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) 1-20 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 have added an exhaust port to the interface plate and alternatively a ledge, 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. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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.
In regard to Claim 3, it is dependent on Claim 2 which recites “the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit” which comprises alternative limitations for either a first upper temperature OR a second upper temperature. Claim 3 recites limitations that imply both are required with the word “and” instead of the word “or” such that it is unclear if the alternative is intentional in claim 2 or should be applied in claim 3 instead of the word “and.”
For the purposes of examining based on the merits, claim 3 will be interpreted with the word “or” such that there is consistency between the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al.
In regard to Claim 1, Hiyama teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly Fig. 1-4, comprising: a reaction chamber 430 with a body having a sidewall 431, 452 defining a reaction space in the body (inside of 430), wherein the body further includes a bottom wall 469 with an opening to the reaction space, wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate 600; a susceptor 459 disposed within the reaction space; and an interface plate assembly 465 including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom wall (through guide shafts 467, [0036]) and at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space to enclose the reaction space (as it also forms the exhaust port space), the interface plate comprising an exhaust port 475 disposed therethrough [0017-0147].
In regard to Claim 2, Hiyama teaches the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater 463 adapted for a first upper temperature limit (200°C) [0066].
In regard to Claim 3, Hiyama teaches the first upper temperature limit is less than about 250° (200°C [0066]).
In regard to Claim 6, Hiyama teaches the interface plate is detachably coupled to the body with fasteners 467 mating with the bottom wall [0036].
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang (WO 02081771 A2).
In regard to Claim 10, Chiang teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (Fig. 13, L520, chamber 156 of ALD reactor 100), comprising: a reaction chamber having a sidewall defining a cylindrical reaction space (Fig. 13, L335, chamber body 18 surrounds cylindrical process chamber 12 where wafer 8 is processed), wherein the sidewall includes a bottom surface with an opening to the reaction space (Fig. 13, L335, lower portion of chamber body 18 is open to process chamber 12), wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate (Fig. 13, L539-560, substrate 8 is located in process chamber 12 into which gas is introduced); a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 is in communication with process chamber 12, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942); and an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom surface with fasteners to enclose the reaction space (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188), wherein the interface plate assembly further includes a sealing member disposed between an upper surface of the interface plate and a ledge recessed from the bottom surface of the sidewall and extending about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space (Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between upper surface of baseplate 112 and lower surface of chamber body 18, surrounding reaction space 12), wherein the ledge comprises an inner lip abutting the interface plate, wherein the sidewall comprises a groove extending about a periphery of the reaction space and disposed between the ledge and the bottom surface [0074-0231].
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to Claim 11, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel extending about a center of the interface plate and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where cooling plate 110 has plurality of cooling channels 78 that flow coolant fluid in a circular manner, L919-939).
In regard to Claim 14, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 contains resistive heater 72, L990, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with a range of temperatures, and that the ESC can also be swapped with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
In regard to Claim 15, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 may be at temperatures of 300°C or less, L932-933, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first upper temperature limit is less than about 250°C and wherein the second upper temperature limit is less than about 450°C” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with temperatures within the claimed range. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al.
In regard to Claim 1, Amikura teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024], apparatus 22), comprising: a reaction chamber with a body having a sidewall defining a reaction space in the body (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024], sidewalls of processing vessel 24 define processing space S), wherein the body further includes a bottom wall with an opening to the reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], bottom wall 44 has hole open to processing space S), wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], wafer W is located in processing space S); a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], table 48 is disposed in processing space S).
Amikura fails to teach an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom wall and at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space to enclose the reaction space.
However, Chiang teaches an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom wall and at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space to enclose the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188).
Chiang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
Amikura in view of Chiang does not expressly teach the interface plate comprises an exhaust port disposed therethrough.
Hiyama teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly Fig. 1-4, comprising: a reaction chamber 430 with a body having a sidewall 431, 452 defining a reaction space in the body (inside of 430), wherein the body further includes a bottom wall 469 with an opening to the reaction space, wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate 600; a susceptor 459 disposed within the reaction space; and an interface plate assembly 465 including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom wall (through guide shafts 467, [0036]) and at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space to enclose the reaction space (as it also forms the exhaust port space), the interface plate comprising an exhaust port 475 disposed therethrough [0017-0147].
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. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the interface and exhaust of Amikura in view of Chiang by adding the exhaust port in the interface plate of Hiyama, as an art analogous form of exhausting and having a bottom plate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 2, Amikura fails to teach wherein the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 contains resistive heater 72, L990, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with a range of temperatures, and that the ESC can also be swapped with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
In regard to Claim 3, Amikura fails to teach teachers wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 may be at temperatures of 300°C or less, L932-933, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first upper temperature limit is less than about 250°C and wherein the second upper temperature limit is less than about 450°C” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with temperatures within the claimed range. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 6, Amikura fails to teach Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is detachably coupled to the body with fasteners mating with the bottom wall.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is detachably coupled to the body with fasteners mating with the bottom wall (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 7, Amikura fails to teach wherein the interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel extending at least once about a center of the interface plate and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel extending at least once about a center of the interface plate and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where cooling plate 110 has plurality of cooling channels 78 that flow coolant fluid in a circular manner, L919-939).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2).
In regard to Claim 10, Amikura teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024], apparatus 22), comprising: a reaction chamber having a sidewall defining a cylindrical reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024], sidewalls of cylindrical processing vessel 24 define processing space S), wherein the body further includes a bottom wall with an opening to the reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], bottom wall 44 has hole open to processing space S), wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], wafer W is located in processing space S); and a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], table 48 is disposed in processing space S).
Amikura fails to teach an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom surface with fasteners to enclose the reaction space, wherein the interface plate assembly further includes a sealing member disposed between an upper surface of the interface plate and the bottom surface of the sidewall and extending about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space.
However, Chiang teaches an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom surface with fasteners to enclose the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188), wherein the interface plate assembly further includes a sealing member disposed between an upper surface of the interface plate and the bottom surface of the sidewall and extending about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between upper surface of baseplate 112 and lower surface of chamber body 18, surrounding reaction space 12).
Chiang teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (Fig. 13, L520, chamber 156 of ALD reactor 100), comprising: a reaction chamber having a sidewall defining a cylindrical reaction space (Fig. 13, L335, chamber body 18 surrounds cylindrical process chamber 12 where wafer 8 is processed), wherein the sidewall includes a bottom surface with an opening to the reaction space (Fig. 13, L335, lower portion of chamber body 18 is open to process chamber 12), wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate (Fig. 13, L539-560, substrate 8 is located in process chamber 12 into which gas is introduced); a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 is in communication with process chamber 12, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942); and an interface plate assembly including an interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom surface with fasteners to enclose the reaction space (Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188), wherein the interface plate assembly further includes a sealing member disposed between an upper surface of the interface plate and a ledge recessed from the bottom surface of the sidewall and extending about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space (Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between upper surface of baseplate 112 and lower surface of chamber body 18, surrounding reaction space 12), wherein the ledge comprises an inner lip abutting the interface plate, wherein the sidewall comprises a groove extending about a periphery of the reaction space and disposed between the ledge and the bottom surface [0074-0231].
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
In regard to Claim 11, Amikura fails to teach wherein the interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel extending about a center of the interface plate and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel extending about a center of the interface plate and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where cooling plate 110 has plurality of cooling channels 78 that flow coolant fluid in a circular manner, L919-939).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 14, Amikura fails to teach wherein the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 contains resistive heater 72, L990, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with a range of temperatures, and that the ESC can also be swapped with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 15, Amikura fails to teach wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 may be at temperatures of 300°C or less, L932-933, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first upper temperature limit is less than about 250°C and wherein the second upper temperature limit is less than about 450°C” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with temperatures within the claimed range. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemani (US 20170350004 A1).
The teachings of Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 4, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama does not expressly teach wherein the interface plate comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve and wherein the first or the second susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space.
However, Nemani teaches wherein the interface plate comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0041], central opening 258 contains bellows 284 which is coupled to chassis 254) and wherein the first or the second susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0046], shaft 278 of substrate support assembly 218 is received by bellows 284, and extends into process region 212).
Nemani is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the sleeve of Nemani into the interface assembly of modified Akimura as doing so would allow for the apparatus of modified Akimura to utilize a susceptor and maintain vacuum integrity (Nemani, [0046]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al, as applied in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Tan (US 20120285621 A1).
The teachings of Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 5, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama does not expressly teach wherein the body is formed of aluminum and the interface plate is formed of stainless steel.
However, Tan teaches wherein the body is formed of aluminum and the interface plate is formed of stainless steel (Tan, Fig. 4, [0030], processing chamber and associated hardware are formed from aluminum, stainless steel, etc).
Tan is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Tan to choose the appropriate materials for the chamber body and baseplate of Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama because Tan teaches aluminum or stainless steel as choices for each chamber component based on compatibility with the process being exposed to each component (Tan, [0030]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al, as applied in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Sansoni (US 20100039747 A1).
The teachings of Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 8, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama does not expressly teach a first sealing member used to provide a seal between an upper surface of the interface plate and the bottom wall and a second sealing member used to provide a seal between a lower surface of the interface plate and a lift pin mechanism abutting the lower surface.
However, Chiang teaches a first sealing member used to provide a seal between an upper surface of the interface plate and the bottom wall (Chiang, Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between baseplate 112 and chamber body 18) and a second sealing member used to provide a seal between a lower surface of the interface plate and a lift pin mechanism abutting the lower surface (Chiang, Fig. 13, L567-571, lift pin seal 190, through which lift pin 108 extends, abuts lower surface of baseplate 112).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama fails to teach wherein the cooling tube channel is positioned at a distance in the range of 6 to 12 millimeters (mm) from the sealing members.
While Sansoni does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Sansoni teaches wherein the distance from an O-ring to a cooling assembly is a result effective variable. Specifically, Sansoni teaches a relation of distances between a heat source (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], bonding region 504), cooling plate (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], cooling plate 505), and O-ring (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], O-ring 154). Sansoni teaches when a cooling plate having width W has a radial distance d23 away from heat source 504, the distance of cooling plate 505 from O-ring 154 (Fig. 5B, =R4 - R3 - W) is preferably selected to help keep O-ring 154 cool ([0073]).
Sansoni is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Sansoni to choose the proper distance of the cooling elements to the O-rings of modified Amikura because doing so would help cool the O-ring and minimize thermal stress upon the O-ring, which can impact the vacuum sealing (Sansoni, [0073]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 12, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama fails to teach wherein the sealing member comprises an O-ring.
However, Chiang teaches wherein the sealing member comprises an O-ring (Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between baseplate 112 and chamber body 18).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the chamber of Amikura to incorporate the detachable interface plate assembly as taught by Chiang as doing so would allow for the ability to swap back and forth within the same processing chamber a conventional heated susceptor with an ESC assembly (Chiang, L938-942), accommodating for both high and low temperature processes, where an ESC could provide the benefits of improved temperature control and added lower RF power coupling (Chiang, L852-860).
Modified Akimura fails to teach wherein the cooling tube channel is positioned at a distance in the range of 3 to 12 mm from to the sealing member.
While Sansoni does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Sansoni teaches wherein the distance from an O-ring to a cooling assembly is a result effective variable. Specifically, Sansoni teaches a relation of distances between a heat source (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], bonding region 504), cooling plate (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], cooling plate 505), and O-ring (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], O-ring 154). Sansoni teaches when a cooling plate having width W has a radial distance d23 away from heat source 504, the distance of cooling plate 505 from O-ring 154 (Fig. 5B, =R4 - R3 - W) is preferably selected to help keep O-ring 154 cool ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Sansoni to choose the proper distance of the cooling elements to the O-rings of modified Akimura because doing so would help cool the O-ring and minimize thermal stress upon the O-ring, which can impact the vacuum sealing (Sansoni, [0073]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), and United States Patent Application No. 2009/0176381 to Hiyama et al, as applied in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Johnson (US 6425953 B1).
The teachings of Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 9, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama does not expressly teach a flexible heater and wherein the body comprises a groove in a surface of the bottom wall in which the flexible heater is received, and wherein the groove extends about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space, whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater.
However, Johnson teaches a flexible heater and wherein the body comprises a groove in a surface of the bottom wall in which the flexible heater is received (Johnson, Fig. 3A, C6 L49-67, serpentine heating coils 110 can be placed into grooves on the bottom of the chamber, Fig. 1E), and wherein the groove extends about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space (Johnson, Figs. 1E and 3A, C6 L49-67, serpentine heating coils 110 can be placed into grooves on the bottom of the chamber, encircling the process chamber space), whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater.
Johnson is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heater assembly of Johnson into the apparatus of modified Akimura to improve heating uniformity of the process space (Johnson, C6 L49-67).
To clarify the record, the limitation “whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Johnson teaches the hater assembly is capable of heating the process chamber during processing or cleaning. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
In regard to Claim 13, Amikura in view of Chiang and Hiyama does not expressly teach a flexible heater and wherein the body comprises a groove in a surface of the bottom wall in which the flexible heater is received, and wherein the groove extends about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space, whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater.
However, Johnson teaches a flexible heater and wherein the body comprises a groove in a surface of the bottom wall in which the flexible heater is received (Johnson, Fig. 3A, C6 L49-67, serpentine heating coils 110 can be placed into grooves on the bottom of the chamber, Fig. 1E), and wherein the groove extends about the periphery of the opening to the reaction space (Johnson, Figs. 1E and 3A, C6 L49-67, serpentine heating coils 110 can be placed into grooves on the bottom of the chamber, encircling the process chamber space), whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heater assembly of Johnson into the apparatus of modified Akimura to improve heating uniformity of the process space (Johnson, C6 L49-67).
To clarify the record, the limitation “whereby a temperature of the reaction space is at least partially controlled by operation of the flexible heater” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Johnson teaches the hater assembly is capable of heating the process chamber during processing or cleaning. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), further in view of Yang (US 20130287529 A1).
The teachings of Chiang are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 16, Chiang teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (Chiang, Fig. 13, L520, chamber 156 of ALD reactor 100), comprising: a reaction chamber with a body having a sidewall defining a reaction space in the body (Chiang, Fig. 13, L335, chamber body 18 surrounds process chamber 12 where wafer 8 is processed), wherein the body further includes a bottom wall with an opening to the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L335, lower portion of chamber body 18 is open to process chamber 12), wherein the reaction space is configured for processing a substrate (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-560, substrate 8 is located in process chamber 12 into which gas is introduced); a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 is in communication with process chamber 12, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942); and an interface plate assembly including a first interface plate detachably coupled to the bottom wall and configured to be at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space to enclose the reaction space (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes baseplate 112, which is coupled to the bottom of chamber body 18, in the opened portion, to provide a vacuum seal for the interior of reactor 100, where baseplate 112 is secured via fasteners located outside circumference of RF gasket 188), wherein the first interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 contains resistive heater 72).
Chiang fails to teach a second interface plate is configured for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit.
However, Yang teaches a shared process chamber with two sets of substrate support members (Yang, Fig. 5B, [0063], chamber 106, substrate support assemblies 240A and 240B) that can run process simultaneously at two different temperatures (Yang, [0049]).
Yang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the dual substrate support arrangement of Yang to the apparatus of Chiang and use two sets of the interface assembly of Chiang as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit or for use with a second susceptor heater adapted for a second upper temperature limit greater than the first upper temperature limit” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with a range of temperatures, and that the ESC can also be swapped with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 17, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate assembly can be configured with substrate holders that handle a range of temperatures (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where ESC 6 may be at temperatures of 300°C or less, L932-933, and ESC 6 can be replaced with a conventional susceptor to facilitate higher temperature processes, L941-942).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first upper temperature limit is less than about 250°C and wherein the second upper temperature limit is less than about 450°C” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Chiang teaches the ESC assembly, including the baseplate, is capable of being compatible with temperatures within the claimed range. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 19, Chiang teaches wherein the first interface plate comprises a cooling tube channel and the interface plate assembly further comprises a cooling loop positioned in the cooling tube channel and adapted for receiving a flow of coolant to control a temperature of the interface plate (Chiang, Fig. 13, L539-566, ESC assembly 106 includes ESC 6, baseplate 112, and cooling plate 110, where cooling plate 110 has plurality of cooling channels 78 that flow coolant fluid in a circular manner, L919-939).
Chiang fails to teach a second interface plate.
However, Yang teaches a shared process chamber with two sets of substrate support members (Yang, Fig. 5B, [0063], chamber 106, substrate support assemblies 240A and 240B) that can run process simultaneously at two different temperatures (Yang, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the dual substrate support arrangement of Yang to the apparatus of Chiang and use two sets of the interface assembly of Chiang as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) in view of Yang (US 20130287529 A1), as applied to claims 16, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Nemani (US 20170350004 A1).
The teachings of Chiang in view of Yang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 18, Chiang in view of Yang does not expressly teach wherein the first and second interface plates each comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve and wherein the first or the second susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space.
However, Nemani teaches wherein the first interface plate comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0041], central opening 258 contains bellows 284 which is coupled to chassis 254) and wherein the first susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0046], shaft 278 of substrate support assembly 218 is received by bellows 284, and extends into process region 212).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the sleeve of Nemani into the interface assembly of Chiang as doing so would allow for the apparatus of Chiang to utilize a susceptor and maintain vacuum integrity (Nemani, [0046]).
Chiang in view of Yang does not expressly teach a second interface plate.
However, Yang teaches a shared process chamber with two sets of substrate support members (Yang, Fig. 5B, [0063], chamber 106, substrate support assemblies 240A and 240B) that can run process simultaneously at two different temperatures (Yang, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the dual substrate support arrangement of Yang to the apparatus of Chiang and use two sets of the interface assembly of Chiang as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1) in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and Yang (US 20130287529 A1), as applied to claims 16, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Nemani (US 20170350004 A1).
The teachings of Amikura in view of Chiang and Yang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 18, Amikura in view of Chiang and Yang does not expressly teach wherein the first and second interface plates each comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve and wherein the first or the second susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space.
However, Nemani teaches wherein the first interface plate comprises a central opening coupled to a sleeve (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0041], central opening 258 contains bellows 284 which is coupled to chassis 254) and wherein the first susceptor heater is received at least partially in the sleeve and extends through the central opening into the reaction space (Nemani, Fig. 2, [0046], shaft 278 of substrate support assembly 218 is received by bellows 284, and extends into process region 212).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the sleeve of Nemani into the interface assembly of Amikura in view of Chiang and Yang as doing so would allow for the apparatus of modified Akimura to utilize a susceptor and maintain vacuum integrity (Nemani, [0046]). See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Amikura in view of Chiang and Yang fails to teach a second interface plate.
However, Yang teaches a shared process chamber with two sets of substrate support members (Yang, Fig. 5B, [0063], chamber 106, substrate support assemblies 240A and 240B) that can run process simultaneously at two different temperatures (Yang, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the dual substrate support arrangement of Yang to the apparatus of modified Akimura and use two sets of the interface assembly of modified Akimura as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) in view of Yang (US 20130287529 A1), as applied to claims 16, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Sansoni (US 20100039747 A1).
The teachings of Chiang in view of Yang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 20, Chiang teaches a first sealing member used to provide a seal between an upper surface of the interface plate and the bottom wall (Fig. 13, L563-566, O-ring 186 comprises seal between baseplate 112 and chamber body 18) and a second sealing member used to provide a seal between a lower surface of the interface plate and a lift pin mechanism abutting the lower surface (Fig. 13, L567-571, lift pin seal 190, through which lift pin 108 extends, abuts lower surface of baseplate 112).
Chiang in view of Yang does not expressly teach wherein the cooling tube channel is positioned at a distance in the range of 6 to 12 millimeters (mm) from the sealing members.
While Sansoni does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Sansoni teaches wherein the distance from an O-ring to a cooling assembly is a result effective variable. Specifically, Sansoni teaches a relation of distances between a heat source (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], bonding region 504), cooling plate (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], cooling plate 505), and O-ring (Fig. 5B, [0073]-[0074], O-ring 154). Sansoni teaches when a cooling plate having width W has a radial distance d23 away from heat source 504, the distance of cooling plate 505 from O-ring 154 (Fig. 5B, =R4 - R3 - W) is preferably selected to help keep O-ring 154 cool ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Sansoni to choose the proper distance of the cooling elements to the O-rings of Chiang in view of Yang because doing so would help cool the O-ring and minimize thermal stress upon the O-ring, which can impact the vacuum sealing (Sansoni, [0073]).
Chiang in view of Yang fails to teach a second interface plate.
However, Yang teaches a shared process chamber with two sets of substrate support members (Yang, Fig. 5B, [0063], chamber 106, substrate support assemblies 240A and 240B) that can run process simultaneously at two different temperatures (Yang, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the dual substrate support arrangement of Yang to the apparatus of Chiang and use two sets of the interface assembly of Chiang as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 10711348 to Tsai et al which teaches a bottom chamber cover.
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