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 .
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 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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-17, 19-20, and 24-27 are pending.
Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Claims 5-6, 18, and 21-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended.
Continued Examination
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Ogawa (US 5855679), Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Chang (KR 20130135529), Shimane et al. (US 20150294845), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Chae et al. (US 20030178866), with Wong et al. (US 20170117170), Mosden et al.(US 20050205209), and Chan (US 20180019106) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Rice teaches a vapor deposition assembly (processing platform 400) for depositing material on a substrate, the vapor deposition assembly comprising: a deposition chamber comprising at least two deposition stations (processing chambers 100; process stations 110 may be configured to operate as ALD stations) for depositing a material on a substrate [Fig. 17 & 0052, 0095]; a plurality of susceptors (heaters 230) each configured and arranged to hold a substrate [Fig. 4 & 0058]; a susceptor moving arrangement (support arms 220) configured and arranged to hold a susceptor and to move said susceptor between deposition stations (support arms 220 rotate around a central axis) [Fig. 4 & 0054].
Rice does not specifically disclose a susceptor moving arrangement configured and arranged to detachably hold a susceptor and to move said susceptor between deposition stations, a treatment chamber, wherein the susceptor is configured to detachably couple a susceptor stand.
Ogawa teaches a susceptor moving arrangement (transport robot 12) configured and arranged to detachably hold a susceptor (susceptor 1) and to move said susceptor between deposition stations (process chamber 30), a treatment chamber (electrode exchanging chamber 31); wherein the susceptor is configured to detachably couple a susceptor stand (stages 36a and 36b) [Fig. 1, 7 & Col. 9 lines 38-52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rice to include removeable susceptors, as in Ogawa, to provide a way to replace parts without disturbing the hermetically sealed conditions [Ogawa - Col. 1 lines 20-47, Col. 5 lines 15-19]. Wong et al. (US 20170117170) also discloses that it may be beneficial to include a dedicated consumable part transfer chamber to [Wong - 0137, 0155].
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose a treatment chamber constructed and arranged to receive and treat a susceptor from the deposition chamber; and a transfer system configured and arranged to move the susceptor between the deposition chamber and the treatment chamber.
Bang teaches a treatment chamber (chamber 40) constructed and arranged to receive and treat a susceptor from the deposition chamber (chamber 40 contains wafer holder cleaning apparatuses 10); and a transfer system (transfer apparatus 30) configured and arranged to move the susceptor between the deposition chamber and the treatment chamber (the transfer apparatus 30 may carry the wafer holders 1000 out of the film deposition apparatus 20 and carry the wafer holders 1000 into the film deposition apparatus 20) [Fig. 10A & 0073-0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have a treatment chamber, as in Bang, to provide efficient susceptor cleaning [Bang - 0007, 0077]. Mosden et al.(US 20050205209) also discloses that having a treatment/transfer chamber for a maintenance item (such as those detachable from a substrate support would be beneficial to improve throughput [Mosden - 0012, 0042, 0048-0050].
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa and Bang) does not specifically disclose a susceptor staging station for holding a treated susceptor.
Chang teaches wherein the assembly further comprises a susceptor staging station (susceptor holders 70) for holding a treated susceptor [Fig. 8 & 0037-0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have a susceptor staging station, as in Chang, to provide a buffer and storage for susceptors [Chang - 0039].
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa, Bang, and Chang) does not specifically disclose wherein the susceptor staging station is positioned in the deposition chamber.
Shimane teaches wherein a staging station (storage unit 23) is positioned in the deposition chamber (process chamber 2 and exhaust chamber 8) [Fig. 1 & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the susceptor staging station of Modified Rice to be positioned in the deposition chamber, since Shimane discloses that utilizing an intra-chamber storage unit for a structure can help reduce the amount of area an apparatus takes [Shimane - 0042].
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa, Bang, Chang, and Shimane) does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is a plasma cleaning chamber, a thermal cleaning chamber, an etch cleaning chamber, a chemical cleaning chamber, radiation cleaning chamber, an annealing chamber, a sputter cleaning chamber or a combination thereof.
Foster teaches wherein the treatment chamber is a is a plasma cleaning chamber, a thermal cleaning chamber, an etch cleaning chamber, a chemical cleaning chamber, radiation cleaning chamber, an annealing chamber, a sputter cleaning chamber or a combination thereof (reactor 15 is a CVD reactor and utilizes plasma for cleaning interior surfaces) [Fig. 2 & Col. 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to be a plasma cleaning chamber, as in Foster, to reduce equipment downtime [Foster - Col. 2 lines 15-27]. Foster also discloses that plasma cleaning may be used in other applications where deposits and contaminants tend to form [Foster - Col. 7 lines 35-45]. Furthermore, Chan (US 20180019106) discloses that plasma cleaning is a technique well known cleaning method in the art [Chan - 0002].
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa, Bang, Chang, Shimane, and Foster) does not specifically disclose wherein the transfer system is further configured to separately hold and move the substrate.
Chae teaches wherein the transfer system is capable of adjusting size and shape (the transfer system of Figs. 8A-8D is vertically adjustable via vertical driving unit 103, and the robot arms 108 and 109 are horizontally adjustable via horizontal driving unit 105) [Fig. 8A-8D & 0049, 0057-0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transfer system of Modified Rice to be horizontally and vertically adjustable, as in Chae, to reduce operation time and improve efficiency [Chae - 0064-0065].
It is noted that the limitations “wherein the transfer system is further configured to separately hold and move the substrate,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that if the transfer system of Modified Rice were to be modified such that it is vertically and horizontally adjustable (as in the transfer system of Chae), then the transfer system would be capable of separately handling a susceptor and substrate since the transfer system can be respectively adjusted to transfer objects of different sizes at different heights.
Regarding Claim 3:
Rice teaches wherein the susceptor moving arrangement is configured and arranged to move all the susceptors simultaneously (support arms 220 rotate around a central axis and are thus capable of moving simultaneously) [Fig. 4 & 0054].
Regarding Claim 4:
Rice teaches wherein the susceptor moving arrangement rotates the susceptors in a circular manner about a rotational axis (support arms 220 rotate around a central axis ) [Fig. 4 & 0054].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa) does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is a cleaning chamber.
Bang teaches wherein the treatment chamber is a cleaning chamber (chamber 40 contains wafer holder cleaning apparatuses 10) [Fig. 1, 10A & 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have a treatment chamber, as in Bang, to provide efficient susceptor cleaning [Bang - 0007, 0077]. Mosden et al.(US 20050205209) also discloses that having a treatment/transfer chamber for a maintenance item (such as those detachable from a substrate support would be beneficial to improve throughput [Mosden - 0012, 0042, 0048-0050].
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa, Bang, Chang, and Shimane) does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is closed by bringing an injector and the susceptor together.
Foster teaches wherein the treatment chamber is closed by bringing an injector and the susceptor together (the bottom of the gas mixing chamber 30 is closed by a circular showerhead 35 connected to the bottom of the mixing chamber wall 31) [Fig. 2 & Col. 10 lines 5-10, Col. 12 lines 15-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to be a plasma cleaning chamber, as in Foster, to reduce equipment downtime [Foster - Col. 2 lines 15-27]. Foster also discloses that plasma cleaning may be used in other applications where deposits and contaminants tend to form [Foster - Col. 7 lines 35-45]. Furthermore, Chan (US 20180019106) discloses that plasma cleaning is a technique well known cleaning method in the art [Chan - 0002].
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Ogawa) does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to treat a susceptor.
Bang teaches wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to treat a susceptor (the cleaning part 400 may clean the surface of the wafer holder 1000 disposed on the support part 300 so as to remove foreign objects or the like formed on the wafer holder 1000) [Fig. 2 & 0053].
Bang teaches wherein the treatment chamber is a cleaning chamber (chamber 40 contains wafer holder cleaning apparatuses 10) [Fig. 1, 10A & 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have a treatment chamber, as in Bang, to provide efficient susceptor cleaning [Bang - 0007, 0077]. Mosden et al.(US 20050205209) also discloses that having a treatment/transfer chamber for a maintenance item (such as those detachable from a substrate support would be beneficial to improve throughput [Mosden - 0012, 0042, 0048-0050].
Regarding Claim 15:
Rice teaches wherein the deposition assembly comprises a substrate-handling system (transfer station 410) [Fig. 17 & 0097].
Furthermore, the limitations “the substrate-handling system is configured and arranged to be used as the susceptor transfer system,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Ogawa discloses a detachable susceptor 1, as such, the combination of references would be capable of using any transfer robot to handle the detachable susceptor [Ogawa - Fig. 1, 7 & Col. 9 lines 38-52].
Regarding Claim 16:
Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to receive susceptors from at least two deposition chambers.
Bang teaches a treatment chamber (chamber 40) [Fig. 10A & 0073-0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rice to have a treatment chamber and detachable susceptor, as in Bang, to provide efficient susceptor cleaning [Bang - 0007, 0077].
Furthermore, the combination of references would disclose “wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to receive susceptors from at least two deposition chambers,” because if the chamber 40 and detachable susceptors of Bang are placed in the apparatus of Rice, the chamber 40 would be capable of receiving susceptors from any of the plurality of deposition chambers in Rice.
Regarding Claim 26:
Rice teaches wherein the susceptor comprises an electric chuck (the heaters may comprise an electrostatic chuck) [Fig. 4, 17 & 0063].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Ogawa (US 5855679), Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Chae et al. (US 20030178866), with Wong et al. (US 20170117170), Mosden et al.(US 20050205209), and Chan (US 20180019106) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 above, and further in view of Minami et al. (US 20130218337).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the deposition assembly comprises a second transfer system configured and arranged to move a susceptor inside the treatment chamber.
Minami teaches wherein the deposition assembly comprises a second transfer system configured and arranged to move an object (wafer 3) inside a chamber (there are two robots 10 and 20 for moving wafers 3 in chamber 2) [Fig. 1 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the chamber (treatment chamber) and object (susceptor) of Modified Rice with the arrangement of the chamber, object, and second transfer system of Minami to increase throughput [Minami - 0006].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Ogawa (US 5855679), Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Chang (KR 20130135529), Shimane et al. (US 20150294845), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Chae et al. (US 20030178866), with Wong et al. (US 20170117170), Mosden et al.(US 20050205209), and Chan (US 20180019106) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20160013086).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the assembly comprises more susceptors than deposition stations.
Yang teaches wherein the assembly comprises more susceptors than deposition stations (there are a plurality of susceptors 55 supporting multiple wafers in processing apparatus 100) [Fig. 1, 9, 11 & 0009, 0028, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have multiple susceptors in a processing station, as in Yang, to improve throughput and processing performance [Yang - 0004-0005, 0055].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Ogawa (US 5855679), Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Chang (KR 20130135529), Shimane et al. (US 20150294845), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Chae et al. (US 20030178866), with Wong et al. (US 20170117170), Mosden et al.(US 20050205209), and Chan (US 20180019106) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20180315622).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Rice teaches wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to treat a susceptor (the cleaning part 400 may clean the surface of the wafer holder 1000 disposed on the support part 300 so as to remove foreign objects or the like formed on the wafer holder 1000) [Bang - Fig. 2 & 0053].
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to treat a substrate.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to treat a substrate (back-surface polishing units 8 clean a wafer) [Fig. 3 & 0033-0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to have wafer cleaning capabilities, as in Kobayashi, to reduce the presence of foreign matter, thereby improving device reliability [Kobayashi - 0001-0002].
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Ogawa (US 5855679), Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Chang (KR 20130135529), Shimane et al. (US 20150294845), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Chae et al. (US 20030178866), with Wong et al. (US 20170117170), Mosden et al.(US 20050205209), and Chan (US 20180019106) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 above, and further in view of Thilderkvist et al. (US 6277194).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15-16, and 26 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to condition a susceptor.
Thilderkvist teaches wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to condition a susceptor (a surface of a silicon substrate processing chamber is prepared by coating 32 the surface with a material including silicon; a susceptor can be coated) [Fig. 2, 3 & Col. 3 lines 65-67, Col. 4 lines 16-20 and 55-62, Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6 lines 1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to have susceptor coating capabilities, as in Thilderkvist, to provide a barrier between the susceptor and wafer, thereby reducing the amount of contamination transfer from the susceptor to the process wafer during processing [Thilderkvist - Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the conditioning comprises coating a susceptor.
Thilderkvist teaches wherein the conditioning comprises coating a susceptor (a surface of a silicon substrate processing chamber is prepared by coating 32 the surface with a material including silicon; a susceptor can be coated) [Fig. 2, 3A & Col. 3 lines 65-67, Col. 4 lines 16-20 and 55-62, Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6 lines 1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to have susceptor coating capabilities, as in Thilderkvist, to provide a barrier between the susceptor and wafer, thereby reducing the amount of contamination transfer from the susceptor to the process wafer during processing [Thilderkvist - Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the conditioning comprises annealing a susceptor.
Thilderkvist teaches wherein the conditioning comprises annealing a susceptor (coating is performed at temperatures greater than 1000 degrees Celsius; the chamber would be capable of annealing since temperature and duration are predetermined) [Fig. 2, 3A & Col. 7 lines 59-67, Col. 8 lines 1-6, Col. 9 lines 66-67, Col. 10 lines 1-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to have susceptor coating capabilities, as in Thilderkvist, to provide a barrier between the susceptor and wafer, thereby reducing the amount of contamination transfer from the susceptor to the process wafer during processing [Thilderkvist - Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6 lines 1-4].
Claim(s) 17, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Foster et al. (US 5356476), and Condrashoff et al. (US 20060011299), with Chan (US 20180019106) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 17:
Rice teaches a treatment apparatus for treating a susceptor of a vapor deposition assembly comprising a housing (housing of processing chambers 100); a susceptor holder (heater standoffs 234) configured an arranged to hold a susceptor to be treated [Fig. 4, 17 & 0049, 0060]; wherein the susceptor comprises an electric chuck (the heaters may comprise an electrostatic chuck) [Fig. 4, 17 & 0063], wherein the susceptor further comprises at least one of a heating system, one or more lift pins, or one or more gas channels (the heater 230 may comprise a resistive heater) [Fig. 4, 17 & 0062-0063].
Rice does not specifically disclose a treatment apparatus configured and arranged to treat a susceptor; wherein the susceptor treatment apparatus is configured and arranged to receive a susceptor from at least two deposition chambers; wherein the treatment apparatus comprises transfer system (transfer apparatus 30) for moving susceptor between the susceptor holder and a deposition chamber (the transfer apparatus 30 may carry the wafer holders 1000 out of the film deposition apparatus 20 and carry the wafer holders 1000 into the film deposition apparatus 20) [Fig. 10A & 0073-0074].
Bang teaches a treatment apparatus (chamber 40) configured and arranged to treat a susceptor (chamber 40 contains wafer holder cleaning apparatuses 10) [Fig. 10A & 0073-0074]; wherein the treatment apparatus comprises transfer system (transfer apparatus 30) for moving susceptor between the susceptor holder and a deposition chamber (the transfer apparatus 30 may carry the wafer holders 1000 out of the film deposition apparatus 20 and carry the wafer holders 1000 into the film deposition apparatus 20) [Fig. 10A & 0073-0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rice to have a treatment chamber and detachable susceptor, as in Bang, to provide efficient susceptor cleaning [Bang - 0007, 0077].
Furthermore, the combination of references would disclose “wherein the treatment chamber is configured and arranged to receive susceptors from at least two deposition chambers,” because if the chamber 40 and detachable susceptors of Bang are placed in the apparatus of Rice, the chamber 40 would be capable of receiving susceptors from any of the plurality of deposition chambers in Rice.
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the susceptor treatment apparatus comprises an injector to provide a treatment gas or a plasma to a treatment chamber, and wherein the injector serves as a lid of the treatment chamber.
Foster teaches wherein the susceptor treatment apparatus comprises an injector (showerhead 30) to provide a treatment gas or a plasma to a treatment chamber, and wherein the injector serves as a lid of the treatment chamber (the bottom of the gas mixing chamber 30 is closed by a circular showerhead 35 connected to the bottom of the mixing chamber wall 31. From the gas mixing chamber 30, the uniformly mixed gas from the various inlet ports 38 flows downwardly through the plurality of holes 36 in the showerhead plate 35 parallel to the axis 37 and perpendicular to the wafer support surface 44 of the susceptor 40 as represented by arrows 78) [Fig. 2 & Col. 10 lines 5-10, Col. 12 lines 15-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to be a plasma cleaning chamber, as in Foster, to reduce equipment downtime [Foster - Col. 2 lines 15-27]. Foster also discloses that plasma cleaning may be used in other applications where deposits and contaminants tend to form [Foster - Col. 7 lines 35-45]. Furthermore, Chan (US 20180019106) discloses that plasma cleaning is a technique well known cleaning method in the art [Chan - 0002].
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Bang and Foster) does not specifically disclose wherein the susceptor forms a part of a treatment chamber enclosure.
Condrashoff teaches wherein the susceptor forms a part of a treatment chamber enclosure (as evidenced by Figs. 3A and 3B, the lid 14 descends to form a chamber with substrate holder 54) [Fig. 3A, 3B & 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to lower its life in such a way as to make the susceptor a part of the treatment chamber enclosure, as in Condrashoff, since the arrangement of the chamber of Condrashoff improves exhaust efficiency and power efficiency [Condrashoff - 0044].
Regarding Claim 24:
Modified Rice (Rice modified by Bang) does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment chamber is closed by bringing the injector and the susceptor together.
Foster teaches wherein the treatment chamber is closed by bringing the injector and the susceptor together (the bottom of the gas mixing chamber 30 is closed by a circular showerhead 35 connected to the bottom of the mixing chamber wall 31) [Fig. 2 & Col. 10 lines 5-10, Col. 12 lines 15-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment chamber of Modified Rice to be a plasma cleaning chamber, as in Foster, to reduce equipment downtime [Foster - Col. 2 lines 15-27]. Foster also discloses that plasma cleaning may be used in other applications where deposits and contaminants tend to form [Foster - Col. 7 lines 35-45]. Furthermore, Chan (US 20180019106) discloses that plasma cleaning is a technique well known cleaning method in the art [Chan - 0002].
Regarding Claim 27:
Rice teaches wherein the susceptor further comprises at least one of a heating system, one or more lift pins, or one or more gas channels (the heater 230 may comprise a resistive heater) [Fig. 4, 17 & 0062-0063].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Foster et al. (US 5356476), Condrashoff et al. (US 20060011299), with Chan (US 20180019106) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 17, 24, and 27 above, and further in view of Chang (KR 20130135529).
The limitations of claims 17, 24, and 27 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment apparatus comprises a susceptor staging station for storing susceptors.
Chang teaches wherein the treatment apparatus comprises a susceptor staging station for storing susceptors. (susceptor holders 70) for holding a treated susceptor [Fig. 8 & 0037-0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Rice to have a susceptor staging station, as in Chang, to provide a buffer and storage for susceptors [Chang - 0039].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 20190131167) in view of Bang et al. (US 20140130732), Foster et al. (US 5356476), Condrashoff et al. (US 20060011299), with Chan (US 20180019106) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 17-18, 24, and 27 above, and further in view of Nozawa et al. (US 10290523).
The limitations of claims 17-18, 24, and 27 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 25:
Modified Rice does not specifically disclose wherein the susceptor treatment apparatus comprises two transfer systems for moving susceptors.
Nozawa teaches wherein the susceptor treatment apparatus comprises two transfer systems for moving susceptors (there are two robots 42 and 44) [Fig. 2, 3 & Col. 4 lines 4-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transfer system of Modified Rice to comprise of two transfer systems, as in Nozawa, to increase throughput [Nozawa - Col. 10 lines 43-50]. Furthermore, although Bang does not specifically disclose two transfer systems, utilizing more would be a mere duplication of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-17, 19, and 24-27 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “and a susceptor staging station for holding a treated susceptor, wherein the susceptor staging station is positioned in the deposition chamber,” however this argument is now moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Shimane et al. (US 20150294845) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the susceptor comprises an electric chuck, wherein the susceptor comprises at least one of a heating system, one or more lift pins, or one or more gas channels,” because the wafer holders 1000 Bang et al. (US 20140130732) cannot be viewed as susceptors. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as it is readily known by those of ordinary skill in the art that the term “susceptor” would include structures that support a wafer during processing. The wafer holders 1000 of Bang support each wafer W during processing, and as such, can be reasonably interpreted to be susceptors [Bang - 0055]. Xi et al. (US 5849092) also discloses that “susceptors” are structures directed to holding a wafer during processing [Xi – Col. 4 lines 19-25]
Furthermore, Bang is merely being used to modify Rice et al. (US 20190131167) to disclose a susceptor treatment chamber and a susceptor transfer system; Rice already discloses susceptors comprising an electrostatic chuck and a heater (heaters 230 may comprise an electrostatic chuck and a resistive heaters) [Rice – 0062-0063]. As such, the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned limitation. It is noted 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 applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the susceptors disclosed in the claim limitations are different from the susceptors disclosed in the combination of references of the rejection herein. The wafer holders of bang can be reasonably interpreted as susceptors, and as such, are considered analogous art and can be used to modify the susceptors of Rice. Rice by itself discloses susceptors (heaters 230) comprising an electrostatic chuck and a heater (heaters 230 may comprise an electrostatic chuck and a resistive heaters) [Rice – 0062-0063]. Bang is merely being used to modify Rice to include a susceptor treatment chamber and a susceptor transfer system. Therefore, the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned claim limitations.
The examiner also respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s claim that modification of Bang’s wafer holders 1000 to include electrostatic chucks and heaters would require significant, nonobvious structural and functional changes. Firstly, in the art of wafer treatment, the examiner considers those of ordinary skill in the art as those of high skill and high creativity. Furthermore, incorporating chucks and heaters into wafer holders is a very well-known technique in the art (see Rice). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it unreasonable to incorporate chucks and heaters into the wafer holders of Bang. It is noted 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).
It’s also noted that detachable susceptors are a very well-known structure in the art, as evidenced by Chang (KR 20130135529), Ishikawa et al. (US 6189483), and Stowell et al. (US 20160053366) [Chang – Fig. 8 & 0037-0039; Ishikawa – Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 55-62; Stowell – Fig. 1 & 0036].
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights