DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status
The response filed 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-18, 20-21, and 24-26 are pending. In the response filed 11/21/2025, claims 1, 13, and 26 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “along the one or more sidewalls”, in claim 1, 13, and 26 and the claims dependent therefrom, is interpreted consistent with [0039] of the instant specification to include the structure “may be located in a sidewall or horizontally abutting or adjacent to the sidewall, or located in an outer periphery region of the chamber lid or an outer periphery region of the chamber bottom”.
Claims 1, 13, and 26 contain reference to “sensors distributed throughout the chamber”. The sensors have not been positively recited as a structure of the plasma treatment chamber, and therefore the claims are not interpreted as requiring “sensors distributed throughout the chamber” and are instead interpreted as intended use of the controller (i.e. the controller is intended to be coupled to sensors).
In claim 13 and the claims dependent therefrom, “wide” and “narrow” are interpreted as relative to each other such that the “wide set” is wider than the “narrow set” and the “narrow set” is narrower than the “wide set”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13-18, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington (prev. presented US2008/0099450), in view of Anderson (prev. presented US 5269847).
Regarding claim 1 and 26, Lewington teaches a plasma treatment chamber (chamber 10 Fig 1, 25 [0065]), comprising: one or more sidewalls (12 Fig 1, 25 [0065]); a support (pedestal 16 Fig 1, 25 and [0065]) within the one or more sidewalls (shown in Fig 1, 25 as within chamber 10 [0065]) configured to hold a workpiece (semiconductor wafer W Fig 1, 25 and [0057]), in a fixed position without rotation ([0067], note no teaching of rotating the workpiece and Fig 1, 2A, 25 does not show any rotation structure and shows the substrate support 16 contacting fixed portions of the chamber); an array of individual gas injectors (32, 34 Fig 1, 25 injection nozzles [0066]) distributed about a periphery of the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1, 25 and Fig 28-30D which demonstrate nozzles 32 around the periphery) without an injector injecting a top-down gas flow on the workpiece (Fig. 1 note no top-down gas flow injector, see also Fig 8, 14-18, 25 showing no injector injecting a top-down gas flow); one or more pump ports (flow pipe with unnumbered valve connected to pump 15 Fig 1, 25 and the area around pedestal 16 between the pedestal and the sidewall 12 Fig 1, 25 is the exhaust port which [0065] discloses as connected to a vacuum pump) along the one or more sidewalls to eject gas from the plasma treatment chamber (along sidewall by being located at the perimeter of the chamber bottom, see Fig 1, 25 and claim interpretation above); and a controller (60 Fig 1, 25) configured to control the plasma treatment chamber during an etch application [0067], [0073-0074], wherein the controller (60 Fig 1,25) is coupled to sensors (322,326 Fig 25 [0087]) distributed throughout the chamber (Fig 25 and 26 demonstrate an array throughout the chamber from the lower end and substrate support, of the chamber, see also [0088]) and is configured to monitor the chamber conditions and correlate the chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify an area of etch rate nonuniformity [0087] wherein an etch rate uniformity of a material on the workpiece is tuned or controlled [0070], [0087], [0090-0096] by: using the array of individual gas injectors to inject one or more gas flows in a direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece without a top-down injection [0066], [0090-0096] (see also Fig 28-30D) and without the support rotating the wafer during the one or more gas flows (note Lewington does not teach rotating the workpiece and Fig 1 and 2A does not show any rotation structure and shows the substrate support 16 contacting fixed portions of the chamber); injecting a first gas flow from a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors to etch the material on the workpiece [0090-0096] (see also Fig 28-30D). Lewington teaches a mixture of gases may be introduced via the gas injectors (gas panel 36 Fig 28-29 and [0066]) but fails to teach the gases to each injector is individually controllable such that the arrangement includes simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of a remaining set of the individual gas injectors, wherein the second gas flow is used to i) dilute the first gas flow to reduce an area on the workpiece having a faster etch rate; or ii) act as an additional etchant to increase the etch rate in the area of the workpiece having the faster etch rate. In the same field of endeavor of substrate (wafer) processing apparatuses (abstract), Anderson teaches independent gas flow control to each gas outlet (col 4, ln 35-62) and simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of a remaining set of the individual gas injectors (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10, taught as injecting two gases in a controllable manner to vary the concentration which inclusive of some injectors having no amount of one of the gases and all of the other of the gases), wherein the second gas flow is used to i) dilute the first gas flow to reduce an area on the workpiece having a faster etch rate (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 taught as a carrier gas which is an inert gas and therefore dilutes the reactant gas); or ii) act as an additional etchant to increase the etch rate in the area of the workpiece having the faster etch rate (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 taught as a different “multiple” reactant gas which is inclusive of a gas with