DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 23-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and disposed outside of the first ring reflector, wherein the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner, and wherein the outer liner comprises material selected from opaque quartz and silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al is presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The edge temperature correcting element in claim 1, interpreted as heaters 302 and 402 [0040, 0043].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Yoon teaches a process kit 110, 130, 140, 300 Fig. 1-8 for use in a processing chamber 120, the process kit comprising: an inner liner 110 having: a plurality of first inlet holes 132 disposed on an injection side 130 of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas injection assembly 133 [0039] of a processing chamber; and a plurality of first outlet holes 142 disposed on an exhaust side 140 of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas exhaust assembly 143 of the processing chamber; a top plate (top of 110) and a bottom plate (bottom of 110, and 420) attached to an inner surface of the inner liner (as shown in Fig. 8B), the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together with the inner liner (as shown in Fig. 8); a cassette 300 disposed within the enclosure, the cassette comprising a plurality of shelves 330 configured to retain a plurality of substrates thereon [0031]; and an edge temperature correcting element (heat liner/heater 121) [0050] disposed between the inner liner and an outer housing 120 [0028-0053].
PNG
media_image1.png
494
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not expressly teach a first ring reflector disposed outside of the inner liner wherein the edge temperature correcting element is disposed between the inner liner and the first ring reflector.
Ulloa teaches a vertical processing apparatus processing chamber 110, with a plurality of first inlet holes 160 disposed on an injection side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas injection assembly 140, 142, 145 of a processing chamber; and a plurality of first outlet holes 170 disposed on an exhaust side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas exhaust assembly 155, 172 of the processing chamber; a top plate 122 and a bottom plate 124, the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together within 150; a cassette 120 disposed within the enclosure, the cassette comprising a plurality of shelves 250 configured to retain a plurality of substrates 200 thereon; a first ring reflector 220 disposed outside of the cassette 120; and an outer liner/chamber body 110 and an edge temperature correcting element 210 (heating element which can be a resistive coil, lamp or ceramic heater [0029]) disposed on an inner circumference of reflector 220 (which is ring shaped as shown in 220 Fig. 2) which is mounted on an outer liner 110 [0018-0073].
PNG
media_image3.png
536
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, which is mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to change the edge temperature correcting element and outer housing chamber structure in Yoon with that of Ulloa, which includes a ring reflector 210 on an outer circumference side of heater 210, such that the ring reflector is disposed outside of the inner liner, with a cooling channel in the outer housing chamber structure, as an art analogous structure for heating, chamber walls, and reflectors. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Yoon in view of Ulloa does not expressly teach an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and is disposed outside of the first ring reflector, the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner, but does teach that the chamber wall 110 has a cooling channel 230 in the teachings of Ulloa.
Saido teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1 with a cassette 30 with an inner liner 42, an inductive coil 50 for powering the heater, an outer chamber wall 58 that is separate from the cooling channel 56b and mounted on a wall 56a/outer liner that is hollow as it surrounds the inner tube of 42, as shown in Fig. 1 [0033-0157]. Saido further teaches that the outer, separate chamber cover 58 prevents a leakage of heat [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yoon in view of Ulloa to make the chamber wall separate from the cooling channels from the chamber wall, and the cooling channels separate from the heating coil making an outer liner with the cooling channels, as per the teachings of Saido. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing a leakage of heat.
PNG
media_image4.png
522
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The resulting apparatus would thus create an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and disposed outside of the first ring reflector, as it is outside of the heating coil/edge temperature correcting element, such that the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner.
Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido teach an outer liner outside of the first ring reflector but does not expressly teach the outer liner comprises opaque quartz or silicon carbide coated graphite.
Janzen teaches a chamber 1 Fig. 1, or outer liner, is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0033].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an outer liner/chamber analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Janzen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0348240 to Burrows et al and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0004405 to Merry et al.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 3, Yoon in view of Ulloa do not expressly teach the inner liner comprises material selected from clear quartz and silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite, and the top plate and the bottom plate comprise material selected from clear quartz, opaque quartz, silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite.
Burrows teaches an inner liner 202 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of SiC coated graphite [0021].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an inner liner analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows does not expressly teach the cassette/boat/susceptor is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite.
Merry teaches a cassette/boat/susceptor 168 Fig. 1 can be made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0034].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cassette analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Merry, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2007/0095289 to Arami et al and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0004405 to Merry et al.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 4, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen do not expressly teach the first ring reflector comprises material selected from opaque quartz or silicon- carbide (SiC) coated graphite, and the plurality of shelves comprises silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite.
Arami teaches a reflector plate 102 Fig. 6, 7 can be made of opaque quartz [0064].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a reflector analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of opaque quartz, as taught by Arami, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, and Janzen and Arami does not expressly teach a cassette/boat/susceptor is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite.
Merry teaches a cassette/boat/susceptor 168 (and thus also shelves) can be made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0034].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cassette (and thus also the shelves) analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Merry, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0348240 to Burrows et al.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 5, Yoon in view of Ulloa do not expressly teach the edge temperature correcting element comprises two graphite heaters surrounding the inner liner.
Burrows teaches heating elements 204 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of silicon carbide coated graphite [0022].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the edge temperature correcting element analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 9, 12, 16 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al, United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0348240 to Burrows et al.
In regards to Claim 9, Yoon teaches a processing chamber 120, comprising a housing structure comprising a housing structure 120 having a first side wall (left 120) and a second side wall (right of 120) opposite the first side wall in a first direction (see arrows of Fig. 7, a horizontal direction); a gas injection assembly 133 coupled to the first side wall (see bottom of 120); a gas exhaust assembly 143 coupled to the second side wall (see opposite arrangement of 133, 143 and bottom of 120); a chamber (interior housing body of 120) disposed within the housing structure; a process kit/cassette disposed within the chamber 300 Fig. 1-8, the process kit comprising a cassette having a plurality of shelves 330, 331 configured to retain a plurality of substrates thereon; a plurality of heating 121 modules disposed on a first side of the chamber and configured to provide radiative heat to the plurality of substrates; a plurality of lamp modules disposed on a second side of the chamber opposite the first side in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and configured to provide radiative heat to the plurality of substrates; and a lift-rotation mechanism 410 configured to move the cassette in the second direction and rotate the cassette about the second direction [0033],wherein the process kit further comprises :an inner liner 110 having: a plurality of first inlet holes 132 disposed on an injection side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with the gas injection assembly 130; and a plurality of first outlet holes 142 disposed on an exhaust side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with the gas exhaust assembly 140; a top plate 310 and a bottom plate attached to an inner surface of the inner liner 420 (as it forms the bottom and top of the liner), the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together with the inner liner, the cassette being disposed within the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 8); and an edge temperature correcting element (heat line/heater 121) [0050] disposed between the inner liner and an outer housing 120 [0028-0053].
PNG
media_image1.png
494
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not expressly teach a first ring reflector disposed outside of the inner liner wherein the edge temperature correcting element is disposed between the inner liner and the first ring reflector.
Ulloa teaches a vertical processing apparatus processing chamber 110, with a plurality of first inlet holes 160 disposed on an injection side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas injection assembly 140, 142, 145 of a processing chamber; and a plurality of first outlet holes 170 disposed on an exhaust side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas exhaust assembly 155, 172 of the processing chamber; a top plate 122 and a bottom plate 124, the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together within 150; a cassette 120 disposed within the enclosure, the cassette comprising a plurality of shelves 250 configured to retain a plurality of substrates 200 thereon; a first ring reflector 220 disposed outside of the cassette 120; and an outer liner/chamber body 110 and an edge temperature correcting element 210 (heating element which can be a resistive coil, lamp or ceramic heater [0029]) disposed on an inner circumference of reflector 220 (which is ring shaped as shown in 220 Fig. 2) which is mounted on an outer liner 110 [0018-0073].
PNG
media_image3.png
536
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, which is mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to change the edge temperature correcting element and outer housing chamber structure in Yoon with that of Ulloa, which includes a ring reflector 210 on an outer circumference side of heater 210, such that the ring reflector is disposed outside of the inner liner, with a cooling channel in the outer housing chamber structure, as an art analogous structure for heating, chamber walls, and reflectors. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Yoon in view of Ulloa does not expressly teach an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and is disposed outside of the first ring reflector, the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner, but does teach that the chamber wall 110 has a cooling channel 230 in the teachings of Ulloa.
Saido teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1 with a cassette 30 with an inner liner 42, an inductive coil 50 for powering the heater, an outer chamber wall 58 that is separate from the cooling channel 56b and mounted on a wall 56a/outer liner that is hollow as it surrounds the inner tube of 42, as shown in Fig. 1 [0033-0157]. Saido further teaches that the outer, separate chamber cover 58 prevents a leakage of heat [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yoon in view of Ulloa to make the chamber wall separate from the cooling channels from the chamber wall, and the cooling channels separate from the heating coil making an outer liner with the cooling channels, as per the teachings of Saido. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing a leakage of heat.
PNG
media_image4.png
522
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The resulting apparatus would thus create an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and disposed outside of the first ring reflector, as it is outside of the heating coil/edge temperature correcting element, such that the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner.
Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido teach an outer liner outside of the first ring reflector but does not expressly teach the outer liner comprises opaque quartz or silicon carbide coated graphite.
Janzen teaches a chamber 1 Fig. 1, or outer liner, is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0033].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an outer liner/chamber analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Janzen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen does not expressly teach a plurality of upper lamp modules and a plurality of lower lamp modules.
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, and are made out of lamps, the lamps being modules that are mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment, arranged on an upper and lower side of the quartz chamber perpendicularly as they are arranged along the vertical processing chamber and opposite to each other as they are arranged on upper and lower sides as broadly recited in the claim [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to have changed the generic heating elements of in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen with the lamps of Ulloa, as art analogous heating elements. The resulting structure would form upper and lower lamp modules, as broadly recited in the claim as it would form upper and lower areas of lamps along the vertical axis of the processing chamber.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen do not expressly teach the chamber is a quartz chamber.
Burrows teaches an inner liner 2252 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of quartz [0021].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an inner liner analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
In regards to Claim 12, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen do not expressly teach the edge temperature correcting element comprises two graphite heaters surrounding the inner liner.
Burrows teaches heating elements 204 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of silicon carbide coated graphite [0022].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the edge temperature correcting element analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Yoon teaches a processing chamber 120, comprising a housing structure comprising a housing structure 120 having a first side wall (left 120) and a second side wall (right of 120) opposite the first side wall in a first direction (see arrows of Fig. 7, a horizontal direction); a gas injection assembly 133 coupled to the first side wall (see bottom of 120); a gas exhaust assembly 143 coupled to the second side wall (see opposite arrangement of 133, 143 and bottom of 120); a chamber (interior housing body of 120) disposed within the housing structure; a process kit/cassette disposed within the chamber 300 Fig. 1-8, the process kit comprising a cassette having a plurality of shelves 330, 331 configured to retain a plurality of substrates thereon; a plurality of heating 121 modules disposed on a first side of the chamber and configured to provide radiative heat to the plurality of substrates; a plurality of lamp modules disposed on a second side of the chamber opposite the first side in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and configured to provide radiative heat to the plurality of substrates; and a lift-rotation mechanism 410 configured to move the cassette in the second direction and rotate the cassette about the second direction [0033],wherein the process kit further comprises :an inner liner 110 having: a plurality of first inlet holes 132 disposed on an injection side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with the gas injection assembly 130; and a plurality of first outlet holes 142 disposed on an exhaust side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with the gas exhaust assembly 140; a top plate 310 and a bottom plate attached to an inner surface of the inner liner 420 (as it forms the bottom and top of the liner), the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together with the inner liner, the cassette being disposed within the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 8); and an edge temperature correcting element (heat line/heater 121) [0050] disposed between the inner liner and an outer housing 120 [0028-0053].
PNG
media_image1.png
494
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon does not expressly teach a first ring reflector disposed outside of the inner liner wherein the edge temperature correcting element is disposed between the inner liner and the first ring reflector.
Ulloa teaches a vertical processing apparatus processing chamber 110, with a plurality of first inlet holes 160 disposed on an injection side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas injection assembly 140, 142, 145 of a processing chamber; and a plurality of first outlet holes 170 disposed on an exhaust side of the inner liner and configured to be in fluid communication with a gas exhaust assembly 155, 172 of the processing chamber; a top plate 122 and a bottom plate 124, the top plate and the bottom plate forming an enclosure together within 150; a cassette 120 disposed within the enclosure, the cassette comprising a plurality of shelves 250 configured to retain a plurality of substrates 200 thereon; a first ring reflector 220 disposed outside of the cassette 120; and an outer liner/chamber body 110 and an edge temperature correcting element 210 (heating element which can be a resistive coil, lamp or ceramic heater [0029]) disposed on an inner circumference of reflector 220 (which is ring shaped as shown in 220 Fig. 2) which is mounted on an outer liner 110 [0018-0073].
PNG
media_image3.png
536
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, which is mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to change the edge temperature correcting element and outer housing chamber structure in Yoon with that of Ulloa, which includes a ring reflector 210 on an outer circumference side of heater 210, such that the ring reflector is disposed outside of the inner liner, with a cooling channel in the outer housing chamber structure, as an art analogous structure for heating, chamber walls, and reflectors. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Yoon in view of Ulloa does not expressly teach an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and is disposed outside of the first ring reflector, the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner, but does teach that the chamber wall 110 has a cooling channel 230 in the teachings of Ulloa.
Saido teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1 with a cassette 30 with an inner liner 42, an inductive coil 50 for powering the heater, an outer chamber wall 58 that is separate from the cooling channel 56b and mounted on a wall 56a/outer liner that is hollow as it surrounds the inner tube of 42, as shown in Fig. 1 [0033-0157]. Saido further teaches that the outer, separate chamber cover 58 prevents a leakage of heat [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yoon in view of Ulloa to make the chamber wall separate from the cooling channels from the chamber wall, and the cooling channels separate from the heating coil making an outer liner with the cooling channels, as per the teachings of Saido. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing a leakage of heat.
PNG
media_image4.png
522
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The resulting apparatus would thus create an outer liner formed as a hollow structure and disposed outside of the first ring reflector, as it is outside of the heating coil/edge temperature correcting element, such that the first ring reflector is disposed between the inner liner and the outer liner.
Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido teach an outer liner outside of the first ring reflector but does not expressly teach the outer liner comprises opaque quartz or silicon carbide coated graphite.
Janzen teaches a chamber 1 Fig. 1, or outer liner, is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0033].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an outer liner/chamber analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa and Saido out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Janzen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon does not expressly teach a plurality of upper lamp modules and a plurality of lower lamp modules.
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, and are made out of lamps, the lamps being modules that are mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment, arranged on an upper and lower side of the quartz chamber perpendicularly as they are arranged along the vertical processing chamber and opposite to each other as they are arranged on upper and lower sides as broadly recited in the claim [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to have changed the generic heating elements of Yoon with the lamps of Ulloa, as art analogous heating elements. The resulting structure would form upper and lower lamp modules, as broadly recited in the claim as it would form upper and lower areas of lamps along the vertical axis of the processing chamber.
Yoon does not expressly teach a plurality of upper lamp modules and a plurality of lower lamp modules.
The heater of Ulloa 210 is analogous to the edge temperature correcting element 121 of Yoon, and are made out of lamps, the lamps being modules that are mounted on an outer liner/outer housing 120, as it is a vertical heating element surrounding a cassette in a processing space to process wafers, which includes plasma treatment, arranged on an upper and lower side of the quartz chamber perpendicularly as they are arranged along the vertical processing chamber and opposite to each other as they are arranged on upper and lower sides as broadly recited in the claim [0006].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to have changed the generic heating elements of Yoon with the lamps of Ulloa, as art analogous heating elements. The resulting structure would form upper and lower lamp modules, as broadly recited in the claim as it would form upper and lower areas of lamps along the vertical axis of the processing chamber.
Yoon does not expressly teach a transfer robot configured to transfer the plurality of substrates into and from the process kit disposed in the processing chamber.
Ulloa teaches a transfer mechanism (not shown) that transfer the substrates into the processing chambers and the cassette in the form of a robot, thus transferring substrates more efficiently [0035].
As it is known to provide a transfer robot in a processing system, as taught by Ulloa, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yoon as taught by Ulloa to include the transfer robot. One would be motivated to do so in order to move substrates as needed efficiently. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen do not expressly teach the chamber is a quartz chamber.
Burrows teaches an inner liner 2252 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of quartz [0021].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an inner liner analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
In regards to Claim 12, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen do not expressly teach the edge temperature correcting element comprises two graphite heaters surrounding the inner liner.
Burrows teaches heating elements 204 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of silicon carbide coated graphite [0022].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the edge temperature correcting element analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 19, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen do not expressly teach the edge temperature correcting element comprises two graphite heaters surrounding the inner liner.
Burrows teaches heating elements 204 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of silicon carbide coated graphite [0022].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the edge temperature correcting element analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 11 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al, United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0348240 to Burrows et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0004405 to Merry et al and United States Patent Application No. 2007/0095289 to Arami et al.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claims 9 and 16 above.
In regards to Claims 11 and 18, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows do not expressly teach the inner liner comprises material selected from clear quartz and silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite, the top plate and the bottom plate comprise material selected from clear quartz, opaque quarts, silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite, the first ring reflector comprises material selected from opaque quartz or silicon- carbide (SiC) coated graphite, and the plurality of shelves comprises silicon-carbide (SiC) coated graphite.
Burrows teaches an inner liner 202 Fig. 2A, 2B can be made of SiC coated graphite [0021].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make an inner liner analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Burrows, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows does not expressly teach the cassette/boat/susceptor is made out of silicon carbide coated graphite.
Merry teaches a cassette/boat/susceptor 168 Fig. 1 can be made out of silicon carbide coated graphite [0034] such that the top and bottom plates are made out of SiC coated graphite as are the shelves.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cassette analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows out of SiC coated graphite, as taught by Merry, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows does not expressly teach the material of the reflector plate.
Arami teaches a reflector plate 102 Fig. 6, 7 can be made of opaque quartz [0064].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a reflector analogous to that of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen and Burrows out of opaque quartz, as taught by Arami, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0005400 to Gat.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 23, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen does not expressly teach the first ring reflector comprises a cylindrical tubular structure having a reflective surface facing the inner liner.
Gat teaches the reflector 36 Fig. 1-5 for lamps 24 are reflective annular recesses, or tubes, 36 [0047] that faces an inner liner 33 [0035-0077].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the reflector of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido and Janzen with that of Gat.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as it would result in a cylindrical tube (annular reflector around lamp) facing the inner liner.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0159272 to Yoon et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0272390 to Ulloa, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0042803 to Saido et al and United States Patent Application No. 2015/0013595 to Janzen et al, as applied to Claims 9 and 16 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0005400 to Gat.
The teachings of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 24-25, Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows does not expressly teach the first ring reflector comprises a cylindrical tubular structure having a reflective surface facing the inner liner.
Gat teaches the reflector 36 Fig. 1-5 for lamps 24 are reflective annular recesses, or tubes, 36 [0047] that faces an inner liner 33 [0035-0077].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the reflector of Yoon in view of Ulloa, Saido, Janzen and Burrows with that of Gat.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims, as it would result in a cylindrical tube (annular reflector around lamp) facing the inner liner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights