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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are currently amended.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 8 are objected to pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear in Figure 1 as to what elements of the figure callouts 115 and 140 are to be directed. Additionally, it is unclear if the element adjacent to the callout arrow of 113 is meant to be labeled (for instance, as a pedestal), or if it belongs to an already existing callout. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 11 recite the claim limitation “…a cooling tube channel extending about a center of the interface plate…”. It is unclear which plane of axis the cooling tube extends about the center (radially, perpendicularly, circumferentially, etc). For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation to refer to the cooling tube extending in a circumferential manner around the center of the interface plate, in line with Figure 13 of the instant specification.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the claim limitation “…having a sidewall defining a reaction space in the body”. On page 9 of the Applicant’s response filed 09/08/2025, the Applicant states that the word “define” is to be interpreted as the definition “to fix or mark the limits of” as provided by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. The Examiner will apply this dictionary definition interpretation any time “define” is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang (WO 02081771 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches a modular reaction chamber assembly (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 (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 (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 wall and at least partially received in the opening to the reaction space 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).
Regarding claim 2, 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).
Regarding claim 3, 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).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang teaches wherein the interface plate is detachably coupled to the body with fasteners mating with the bottom wall (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).
Regarding claim 7, 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 (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).
Regarding 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 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1), further in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding claim 3, Amikura fails to teach teaches 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 102 rejections section above, and further in view of Nemani (US 20170350004 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 102 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 4, Chiang fails to 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 Chiang as doing so would allow for the apparatus of Chiang to utilize a susceptor and maintain vacuum integrity (Nemani, [0046]).
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), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Nemani (US 20170350004 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 103 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Akimura fails to 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]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Tan (US 20120285621 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 102 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 5, Chiang fails to 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 Chiang 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]).
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), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Tan (US 20120285621 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 103 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Amikura fails to 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 modified Amikura 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]).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 102 rejections section above, and further in view of Sansoni (US 20100039747 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 102 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 8, 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).
Chiang 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 Chiang 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]).
Regarding claim 12, 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).
Chiang 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 Chiang 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]).
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), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Sansoni (US 20100039747 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 103 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 8, Akimura fails to 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).
Modified Amikura 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]).
Regarding claim 12, Akimura 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]).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (WO 02081771 A2), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 102 rejections section above, and further in view of Johnson (US 6425953 B1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 102 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 9, Chiang fails to 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 Chiang 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).
Regarding claim 13, Chiang fails to 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 Chiang 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).
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), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 in the 103 rejections section above, and further in view of Johnson (US 6425953 B1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are set forth in the 103 rejections section above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Akimura fails to 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).
Regarding claim 13, modified Akimura fails to 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).
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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Modified 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]).
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura (US 20070158026 A1), further in view of Chiang (WO 02081771 A2) and Yang (US 20130287529 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Akimura 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); and a susceptor disposed within the reaction space (Amikura, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0027], table 48 is disposed in processing space S).
Akimura fails to teach 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, wherein the first interface plate is configured for use with a first susceptor heater adapted for a first upper temperature limit, and wherein 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, Chiang teaches 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).
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 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 modified Akimura 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).
Regarding claim 17, Akimura 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).
Regarding claim 19, Akimura fails to teach 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, and a second interface plate.
However, 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), and a second interface plate.
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 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 modified Akimura as doing so would allow different processes to run concurrently while sharing a common gas supply and exhaust pump (Yang, [0048]).
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 limitations of claims 16, 17 and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, modified Chiang fails to 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]).
Modified 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]).
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 limitations of claims 16, 17 and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, modified Akimura fails to 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 modified Akimura as doing so would allow for the apparatus of modified Akimura to utilize a susceptor and maintain vacuum integrity (Nemani, [0046]).
Modified Akimura 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 limitations of claims 16, 17 and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding 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 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]).
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 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]).
Modified 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]).
Claim 20 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 Sansoni (US 20100039747 A1)
The limitations of claims 16, 17 and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Akimura fails to 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, wherein the cooling tube channel is positioned at a distance in the range of 6 to 12 millimeters (mm) from the sealing members, and a second interface plate.
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).
Modified Akimura 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]).
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]).
Modified Akimura 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]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 09/08/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Chiang, teach the claim limitations “sidewall defining a reaction space”, “a bottom wall with an opening to the reaction space”, “a susceptor disposed within the reaction space” and “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” as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 16 as newly amended. The Examiner has fully considered the arguments but has found they are not persuasive.
As mentioned above, on page 9 of the Applicant’s response filed 09/08/2025, the Applicant states that the word “define” is to be interpreted as the definition “to fix or mark the limits of” as provided by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. The Examiner will apply this dictionary definition interpretation any time “define” is used. L587-589 of Chiang recite that process chamber area 12 is bounded by chamber body 18 (on the sides), and ESC 106 assembly (on the bottom), of which baseplate 112 is included and attaches to the bottom sidewall of chamber body 18, thereby defining the reaction space and being capable of meeting the claim limitations. In addition to the previous 102 rejections, the Examiner has newly rejected independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (and all associated dependent claims) in the 103 rejections section above utilizing new reference Akimura (US 20070158026 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaneko (US 20060201172 A1) teaches an apparatus where the sidewalls are continuous and there is a side vacuum pump port.
Takahashi (US 20170221738 A1) teaches a solid block dual chamber apparatus with continuous sidewalls and independent susceptors.
Kim (US 20200194235 A1) teaches similar upper showerhead placement arrangement on sidewalls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718