a higher etch rate) (see also Fig 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington to include the arrangement of Anderson to provide multiple gases of independent concentration mixtures to each outlet of the side outlets (note this is inclusive of all of one gas in one outlet and all of another gas in a different outlet simultaneously) because Anderson teaches this allows for improved control of the reaction process across the substrate surface (col 5, ln 5-10 and col 1, ln 50-65) and Lewington is concerned with improving etch rate uniformity via gas control [0090-0096]. Note that Lewington teaches etching and therefore in the combination the gases will be etching gases and that the specific gases are directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Also note that Lewington as cited has taught a controller to modify the flow of gas through the outlets to address and change etch rate distribution to target an identified area [0070], [0087], [0090-0096]. Anderson as cited has taught using different gases (or different ratios of two or more gasses), and thus controlling different concentration ratios to each outlet (injector) to control the processing rate. Therefore the combination as applied renders obvious the controller to tune or control the etch rate by simultaneously injecting a second gas flow. Therefore, the combination as applied herein renders obvious the controller is configured to control a concentration ratio between the first gas flow and the second gas flow to tune the etch rate uniformity by adjusting which individual gas injectors inject the first gas flow versus the second gas flow. The controller as claimed is not claimed as sensing the specific gases used or otherwise confirming the specific gases being applied and is instead described throughout the specification as controlling based on set flow rate or pressure (see instant specification [0081], [0088], [0102]). Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations is a controller to control the flow rates of two different gases to the nozzles simultaneously based on user input set points and that the controller will function the same (i.e. supply two different source gases at set flow rates) regardless of whether different gases are connected to the gas supply line. Further, 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). Further, as noted below, Lewington teaches an etching gas [0084] and teaches a dilution gas (Ar [0084]) or an additive gas [0085] (O2 [0085]) which is disclosed as the IGI mixture (see claim 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 2, 7, 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lewington teaches an etching gas [0084] and teaches a dilution gas (Ar [0084]) or an additive gas [0085] (O2 [0085]) which is disclosed as the IGI mixture (see claim 7 and 8). Additionally, 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).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewington teaches the angle of the gas flow injection may be changed (see Fig 30C, 30D) by closing valves. Further, Anderson teaches the control of the gas injectors includes controlling the flow to change the flow through the injectors including having a variation in which no gas is flowed through the outer injectors or gas is flowed through the outer injectors (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller and apparatus of Lewington to include the controller is configured to change the gas flow injection angle by controlling the flow of each gas through each individual injector because Anderson teaches this control of the gas flow allows for testing and optimizing the uniformity of the processing (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewington and Anderson do not disclose gas flow rotation and therefore teach at least a processing step of performing the process without gas flow rotation.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewington teaches other etching gasses may be used including CHF3, CF4 [0084-0085] . Further, 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).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lewington teaches the array of individual gas injectors (32 Fig 1) is located in one or more openings in the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 and 26 above. Lewington teaches the angle of the gas flow injection may be changed (see Fig 30C, 30D) by closing valves and thereby selecting between a wideset of adjacent individual gas injectors and a narrow set (Fig 30C and 30D and [0095]). Further Anderson teaches simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of a remaining set of the individual gas injectors (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10, taught as injecting two gases in a controllable manner to vary the concentration which inclusive of some injectors having no amount of one of the gases and all of the other of the gases). Anderson teaches the control of the gas injectors includes controlling the flow to change the flow through the injectors including having a variation in which no gas is flowed through the outer injectors or gas is flowed through the outer injectors (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller and apparatus of Lewington to include the controller is configured to change the gas flow injection angle, prior to or during processing, by controlling the flow of each gas through each individual injector because Anderson teaches this control of the gas flow allows for testing and optimizing the uniformity of the processing (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). In the combination as applied, a wide set of adjacent individual injectors results in a wider angle (e.g. 4-6 of the injectors of Lewington) and a narrower set (e.g. 1-3 of the injectors of Lewington) results in a narrower (decreased) gas injection angle.
Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 above. Lewington demonstrates a plurality of openings in the arrays with one gas supply and Anderson teaches individual control of the gas to each opening. In the combination this renders obvious using an array in which each gas opening is individually controlled because Anderson demonstrates this arrangement allows for improved gas flow control (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 and col 5, ln 25 to col 6, ln 15). In this arrangement, the control of gas through each inlet of each array allows for control of individual inlets of within an array to introduce the gas and change the angle because each inlet is individually controllable.
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 above. Lewington demonstrates a plurality of openings in the arrays with one gas supply and Anderson teaches individual control of the gas to each opening. In the combination this renders obvious using an array in which each gas opening is individually controlled because Anderson demonstrates this arrangement allows for improved gas flow control (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 and col 5, ln 25 to col 6, ln 15). In this arrangement, the control of gas through each inlet of each array allows for control of individual inlets of neighboring arrays to introduce the gas and change the angle because each inlet is individually controllable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control arrangement of including the gas injection angle is controlled by the control of individual gas inlets of neighboring arrays because this increases the position and size control of the gas injection (by allowing for more than the number of inlets of one array).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claims 1 and 26 above.
Regarding claim 17, this limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used. The prior art teaches all of the claimed structures and is therefore capable of achieving the same outcome with the same etching gases and substrate unless applicant is relying on an essential limitation that has not been claimed. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 above. Lewington teaches the array of individual gas injectors is located in one or more openings in the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 5, 11-12, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson as applied to claim 1-2 and 13 above, and further in view of Yonemura (prev. presented JP 2001-110728 citing machine translation provided 02/01/2024).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 2. The combination fails to teach gas flow rotation. It is noted that the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson includes the structural capability of gas flow rotation by the individual control of the gas injectors but doesn’t teach the controller performs this gas rotation operation. In the same field of endeavor of apparatus for uniformly processing substrates [0001], Yonemura teaches rotating the gas flow (Fig 9) by injecting in different phases (Fig 9) [0057-0067] to achieve radial uniformity [0067]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington and the combination to include the rotating gas flow control as taught by Yonemura because Yonemura teaches this improves uniformity [0077].
Regarding claim 11 and 20, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson and Yonemura remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 above. Yonemura teaches the gas flow control includes turning on and off the gas flows to control gas flow rotation [0057-0067].
Regarding claim 12 and 21, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 13 above and the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson and Yonemura remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 above. Yonemura teaches a modulating function applied to the gas flows and the outlets (note Yonemura teaches a plurality of outlets exhaust pipes 13a-c Fig 9) [0057-0067] as part of the gas flow rotation.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava (prev. presented US 6,531,069).
Regarding claim 24, Lewington fails to teach a first pump port and a second pump port and fails to teach the pressure control valves and actuators. In the same field of endeavor of plasma etching apparatuses (abstract, Fig 8), Srivastava teaches a first pump port and a second pump port (each of OH Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15), and teaches a first pressure control valve (one of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50-67) coupled to the first pump port (Fig 8); a first actuator (electromechanical means col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the first pressure control valve to raise and lower the first pressure control valve within the first pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15); a second pressure control valve (different of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the second pump port (Fig 8); a second actuator coupled to the second pressure control valve to raise and lower the second pressure control valve within the second pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington to include the plurality of pump ports and valves with actuators as taught by Srivastava because Srivastava teaches this allows control of the angle of the open valves and allows rotation to reduce the gas shadowing to improve uniformity (col 9, ln 1-15).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guha (prev. presented US 2018/0082826).
Regarding claim 25, Lewington teaches a controller (60 Fig 1) coupled to the chamber (Fig 1) the controller includes one or more processors (processor 132 [0074], [0078-0079]). Lewington teaches the controller may be coupled with a network or other system to examine history, change parameters, and examine trends [0080]. Examiner notes that this instruction for parameters based on past operations and trends suggest machine learning. However Lewington does not explicitly state that the process is inclusive of machine learning. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing (abstract), Guha teaches for multivariate processing, using machine learning to make adjustments [0010] and improve processing over time [0012]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller processor of Lewington including the system to query history and change parameters to include machine learning because machine learning allows for improving settings to refine the model and improve the process over time [0012]. Regarding specifically the timing of the gas flow, Lewington has taught timing as one of the recipe parameters which can be controlled by the controller [0090-0096].
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13-18, and 26 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington, in view of Anderson and US Patent Application Publication 2013/0157387 of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1 and 26, Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 1 and 26 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can demonstrate any difference in sensor distribution results in a different controller configuration or that control of concentration to different regions is not rendered obvious by the above applied combination. Addressing the same problem of etching non-uniformities within a chamber (abstract), Chen teaches an advanced process control unit (controller) connected to a multi-zone endpoint detection system [0067] which is inclusive of sensors 310, 312, including 312a, 312b, 312c, and 312d, and 314, including 314a, 314b, 314c, 314d (Fig 3a-b and [0033-0034]) distributed throughout the chamber (Fig 3b [0034]) and the advanced process control unit (controller) is configured to monitor the chamber conditions [0033-0034] and correlate the chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify an area of etch rate non-uniformity [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], target the identified area with gas flow adjustment and control [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], and the advanced process control unit (controller) is configured to control a concentration ratio between a first and second gas flow to tune the etch rate uniformity by adjusting gas flow to individual regions [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], [0044], [0058], [0062]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Lewington to include being configured to receive feedback from multiple sensors distributed throughout the chamber, monitor chamber conditions, correlate chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify areas of etching nonuniformity, target the area of etch nonuniformity with gas flow control, and control a concentration ratio between the gas flows to tune the etch rate by adjusting the gas flow ratios because Chen teaches this results in improved etching uniformity within the chamber [0035]. Regarding specifically control of which gas injectors inject which gas, this is controlled by Lewington as taught by control of individual gas injectors and by Lewington in view of Anderson which renders obvious individual control of different outlets to have different gases or gas ratios.
Regarding claim 2-4, 6-9, 13-18, the analysis remains as applied above over Lewington in view of Anderson.
Claim(s) 5, 11-12, and 20-21 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson and Chen as applied to claim 1-2 and 13 above, and further in view of Yonemura.
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 2. The combination fails to teach gas flow rotation. It is noted that the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson includes the structural capability of gas flow rotation by the individual control of the gas injectors but doesn’t teach the controller performs this gas rotation operation. In the same field of endeavor of apparatus for uniformly processing substrates [0001], Yonemura teaches rotating the gas flow (Fig 9) by injecting in different phases (Fig 9) [0057-0067] to achieve radial uniformity [0067]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington and the combination to include the rotating gas flow control as taught by Yonemura because Yonemura teaches this improves uniformity [0077].
Regarding claim 11 and 20, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson and Yonemura remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 above. Yonemura teaches the gas flow control includes turning on and off the gas flows to control gas flow rotation [0057-0067].
Regarding claim 12 and 21, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 13 above and the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson and Yonemura remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 above. Yonemura teaches a modulating function applied to the gas flows and the outlets (note Yonemura teaches a plurality of outlets exhaust pipes 13a-c Fig 9) [0057-0067] as part of the gas flow rotation.
Claim(s) 24 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava.
Regarding claim 24, Lewington fails to teach a first pump port and a second pump port and fails to teach the pressure control valves and actuators. In the same field of endeavor of plasma etching apparatuses (abstract, Fig 8), Srivastava teaches a first pump port and a second pump port (each of OH Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15), and teaches a first pressure control valve (one of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50-67) coupled to the first pump port (Fig 8); a first actuator (electromechanical means col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the first pressure control valve to raise and lower the first pressure control valve within the first pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15); a second pressure control valve (different of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the second pump port (Fig 8); a second actuator coupled to the second pressure control valve to raise and lower the second pressure control valve within the second pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington to include the plurality of pump ports and valves with actuators as taught by Srivastava because Srivastava teaches this allows control of the angle of the open valves and allows rotation to reduce the gas shadowing to improve uniformity (col 9, ln 1-15).
Claim(s) 25 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guha.
Regarding claim 25, Lewington teaches a controller (60 Fig 1) coupled to the chamber (Fig 1) the controller includes one or more processors (processor 132 [0074], [0078-0079]). Lewington teaches the controller may be coupled with a network or other system to examine history, change parameters, and examine trends [0080]. Examiner notes that this instruction for parameters based on past operations and trends suggest machine learning. However Lewington does not explicitly state that the process is inclusive of machine learning. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing (abstract), Guha teaches for multivariate processing, using machine learning to make adjustments [0010] and improve processing over time [0012]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller processor of Lewington including the system to query history and change parameters to include machine learning because machine learning allows for improving settings to refine the model and improve the process over time [0012]. Regarding specifically the timing of the gas flow, Lewington has taught timing as one of the recipe parameters which can be controlled by the controller [0090-0096].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p12-15) that Lewington does not teach the amended limitations regarding sensors. Initially it is noted that the sensors have not been claimed as part of the apparatus and therefore distinctions between the sensors of Lewington and the sensors of the claim are moot because the sensors are not a structure of the apparatus. Further, Lewington teaches sensors as applicant’s arguments acknowledge and as are cited above. The argument that the etch depth isn’t a measure of chamber conditions is not persuasive because etch depth is a function of the chamber conditions. If applicant intends to claim specific chamber conditions as applicant’s arguments suggest, it is noted the claim should be amended to recite sensors as a structure of the apparatus and to recite the specific conditions being monitored. Arguments that Anderson does not teach the recited sensors are moot because Anderson is not being relied upon for the recited sensors. Additionally, as noted above, the combination renders obvious changing the gas flow concentrations to address the identified non-uniformities as cited above in the update rejection that reflects the amended claim language.
Applicant then argues (reply p15-16) that the specific chemicals are integral to the apparatus. Applicant is respectfully encouraged to consider amending to claim a system or to claim the sources of the gases as part of the apparatus to provide patentable weight to the specific gases. Applicant has provided no indication that the controller is aware of the specific gases or otherwise doing more than adjusting valves to change relative flow rates. Applicant argues (reply p16-17) that the concentration control is a different controlling configuration than Examiner’s arguments suggest but does not indicate where in the instant specification it is explained the controller verifies specific chemicals are present or otherwise has unique programing beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained in the rejection.
For the purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, an additional and/or alternative rejection including Chen was applied to demonstrate sensors throughout the chamber that monitor chamber conditions and provide concentration control to different zones, as explained above, which further demonstrates the obviousness of claims over the prior art.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the patentability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0365531 teaches sensors (210 Fig 4) throughout the chamber for monitoring conditions and adjusting the processing conditions (Fig 5 and [0055]). US 6,487,472 teaches sensors for the operating conditions in the chamber (col 10, ln 53-65 and a controller to store the data, detect abnormalities, and make adjustments (col 10, ln 65 to col 11, ln 52). US 2021/0280399 teaches monitoring chamber conditions at various locations to correlate to etch rate non-uniformity [0030].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716