not explicitly discloses drilling a diffuser portion in each of the plurality of apertures using a laser drilling apparatus.
Arai is directed toward perforating a metal/ceramic composite board. Arai teaches a laser drilling apparatus (apparatus, col. 3, ll. 33-37 and Fig. 4, reproduced below, Arai).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arai teaches detecting a center (irradiating “the center of the bottom of the hole”, col. 2, ll. 34-36, Arai) of an opening with a laser drilling apparatus (“160 is lowered to drill the copper foil layer on the upper side of the printed circuit board 110 so as to form a pilot hole 5 as shown in FIG. 3(a). Subsequently, the X- and Y-tables 102, 103 are moved to bring the pilot hole 5 to a position immediately under the laser processing head 108.”, col. 3, ll. 58-63 and Figs 3A-3B, reproduced below, Arai). As Arai teaches irradiating the center of a pilot hole, it logically follows that Arai also teaches a way of detecting (manually or automatically) the center of an opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Arai to include drilling a diffuser portion in each of the plurality of apertures using a laser drilling apparatus, because doing so would “offer[] a highly reliable perforation by the laser beam” (col. 4, ll. 54-55, Arai).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) comprises a first plurality of apertures (through holes 10, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) and a second plurality of apertures (through holes 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara); and the diffuser portions (cylindrical portion b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) of each of the first plurality of apertures have different diameters (cylindrical portion b for through holes 10 have larger diameters, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) than the diffuser portions (cylindrical portions b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) of each of the second plurality of apertures (through holes 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image8.png
442
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the first plurality of apertures (through holes 10, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) are disposed within a central region of the faceplate; and the second plurality of apertures (through holes 11 and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) are disposed within an outer region that is radially outward of the central region (“through holes (gas supply holes) 10 are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the center region and through holes 11 and 11' are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the peripheral region located around the center region”, paragraph [0039], Matsubara).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the central region is generally circular or polygonal in shape; and the outer region is generally annular in shape (“through holes (gas supply holes) 10 are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the center region and through holes 11 and 11' are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the peripheral region located around the center region”, paragraph [0039], Matsubara).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 10, which claim 14 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach identifying one or more thick regions (annotated version of Fig. 3 is provided below on the left with an arrow pointing to the thick region, Matsubara) and one or more thin regions (annotated version of Fig. 3 is provided below on the right with two arrows pointing to the thin regions, Matsubara) on a film thickness profile (film thickness distribution (curve A), paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3, Matsubara) of a substrate (semiconductor substrate, paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image9.png
436
464
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
436
464
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art references teach determining a layout of diameters of the diffuser portions (cylindrical portions b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) for each the plurality of apertures based on locations of the one or more thick regions and one or more thin regions (“through holes (gas supply holes) 10 are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the center region and through holes 11 and 11' are formed so as to be arranged concentrically (in a doughnut shape) in the peripheral region located around the center region”, paragraph [0039], Matsubara), wherein drilling the diffuser portion (cylindrical portions b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) in each of the plurality of apertures comprises adjusting a diameter of each diffuser portion based on the determined layout (wide cylindrical portions b at the center and narrow cylindrical portions b towards the outer region, Matsubara).
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 14, which claim 15 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach performing one or more substrate processing operations (chemical vapor deposition, paragraph [0044], Matsubara) using the faceplate; and generating one or more film thickness profiles (film thickness distribution (curve A), paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3, Matsubara) for the one or more substrate processing operations (chemical vapor deposition, paragraph [0044], Matsubara).
Regarding claim 20, Matsubara discloses a semiconductor (semiconductor substrate, paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3, Matsubara) processing chamber (reaction chamber 1, Fig. 1, Matsubara) faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image7.png
396
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Matsubara discloses a first surface (top surface of gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara) and a second surface (bottom surface of gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara) opposite the first surface (top surface of gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara), wherein the faceplate defines a plurality of apertures of each a plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) through the faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara), each of the plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) comprises a first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) that extends from the first surface (top surface) partially through a thickness (depth D, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) of the faceplate (gas diffusion plate 9, Fig. 1, Matsubara); each of the plurality of apertures (through holes 10, 11, and 11’, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) comprises a diffuser portion (cylindrical portion b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) that is fluidly coupled with a distal end of a respective first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara); each diffuser portion (cylindrical portion b, Fig. 2B, Matsubara) has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the respective first portion (cylindrical portion a, Fig. 2B, Matsubara).
PNG
media_image8.png
442
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Matsubara discloses drilling (“[h]oles are formed in the gas diffusion plate using a normal drill”, paragraph [0049], Matsubara) to a tolerance of within 10 microns (“the diameter has to be processed with precision to 0.1 mm or less”, paragraph [0049], Matsubara).
However, Matsubara does not explicitly discloses a laser drilling apparatus.
Arai is directed toward perforating a metal/ceramic composite board. Arai teaches a laser drilling apparatus (“first with the drill 160…. The laser beam is then applied to this undrilled portion of the resin 4’ which forms the bottom of the pilot hole”, col. 4, ll. 28-36, Arai). As Arai teaches a laser beam, Arai inherently teaches a laser drilling apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Arai to include a laser drilling apparatus, because doing so would “offer[] a highly reliable perforation by the laser beam” (col. 4, ll. 54-55, Arai).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20060086318 (hereinafter Matsubara) in view of US-5010232 (hereinafter Arai) and further in view of US-20020084352 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 15, which claim 16 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the one or more film thickness profiles (film thickness distribution (curve A), paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3, Matsubara).
Examiner notes that the common and plain meaning of the term “adjusting” to alter or move slightly in order to achieve the desired fit. In the context of the limitations of claim 16, “adjusting” refers to altering the diameters of the diffuser portions and it appears that the decision of which layout to use is determined by the particular substrate processing operation. The specification is silent in regards to any structure that modifies the aperture in real-time, and as a result, the best that the Examiner can ascertain, is that Applicant intends to have the faceplate be exchangeable with different versions of faceplates, based on the intended substrate processing operation.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach adjusting the layout.
Chen is directed toward nozzles for gas distribution for plasma reaction chambers. Chen teaches adjusting the layout (removable nozzle module, paragraph [0011], Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Chen to include adjusting the layout, because doing so allows for the gas nozzle to be dismantled “for cleaning or replacement” (paragraph [0027], Chen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7896. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C. GIBSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JIMMY CHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights