DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
The abstract, specification, and drawings have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-11, 13, 16, and 20 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8, and 15 being independent.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 12/16/2025 objections to the abstract and the specification.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 12/16/2025 objection to fig. 1 of the drawings.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 12/16/2025 objections to claims 14 and 19.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 12/16/2025 rejections of claims 4, 8, 12, 15, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However the amendment introduces new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, described below.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 12/16/2025 rejections of claims 1 and 15, as well as claim 9 (which depends on independent claim 8, and now includes similar limitations directed towards a first side and a second side of the reflector) under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive, as described in the 'Response to Arguments' section below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13 and 15 recite the limitations “transmissive portion” and “opaque portion”, and where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The accepted meaning of a “transmissive portion” is of a portion that allows any measure of light through, and the accepted meaning of an “opaque portion” is of a portion that does not allow any measure of light through. In this case, the specification clearly redefines the terms at least in paras. 0048-49. Thus, Examiner will interpret the limitations wherein a transmissive portion is formed of an optically transparent material, such as a transparent quartz material or glass, such that greater than about 90% of radiant energy within an infrared wavelength range, such as a wavelength of about 700 nm to about 1 mm, passes through the transmissive portion; and wherein an opaque portion has a lower optical transparency than the transmissive portion, such that less than about 50% of radiant energy within an infrared wavelength range, such as a wavelength of about 700 nm to about 1 mm, passes through the opaque portion.
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.
Claims 4-7, 9, and 12-13 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.
Claim 4 recites “the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side of the reflector…a second side of the reflector” in lines 8-10:
The recitation of “a first side/a second side” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation this is intended to be distinct from the first side recited in claim 1 (“a plurality of gas inlets on a first side of the chamber body…a second side of the chamber body”). Claim 4 will be interpreted as reciting “the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first reflector side [[of the reflector]]…a second reflector side [[of the reflector]]”.
Claim 5:
The limitation “the heating element” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the respective heating element comprising each of the one or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular one heating element among the one or more heaters, or to each of the heating elements of all the one or more heaters. Claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting “The process chamber of claim 4, wherein the one or more heaters respectively further comprise: [[the heating element is one of]] a lamp or a resistive heating element as the heating element”
Claim 6:
The limitation “the heater casing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the heater base and the heater casing comprising each of the one or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular one heater casing/heater base among the one or more heaters, or to each of all the one or more heaters. In view of para. 0007, claim 6 will be interpreted as reciting “The process chamber of claim 4, wherein the one or more heaters respectively further comprise: a heater base [[is]] coupled to an outside surface of the chamber body and coupled to the heater casing”
Claim 7:
The limitation “the end of the heater casing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the heater casing end comprising each of the one or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular one heater casing/heater base among the one or more heaters, or to each of all the one or more heaters. Claim 7 will be interpreted as reciting “The process chamber of claim 1, further comprising: a first plurality of lamps disposed above a first window, the processing volume between the substrate support and the first window; and a second plurality of lamps disposed below a second window, wherein the one or more heaters respectively further comprise the end of the heater casing aligned between the pre-heat ring and the second window”
Claim 9:
The limitations “the reflector, the heatier casing, the heating element, the front heater volume” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the respective components comprising each of the two or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular two of the respective components among the two or more heaters, or to each of all the two or more heaters. Claim 9 will be interpreted as reciting “The pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8, wherein the first pre-heat ring section is formed of a silicon carbide material, and wherein the two or more heaters respectively further comprise the reflector forms a front heater volume and a back heater volume within the heater casing, the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side of the reflector, and the back heater volume disposed on a second side of the reflector.”
Claim 12:
The limitation “the heater casing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the respective heater casing comprising each of the two or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular two of the respective heater casings among the two or more heaters, or to each of all the two or more heaters. Claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting “The pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8, wherein the two or more heaters respectively further comprise the heater casing is formed of a quartz material.”
Claim 13:
The limitations “the heater casing, the heating element” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Although it seems the limitation is generally directed towards the respective heater casing/heating element comprising each of the two or more heaters, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the remaining claim limitations apply to only a particular two of the respective heater casings/elements among the two or more heaters, or to each of all the two or more heaters. Claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting “The pre-heat ring assembly of claim 12, wherein the two or more heaters respectively further comprise: the heater casing further comprises: a transmissive portion disposed around the heating element; and an opaque portion coupled to a distal end of the transmissive portion”
Claims 5-6, and 13 are also rejected because of dependence on 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) in view of Burrows (US 20170037515 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Yanagisawa discloses:
A heater insert [fig. 3: upper side lamps 207], configured to heat [i.e., lamps configured to output a controlled heating intensity; para. 0052: “Electrodes 224 are connected to the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 to supply electricity to each of the lamps. The heating intensity of each lamp is controlled by the heating control section 283.”] a pre-heat ring within a semiconductor processing chamber [see fig. 3, showing a soaking ring 289, which would be heated by lamps 207], comprising:
a heater casing [figs. 3, 7: quartz tube body 286; para. 0053: “Each of the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 is covered with a quartz tube body 286”; para. 0082: “In this embodiment, the tube body 286 is divided into an outer wall side 306, a tapered portion 307 and an inner wall side 308”] comprising:
a transmissive portion [see figs. 3/7, showing an inner wall side 308 of the tube body 286, for heating an interior of chamber main body 227, wherein 308 inherently has a level of transmissivity];
In this case, since Yanagisawa discloses controlling the heating intensity to supply an intensive heating profile [paras. 0051-52], selecting a given transparency would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., in order to supply sufficient heat for chemical vapor deposition; para. 0050: “The processing furnace 202 is especially suitable for thermal processing of the semiconductor wafers. Examples of the thermal processing are… chemical vapor deposition”]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a transparency greater than 90%, such that the lamps supply a heating profile suitable for thermal processing, as disclosed by Yanagisawa.
[see fig. 7, showing tapered portion 307 and outer wall side 306, on a distal end of inner wall side 308]; and
a heater base [fig. 7: chamber 225 and side block 301] coupled to a distal end of the opaque portion opposite the transmissive portion, such that the opaque portion intersects a contact surface of the heater base [see fig. 7, showing 306 intersecting and contacting an outer side of side wall of chamber 225 defining an inside of the chamber and an outside of the chamber, wherein 306 and 225 form a heater base of body 286] and the contact surface has one or more grooves disposed therein [see fig. 9, o-rings 309 in corresponding grooves in 225 and 301; para. 0085: “As shown in FIG. 9(c) for example, O-rings 309 are provided in a circumferential direction of the quartz tube body 286.”];
[i.e., 308 corresponding to a front of body 286, and 306 corresponding to a back of body 286]; and
a heating element disposed within the front heater volume and within the transmissive portion of the heater casing [i.e., lamp 207 covered by body 286; para. 0053], the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side [see fig. 7].
However, Yanagisawa does not disclose:
an opaque portion coupled to the distal end of the transmissive portion;
a reflector disposed within the heater casing;
the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side of the reflector, and the back heater volume disposed on a second side of the reflector
Burrows, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an opaque quartz coupled to a distal end of a lamp [para. 0008: “A method to compensate for roll off is to add IR reflectors, such as opaque quartz plates, under both ends of the linear IR heater lamps.”].
Bajaj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a reflector [fig. 3: 390; para. 0040: “A single hollow, half-spherical reflector 390 surrounds each UV lamp 385”] disposed within a heater casing [see fig. 3, showing reflectors 390 surrounding lamps 385 in housing 360, inherently forming a volume in front of it, and a volume behind it].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the heater casing of Yanagisawa, by:
having the distal end of the transmissive portion be coupled to an opaque portion, since Burrows teaches that opaque quartz can compensate for non-uniform irradiation [para. 0021: “Primary IR reflectors 113 are reflectors beneath the IR lamps may be formed of a conventional IR reflecting material such as opaque quartz, but unconventionally provide a spatial IR reflection pattern that compensates for the non-uniform irradiation of the susceptors 105 from the lamps 111 themselves”]; and
In this case, selecting a given transparency would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [i.e., in order to supply sufficient heat for chemical vapor deposition]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a transparency less than 50%, such that the lamps supply a heating profile suitable for thermal processing, as disclosed by Yanagisawa.
including a reflector disposed within the heater casing, since Bajaj teaches this enhances intensity and uniformity of radiation [para. 0040: “The spherical or concave surface 391 of each reflector 390 reflects UV radiation downward to enhance intensity and uniformity of the UV radiation”];
such that the heating element and the front heater volume are disposed on a first side of the reflector, and the back heater volume is disposed on a second side of the reflector; since fig. 7 of Yanagisawa shows a front heater volume disposed within the processing chamber, and a back heater volume disposed outside the processing chamber, thereby prioritizing heating of the inside of the chamber, and since Bajaj’s teachings suggest that by arranging the reflector within the casing and corresponding between the inside and outside of the chamber, would also enhance the radiation of Yanagisawa’s heating element in a predictable manner.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the limitation requiring that the heater insert is configured to heat a pre-heat ring within a semiconductor processing chamber, is also being interpreted as intended use of the claimed invention, and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of Yanagisawa is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Yanagisawa in view of Burrows and Bajaj discloses the heater insert of claim 15.
Yanagisawa further discloses:
wherein the heating element is one of a lamp or a resistive heating element [i.e., lamp 207].
Regarding claim 17, Yanagisawa in view of Burrows and Bajaj discloses the heater insert of claim 16.
Yanagisawa further discloses:
wherein the heating element has a power output of 500 W to 3000 W.
Since Yanagisawa is directed towards thermal processing of semiconductors [para. 0050: “The processing furnace 202 is especially suitable for thermal processing of the semiconductor wafers. Examples of the thermal processing are… chemical vapor deposition”], and in view of Yanagisawa disclosing that the heating intensity of the lamps is controlled so as to supply an intensive heating profile [paras. 0051-52: “In the preferred embodiments, the heater assembly includes heating elements such as a series of tungsten halogen linear lamps 207 and 223 which supply intensive heating profile… The heating intensity of each lamp is controlled by the heating control section 283.”], selecting a given power output would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a power output of 500 W to 3000 W, such that the lamps supply a heating profile suitable for thermal processing (e.g., chemical vapor deposition), as disclosed by Yanagisawa.
Regarding claim 18, Yanagisawa in view of Burrows and Bajaj discloses the heater insert of claim 15.
Yanagisawa as modified by Burrows further discloses:
wherein the transmissive portion is a transmissive quartz with a transparency of greater than 90% [i.e., inner wall side 308 of body 286 of Yanagisawa is made of quartz, such that it allows transmission of radiation emitted from the lamp] and the opaque portion is an opaque quartz with a transparency of less than 50% [i.e., the opaque quartz of Burrows].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) in view of Burrows (US 20170037515 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bailey (US 20070010072 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yanagisawa in view of Burrows and Bajaj discloses the heater insert of claim 15.
Yanagisawa further discloses:
wherein the one or more grooves are configured to hold [i.e., see fig. 9, showing O-rings 309 in the grooves; para. 0085: “As shown in FIG. 9(c) for example, O-rings 309 are provided in a circumferential direction of the quartz tube body 286.”].
However, Yanagisawa does not disclose:
a heat shield.
Bailey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heat shield [para. 0072: “The second section 263 may be provided with one or more heat shields 264”] for protecting seals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the groove of Yanagisawa by:
including a heat shield, adjacent the O-ring in the groove, to protect the sealing ring of Yanagisawa, since Bailey teaches that the heat shield protects O-rings from being overheated [para. 0072: “The second section 263 may be provided with one or more heat shields 264 to protect seals such as O-rings from being overheated by heating elements.”], wherein it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the heat shield shape be a ring shape, so as to correspond to the shape of the O-ring of Yanagisawa.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) in view of Burrows (US 20170037515 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20180122665 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yanagisawa in view of Bajaj discloses the heater insert of claim 15.
However, Yanagisawa does not disclose:
wherein a compression washer and a compression cap are coupled to the heater base, such that the compression washer is disposed between the compression cap and the heater base.
Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a conventional method of securing a quartz tube using a compression washer and a compression cap [see annotated fig. 4 below, showing a fixture 83 comprising a compression washer and compression cap].
(fig. 4, Kobayashi)
PNG
media_image1.png
716
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute Yanagisawa’s securing method with the equivalent method of Kobayashi, since Kobayashi teaches that the fixture 83 predictably secures a quartz tube [para. 0058: “The fibers 92-1 and 92-2 are securely held in a fiber head 84, and this fiber head 84 is then inserted into the quartz tube 80, and is secured using a fixture 83 and/or other element.”].
Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus (US 20100120259 A1) in view of Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Vatus discloses:
A pre-heat ring assembly, configured for use within a semiconductor processing chamber [para. 0020: “The gas pre-heat ring 122 is configured to be disposed about the substrate support 124 and facilitates preheating a process gas flowed therethrough.”], comprising:
a pre-heat ring [fig. 1: gas pre-heat ring 122] comprising
a first pre-heat ring section [fig. 1: 123; para. 0021: “The gas pre-heat ring 122 has a labyrinthine conduit 123 disposed therein.”] and
a second pre-heat ring section [see fig. 1, showing a second pre-heat ring section indicated by 122];
one or more temperature sensors coupled to the first pre-heat ring section [para. 0030: “In some embodiments, a thermocouple or a dedicated pyrometer (not shown) may be disposed proximate to one or more of the gas pre-heat ring 122, the one or more inserts 402, or the cap 602 to provide temperature data corresponding to each element.”]; and
two or more heaters coupled to and configured to heat the first pre-heat ring section [para. 0020: “For example, gas pre-heat ring 122 may be fabricated from any suitable material for absorbing energy from a lamp (such as lamps 136, 138) and for heating the process gas flowing therethrough.”], the two or more heaters respectively comprising:
a heating element [i.e., lamps].
However, Vatus does not disclose wherein each heater comprises:
a heater casing;
a reflector disposed within the heater casing and forming a front heater volume;
a heating element disposed within the front heater volume.
Yanagisawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heater [fig. 3: upper side lamps 207; para. 0052: “Electrodes 224 are connected to the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 to supply electricity to each of the lamps. The heating intensity of each lamp is controlled by the heating control section 283.”], comprising a heater casing [figs. 3, 7: quartz tube body 286; para. 0053: “Each of the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 is covered with a quartz tube body 286”; para. 0082: “In this embodiment, the tube body 286 is divided into an outer wall side 306, a tapered portion 307 and an inner wall side 308”], a front heater volume [i.e., 308 corresponding to a front of body 286, and 306 corresponding to a back of body 286], and a heating element disposed within the front heater volume [i.e., lamp 207 covered by body 286; para. 0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the pre-heat ring assembly of Vatus by:
substituting the heater of Vatus with the equivalent heater of Yanagisawa, since Yanagisawa teaches the upper side lamps 207 predictably supplies sufficient heat for semiconductor thermal processing [para. 0050: “The processing furnace 202 is especially suitable for thermal processing of the semiconductor wafers. Examples of the thermal processing are… chemical vapor deposition”].
Bajaj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a reflector [fig. 3: 390; para. 0040: “A single hollow, half-spherical reflector 390 surrounds each UV lamp 385”] disposed within a heater casing [see fig. 3, showing reflectors 390 surrounding lamps 385 in housing 360].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the heater of Vatus and Yanagisawa by:
including a reflector disposed within the heater casing, since Bajaj teaches this enhances intensity and uniformity of radiation [para. 0040: “The spherical or concave surface 391 of each reflector 390 reflects UV radiation downward to enhance intensity and uniformity of the UV radiation”].
Regarding claim 9, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8.
Vatus as modified by Yanagisawa and Bajaj further discloses:
wherein the first pre-heat ring section is formed of a silicon carbide material [Vatus para. 0020: “In some embodiments, the gas pre-heat ring 122 may comprise at least one of quartz, silicon carbide, graphite coated with silicon carbide, or the like. In some embodiments, the gas pre-heat ring 122 comprises graphite coated with silicon carbide.”],
the reflector forms a back heater volume within the heater casing, the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side of the reflector, and the back heater volume disposed on a second side of the reflector [It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vatus to arrive at claim 9 since fig. 7 of Yanagisawa teaches the front heater volume disposed within a processing chamber, and a back heater volume disposed outside the processing chamber, thereby prioritizing heating of the inside of the chamber, and since Bajaj’s teachings suggest that by arranging the reflector within the casing and corresponding between a desired heating location relative to a non-desired heating location, would also enhance the radiation of Yanagisawa’s heating element in a predictable manner].
Regarding claim 10, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8.
Vatus as modified by Yanagisawa, specifically Vatus further discloses:
wherein the two or more heaters are disposed at least partially within a heater insert body [fig. 4: insert 402; para. 0026: “The one or more inserts 402 may also facilitate more uniform heating of a process gas proximate the substrate surface. For example, each insert 402 may be fabricated, at least in part, from a material that is capable of absorbing light energy and/or radiating heat from the absorbed light energy. The light energy may be incident on each insert 402 from one or more of the lamps 136, 138, 152, and 154. As such, the one or more inserts 402 may radiate heat, thereby facilitating maintaining the temperature of the process gases and/or providing improved temperature control of the process gases proximate the substrate surface.”] and the first pre-heat ring section is disposed on top of the heater insert body [para. 0024: “The one or more inserts 402 may rest upon the gas pre-heat ring 122 or may be otherwise supported in a desired position.”].
Regarding the limitation requiring the two or more heaters be disposed at least partially within the insert body, since Yanagisawa discloses the conventional practice of optimizing a distance between a lamp and an object to be heated [para. 0086: “Moreover, because the lamps 207 and 223 are separated from the chamber atmosphere by means of the tube body 286 instead of a plate, the thickness is reduced, and a distance between wafer 200 and filaments of the lamps 207 and 223 can be shortened. With this structure, the efficiency can be enhanced and energy can be saved.”], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose a heater at least partially within the insert body, in order to enhance efficiency and save energy.
Regarding the limitation that the first pre-heat ring be disposed on top of the heater insert body, since Vatus discloses that the inserts can still be supported in another desired position [para. 0024: “The one or more inserts 402 may rest upon the gas pre-heat ring 122 or may be otherwise supported in a desired position.”], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the first pre-heat ring on top of the heater insert body.
Regarding claim 11, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 10.
Vatus further discloses:
wherein the heater insert body is formed of a silicon carbide material [claim 4: “… wherein the one or more inserts comprise at least one of quartz, silicon carbide, or graphite coated with silicon carbide.”].
Regarding claim 12, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8.
Vatus as modified by Yanagisawa, specifically Yanagisawa further discloses:
wherein the heater casing is formed of a quartz material [para. 0053: “Each of the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 is covered with a quartz tube body 286”].
Regarding claim 14, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 8.
Vatus further discloses:
wherein the one or more temperature sensors are disposed within the first pre-heat ring section.
In this case, although Vatus does not explicitly show a location of a temperature sensor, since Vatus does disclose that a thermocouple or pyrometer may be disposed proximate the gas pre-heat ring [para. 0030: “In some embodiments, a thermocouple or a dedicated pyrometer (not shown) may be disposed proximate to one or more of the gas pre-heat ring 122, the one or more inserts 402, or the cap 602 to provide temperature data corresponding to each element.”], selecting a given proximity (i.e., location) of a temperature sensor relative to the first pre-heat ring would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (e.g., space limitations, desired accuracy of temperature data). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the one or more temperature sensors within the first pre-heat ring.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus (US 20100120259 A1) in view of Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Burrows (US 20170037515 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the pre-heat ring assembly of claim 12.
Vatus as modified by Yanagisawa, specifically Yanagisawa further discloses:
wherein the heater casing further comprises:
a transmissive portion disposed around the heating element [see figs. 3/7, showing an inner wall side 308 of the tube body 286, for heating an interior of chamber main body 227, wherein 308 inherently has a level of transmissivity]; and
In this case, since Yanagisawa discloses controlling the heating intensity to supply an intensive heating profile [paras. 0051-52], selecting a given transparency would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., in order to supply sufficient heat for chemical vapor deposition; para. 0050: “The processing furnace 202 is especially suitable for thermal processing of the semiconductor wafers. Examples of the thermal processing are… chemical vapor deposition”]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a transparency greater than 90%, such that the lamps supply a heating profile suitable for thermal processing, as disclosed by Yanagisawa.
[see fig. 7, showing tapered portion 307 and outer wall side 306, on a distal end of inner wall side 308].
However, Yanagisawa does not disclose:
an opaque portion coupled to the distal end of the transmissive portion.
Burrows, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an opaque quartz coupled to a distal end of a lamp [para. 0008: “A method to compensate for roll off is to add IR reflectors, such as opaque quartz plates, under both ends of the linear IR heater lamps.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the heater casing of Yanagisawa, by:
having the distal end of the transmissive portion be coupled to an opaque portion, since Burrows teaches that opaque quartz can compensate for non-uniform irradiation [para. 0021: “Primary IR reflectors 113 are reflectors beneath the IR lamps may be formed of a conventional IR reflecting material such as opaque quartz, but unconventionally provide a spatial IR reflection pattern that compensates for the non-uniform irradiation of the susceptors 105 from the lamps 111 themselves”]; and
In this case, selecting a given transparency would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [i.e., in order to supply sufficient heat for chemical vapor deposition]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a transparency less than 50%, such that the lamps supply a heating profile suitable for thermal processing, as disclosed by Yanagisawa.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus (US 20100120259 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Vatus discloses:
A process chamber, configured for use during semiconductor processing [para. 0018: “An exemplary process chamber is described below with respect to FIG. 1, which depicts a schematic, cross-sectional view of a semiconductor substrate process chamber 100 suitable for performing portions of the present invention.”], comprising:
a chamber body comprising
a plurality of gas inlets on a first side of the chamber body [fig. 1: process gas intake port 114] and
one or more exhaust outlets on a second side of the chamber body opposite the first side [fig. 1: exhaust port 118];
a substrate support disposed within a process volume of the chamber body [fig. 1: substrate support 124]; and
a pre-heat ring assembly disposed between the plurality of gas inlets and the substrate support [see fig. 1; para. 0020: “The gas pre-heat ring 122 is configured to be disposed about the substrate support 124 and facilitates preheating a process gas flowed therethrough.”] and comprising:
a pre-heat ring [fig. 1: gas pre-heat ring 122];
one or more heaters disposed adjacent to the pre-heat ring [para. 0020: “For example, gas pre-heat ring 122 may be fabricated from any suitable material for absorbing energy from a lamp (such as lamps 136, 138) and for heating the process gas flowing therethrough.”],
the one or more heaters respectively comprising a heater casing having an end aligned under the pre-heat ring [see fig. 1, showing lamps 138 aligned above 122/123; para. 0021]; and
In this case, although Vatus depicts the lamps arranged above the pre-heat ring, the selection of a heating element’s location relative to the object to be heated is one of obvious design choice, necessitated by the requirements of the given application, e.g., space considerations, heating response of heating element, etc., as evidenced by at least by Yanagisawa, depicting lamps arranged under a pre-heat ring [fig. 3].
one or more temperature sensors disposed adjacent to the pre-heat ring [para. 0030: “In some embodiments, a thermocouple or a dedicated pyrometer (not shown) may be disposed proximate to one or more of the gas pre-heat ring 122, the one or more inserts 402, or the cap 602 to provide temperature data corresponding to each element.”].
Regarding the limitation requiring a plurality of gas inlets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide more than one gas inlet since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Vatus discloses the process chamber of claim 1.
Vatus further discloses:
wherein the pre-heat ring circumscribes the substrate support [see fig. 1, showing 122 circumscribing 124] and further comprises:
a first pre-heat ring portion forming a first partial ring [fig. 1: 123; para. 0021: “The gas pre-heat ring 122 has a labyrinthine conduit 123 disposed therein.”]
adjacent to the one or more heaters and the one or more temperature sensors and circumscribing a first portion of the substrate support [see fig. 1, showing 123 adjacent lamps 136/138 and circumscribing a first portion of 124]; and
a second pre-heat ring portion forming a second partial ring [see fig. 1, showing a second pre-heat ring section indicated by 122] and
circumscribing a second portion of the substrate support different from the first portion [see fig. 1, showing 122 circumscribing a different portion of 124].
Regarding the limitation requiring the first partial ring be adjacent to the one or more temperature sensors, although Vatus does not explicitly show a location of a temperature sensor, since Vatus does disclose that a thermocouple or pyrometer may be disposed proximate the gas pre-heat ring [para. 0030: “In some embodiments, a thermocouple or a dedicated pyrometer (not shown) may be disposed proximate to one or more of the gas pre-heat ring 122, the one or more inserts 402, or the cap 602 to provide temperature data corresponding to each element.”], selecting a given proximity (i.e., location) of a temperature sensor relative to the first pre-heat ring would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (e.g., space limitations, desired accuracy of temperature data). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the one or more temperature sensors adjacent the first partial ring.
Regarding claim 3, Vatus discloses the process chamber of claim 1.
Vatus further discloses:
wherein the one or more heaters are coupled to a lower side of the pre-heat ring and the pre-heat ring rests on top of the one or more heaters.
In this case, since Vatus further discloses inserts 402, coupled to the pre-heat ring [see fig. 4] for heating of a process gas by radiating heat from absorbed light energy from lamps 136, 138 [para. 0026: “The one or more inserts 402 may also facilitate more uniform heating of a process gas proximate the substrate surface. For example, each insert 402 may be fabricated, at least in part, from a material that is capable of absorbing light energy and/or radiating heat from the absorbed light energy. The light energy may be incident on each insert 402 from one or more of the lamps 136, 138, 152, and 154. As such, the one or more inserts 402 may radiate heat, thereby facilitating maintaining the temperature of the process gases and/or providing improved temperature control of the process gases proximate the substrate surface.”], and since Vatus also discloses that the inserts can still be supported in another desired position [para. 0024: “The one or more inserts 402 may rest upon the gas pre-heat ring 122 or may be otherwise supported in a desired position.”], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to couple the one or more heaters and/or the inserts 402 to the pre-heat ring, such that the pre-heat ring rests on top of the one or more heaters.
Regarding claim 7, Vatus discloses the process chamber of claim 1.
Vatus further discloses:
a first plurality of lamps disposed above a first window, the processing volume between the substrate window and the first window [fig. 1: lamps 136/138 disposed above lid 106; para. 0019]; and
a second plurality of lamps disposed below a second window [fig. 1: lamps 152/154 disposed below lower dome 132; para. 0019], the end of the heater casing aligned between the pre-heat ring and the second window [In this case, although Vatus depicts the heater casing arranged above the pre-heat ring, the selection of a heating element’s location relative to the object to be heated and any windows is one of obvious design choice, necessitated by the requirements of the given application, e.g., space considerations, heating response of heating element, the inclusion of conventional windows, etc., as evidenced by at least by Yanagisawa, depicting lamps arranged under a pre-heat ring (fig. 3)].
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus (US 20100120259 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 20090017641 A1) and Bajaj (US 20190301011 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Vatus discloses the process chamber of claim 3.
Vatus further discloses wherein the one or more heaters respectively further comprise:
a heater insert body [fig. 4: insert 402],
a heating element [i.e., lamps],
However, Vatus does not disclose wherein each heater comprises:
the heater casing disposed at least partially within the heater insert body;
a reflector disposed within the heater casing and forming a front heater volume and a back heater volume within the heater casing; and
the heating element disposed within the front heater volume of the heater casing, the heating element and the front heater volume disposed on a first side of the reflector, and the back heater volume disposed on a second side of the reflector.
Yanagisawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a heater [fig. 3: upper side lamps 207; para. 0052: “Electrodes 224 are connected to the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 to supply electricity to each of the lamps. The heating intensity of each lamp is controlled by the heating control section 283.”], comprising a heater casing disposed at least partially within a heater insert body [figs. 3, 7: quartz tube body 286; para. 0053: “Each of the upper side lamps 207 and the lower side lamps 223 is covered with a quartz tube body 286”; para. 0082: “In this embodiment, the tube body 286 is divided into an outer wall side 306, a tapered portion 307 and an inner wall side 308”], a front heater volume [i.e., 308 corresponding to a front of body 286, and 306 corresponding to a back of body 286], a back heater volume [i.e., 308 corresponding to a front of body 286, and 306 corresponding to a back of body 286], and a heating element disposed within the front heater volume [i.e., lamp 207 covered by body 286; para. 0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the pre-heat ring assembly of Vatus by:
substituting the heater of Vatus with the equivalent heater of Yanagisawa, since Yanagisawa teaches the upper side lamps 207 predictably supplies sufficient heat for semiconductor thermal processing [para. 0050: “The processing furnace 202 is especially suitable for thermal processing of the semiconductor wafers. Examples of the thermal processing are… chemical vapor deposition”];
Bajaj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a reflector [fig. 3: 390; para. 0040: “A single hollow, half-spherical reflector 390 surrounds each UV lamp 385”] disposed within a heater casing [see fig. 3, showing reflectors 390 surrounding lamps 385 in housing 360].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the heater of Vatus and Yanagisawa by:
including a reflector disposed within the heater casing, since Bajaj teaches this enhances intensity and uniformity of radiation [para. 0040: “The spherical or concave surface 391 of each reflector 390 reflects UV radiation downward to enhance intensity and uniformity of the UV radiation”].
Regarding claim 5, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the process chamber of claim 4.
Vatus further discloses:
wherein the heating element is one of a lamp or a resistive heating element [i.e., lamps 136, 138].
Regarding claim 6, Vatus in view of Yanagisawa and Bajaj discloses the process chamber of claim 4.
Vatus as modified by Yanagisawa, specifically Yanagisawa discloses:
wherein a heater base is coupled to an outside surface of the chamber body and coupled to the heater casing [see fig. 7, showing 306 intersecting and contacting an outer side of side wall of chamber 225 defining an inside of the chamber and an outside of the chamber, wherein 306 and 225 form a heater base of body 286].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, on pp. 13-14 Applicant argues “In relation to independent claim 1, the Office Acton fails to render obvious "one or more heaters disposed adjacent to the pre-heat ring, the one or more heaters respectively comprising a heater casing having an end aligned under the pre-heat ring," as recited in claim 1. The cited Office Action's citations to Vatus do not teach the subject matter... Hence, even if it were obvious to combine the cited subject matter of Yanagisawa into Vatus-as alleged in relation to other claims the cited tube body 286 would fail to have an end aligned under the cited pre-heat ring 122 of Vatus”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arrangement of a heating element relative to the object to be heated would at least be dictated by the requirements of the given application, since a PHOSITA would be motivated to control/optimize a heating of the object, and would take into consideration the predictable results of utilizing a particular heating element, e.g., proximity to the object or ability of the object to absorb radiation from the heating element.
Regarding claim 8, on pp. 14 Applicant argues “In relation to independent claim 8, the Office Action fails to render obvious "two or more heaters coupled to and configured to heat the first pre-heat ring section, the two or more heaters respectively comprising: a heater casing; a reflector disposed within the heater casing and forming a front heater volume; and a heating element disposed within the front heater volume" as recited in independent claim 8. Indeed, the cited tube body 286 of Yanagisawa is taught as "fixed to the chamber main body 227." Yanagisawa at Paragraph [0053]. Hence, even if it were valid to combine the cited subject matter of Yanagisawa into Vatus-as alleged-the cited tube body 286 would not be coupled to the cited gas pre-heat ring 122 of Vatus.” In this case, Yanagisawa was introduced as teaching an equivalent heater, wherein a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success substituting Yanagisawa’s heater for the heater of Vatus. Thus, since Vatus discloses the conventional practice of coupling a heater to a preheat ring to generate heat in the preheat ring, it would have been obvious to substitute equivalent heaters that are also capable of generating heat in an object.
Regarding amended claim 15, on pp. 14-15 Applicant argues “…Indeed, Burrows fails to teach "opaque quartz coupled to a distal end of a lamp,"… Hence, even if it were proper to modify Yanagisawa with Burrows-as alleged-the opaque quartz plates of Burrows would be positioned below the quartz tube body 286 and would not be used as part of the cited outer wall side 306 of the quartz tube body 286.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Burrows was shown as teaching the benefit of arranging an opaque portion relative to a transmissive portion of a lamp, i.e., that a reflector allows for compensation of non-uniform irradiation, e.g., using mirrors to focus light on a target. Applicant continues “What is more, the citations to Bajaj fail to teach "a reflector disposed within [a] heater casing" which is asserted in the Office Action. Rather, the citations to Bajaj teach a "single hollow, half-spherical reflector 390 [that] surrounds each UV lamp 385." Bajaj at Paragraph [0040]. Hence, even if it were proper to modify Yanagisawa with Bajaj-as alleged-the cited reflector 390 that surrounds each UV lamp 385 would not be positioned within the cited quartz tube body 286 of Yanagisawa.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, Bajaj was presented as teaching that a conventional reflector may be arranged, without loss of functionality as a reflector, within a heater casing, specifically, that a reflector [fig. 3: 390; para. 0040] can be disposed within a heater casing [see fig. 3, showing reflectors 390 surrounding lamps 385 in housing 360]. Applicant continues “Moreover, the multiple design choice rejections made by the Office Action are precluded because the claimed subject matter performs differently than the configurations in the cited references. Ex Parle Bagnall, Appeal No. 2009-013429, Application No. 10/759,585, Slip Op. at Page 11 (PTAB April 14, 2011) (citing In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). As an example, the claimed configurations of the one or more heaters can "provide additional temperature control to a pre-heat ring within the deposition chamber and therefore enable increased gas/precursor activation towards a leading edge of the substrate adjacent to gas injection into the process volume." Present Application at Paragraph [0017]. Additionally, "[t]he heaters and pre-heat ring assemblies described herein enable more accurate, rapid, and repeatable heating of a gas or precursor." Present Application at Paragraph [0060].” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art in question are all in the semiconductor arts [i.e., process gas heating], and have been presented as teaching conventional structures and their known benefits/predictable results [i.e., reflectors, lamps, pre-heat rings].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights