DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 08/24/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 22-24 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 11, 24 have been amended; claims 5, 12, 18-21 cancelled.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings filed on 08/24/2026 have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 06/10/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 06/10/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 08/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the prior art of record, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding independent claims 1 and 24 – see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art of record Qin does not disclose the limitation “a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof” as recited in claim 1, and the similar limitation “a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof” as recited in claim 24 – see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026.
Furthermore, Applicant alleged that Qin does not teach the newly added limitation “wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source.” recited in claim 24 – see details on page 10 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). First, it is noted that Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 08/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. In this case, the primary reference Qin discloses substantially all limitations recited in claim 1, including a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a lower window; an upper window, the lower window and the upper window at least partially defining an internal volume; a substrate support disposed in the internal volume, the substrate support comprising a support face; one or more inner heat sources, each inner heat source of the one or more inner heat sources oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the support face; and one or more outer heat sources disposed outwardly of the one or more inner heat sources. In the same field of processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the secondary reference KR’864 teaches the lower outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face. Additionally, in the same field of processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the tertiary reference Komatsu teaches the upper outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face. Since all three references are directed to the same technical field of processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them, see detailed rejection in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. It is noted that in combination, since each of the outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited, explained and incorporated above, in combination, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof, see detailed rejection in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim 24, in which Applicant alleged that the prior art of record Qin does not disclose the limitation “a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof” as recited in claim 24, the Examiner’s response indicated above to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 generally applies to the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 24.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments that Qin does not teach the newly added limitation “wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source.” as recited in claim 24 – see details on page 10 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026, Examiner would like to note that the newly cited reference Bahl (U.S. Patent No. 6,072,160 A, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the newly added limitation “wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source.” as recited in claim 24. See detailed rejections of claim 24 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 24 are not persuasive.
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding independent claim 11 – see details on pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art of record Komatsu does not teach the limitation “one or more heat sources, each heat source of the one or more heat sources aligned at an offset relative to a center of the substrate support, the offset is a ratio of the outer radius, the ratio is 0.65 or higher” as recited in claim 11, and Applicant alleged that the office action also fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for “the ratio is 0.65 or higher” as recited in claim 11 – see details on pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026.
Furthermore, Applicant alleged that the prior art Komatsu does not teach the newly added limitation “one or more reflective segments disposed partially about the arcuate lamp, the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape” as recited in claim 11 – see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record Komatsu does not teach the limitation “one or more heat sources, each heat source of the one or more heat sources aligned at an offset relative to a center of the substrate support, the offset is a ratio of the outer radius, the ratio is 0.65 or higher” as recited in claim 11, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Komatsu teaches the limitation one or more heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below), each heat source of the one or more heat sources (each of the fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) aligned at an offset (offset, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) relative to a center of the substrate support (center of the base plate 17, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below), the offset (offset, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) is a ratio of the outer radius (outer radius, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below). Komatsu does not teach that the ratio is 0.65 or higher as recited in claim 11. It is noted that there must be an offset because the outermost halogen lamps 45 are located in the outer peripheral region while the center of the substrate support is in the center. Thus, there must be an offset, however, Komatsu does not teach that the ratio is 0.65 or higher as recited in claim 11. Examiner would like to further note that Examiner does not rely on any figures of the prior art Komatsu to conclude that the ratio is 0.65 or higher. In contrast, Examiner has applied optimization of range with result effective variable.
PNG
media_image1.png
753
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the office action also fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for “the ratio is 0.65 or higher” as recited in claim 11, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.). To be more specific, regarding the limitation that the ratio is 0.65 or higher, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above where the reference Komatsu teaches certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.). In this case, Komatsu discloses certain ratio because Komatsu discloses certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17 (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above), and having a specific ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio would impact the alignment of the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the locations/portions of the substrate to be heated by the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the emission efficiency of the light from the heat sources and the temperature uniformity of the substrate. A processing chamber with an optimized alignment of lamps would facilitate heat transfer from the lamps to the substrate, increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps, and also facilitate uniform irradiation of the substrate, ensuring the substrate can be processed with uniformly distributed heat; thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved. Therefore, the ratio is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Komatsu ratio by making the ratio to be 0.65 or higher as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Furthermore, Examiner would like to further note that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Komatsu ratio by making the ratio to be 0.65 or higher as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Instant Application Par.0048 indicating “The ratio is 0.65 or higher. In one or more embodiments, the ratio is 0.7 or higher. In one or more embodiments, the ratio is 0.8 or higher, such as 1.0 or higher. In one or more embodiments, the ratio is within a range of 0.65 to 1.35”; however, Applicant does not provide criticality why the ratio of 0.65 or higher is better than other ranges, and Applicant does not provide any achievement by having the ratio of 0.65 or higher other than other ratios. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the prior art Komatsu does not teach the newly added limitation “one or more reflective segments disposed partially about the arcuate lamp, the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape” as recited in claim 11 – see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026, Examiner would like to note that the newly cited prior art Ranish et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0212037 A1, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the newly added limitation “one or more reflective segments disposed partially about the arcuate lamp, the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape” as recited in claim 11. See detailed rejection of claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11 are not persuasive.
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding dependent claim 8 – see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art Ranish does not teach a value for “an end of each reflective sleeve” as recited in claim 8 – see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 08/24/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu does not explicitly teach “an end of each reflective sleeve is disposed at a distance relative to one of the lower window or the upper window that is nearest to the reflective sleeve, and the distance is 10 mm or higher” as recited in claim 8. In the same field of processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, Ranish teaches a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing: wherein each heating source (each of lamps 142, Ranish Fig.1) is disposed at a distance relative to one of the lower window (lower dome 104, Ranish Fig.1) (it is noted that Ranish Fig.1 show all the lamps 142 are disposed at approximately same distance from the lower dome 104; thus, the distance between each of the lamps 142 and the lower dome 104 is interpreted to be the distance relative to the nearest of the lower dome 104) or the upper window (it is noted that the limitation “one of the lower window or the upper window” is in alterative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) that is nearest to the reflective sleeve (reflector 143, Ranish Fig.1), and the distance is 1 mm to about 40 mm instead of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim (Ranish Par.0043 teaches: “In one embodiment, the lamps 142 may be positioned approximately 1 mm to about 40 mm from the lower dome 104. The lamps include bulbs 141 surrounded by an optional reflector 143.”. Since the reference Ranish shows the overlap. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the distance between the heat source and the nearest of the lower window disclosed by the prior art is 1 mm to about 40 mm, which overlaps the distance of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.). It is noted that since the primary reference Qin discloses each of the lower surface of the reflective sleeve 2022 is located below the heating source 1022 (see Qin Fig.1), thus, the distance between the lower surface of the reflective sleeve 2022 and the lower window is larger than the distance between heating source 1022 and the lower window (see Qin annotated Fig.1 below). Therefore, in combination, by adding the teaching of the distance between the heat source and the nearest of the lower window is 1 mm to about 40 mm, as taught by Ranish; in combination, Qin in view of KR’864, Komatsu and Ranish teaches an end of each reflective sleeve is disposed at a distance relative to the nearest of the lower window, and the distance is more than 1 mm to more than about 40 mm. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the distance between the end of each reflective sleeve and the nearest of the lower window disclosed by the prior art is more than 1 mm to more than about 40 mm, which overlaps the distance of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding teaching of heat source is disposed at a distance relative to the lower window that is nearest to the reflective sleeve, and the distance is 1 mm to about 40 mm, as taught by Ranish, in order to facilitate heat transfer from the lamps to the substrate, and also facilitate uniform irradiation of the substrate. Thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Accordingly, for the listed above reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source” in lines 1-3. However, this limitation was not described in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed disclosure describes that each outer heat sources 171, 173 includes a lamp and that longitudinal axis LA1 extends through the coils of the lamp filament in Par.0042. The specification also describes reflective sleeve 181 disposed about each outer heat source 171, 173 and extending past an end of the respective outer heat source in Par.0043. However, the specification does not identify a longitudinal axis of reflective sleeve 181 or state that an axis of reflective sleeve 181 is coaxial with the longitudinal axis LA1 of the respective outer heat source. Although Fig.2 shows the reflective sleeve 181 surrounding outer heat source 173, the figure does not establish that the sleeve and the outer heat source share the same longitudinal axis. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)”, see MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale, and the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the outer heat source. Therefore, the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source” recited in claim 23 is not described in the original filed disclosure of the Instant Application. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source” in lines 19-20. However, this limitation was not described in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed disclosure describes that each outer heat sources 171, 173 includes a lamp and that longitudinal axis LA1 extends through the coils of the lamp filament in Par.0042. The specification also describes reflective sleeve 181 disposed about each outer heat source 171, 173 and extending past an end of the respective outer heat source in Par.0043. However, the specification does not identify a longitudinal axis of reflective sleeve 181 or state that an axis of reflective sleeve 181 is coaxial with the longitudinal axis LA1 of the respective outer heat source. Although Fig.2 shows the reflective sleeve 181 surrounding outer heat source 173, the figure does not establish that the sleeve and the outer heat source share the same longitudinal axis. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)”, see MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale, and the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the outer heat source. Therefore, the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source” recited in claim 24 is not described in the original filed disclosure of the Instant Application. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Examiner’s Note regarding the limitation “substantially parallel” as recited in claims 1, 13, and 24: It is noted that claim 1 recites the limitation “substantially parallel” in line 9, claim 13 recites the limitation “substantially parallel” in line 5, and claim 24 recites the limitation “substantially parallel” in line 6. However, “substantially parallel” is defined in the Specification Par.0037 of the Instant Application as oriented at a difference of 5 degrees or less relative to a plane of the surface 161; specifically, Par.0037 of the Instant Application describes: “The processing chamber 100 includes a plurality of inner heat sources 141, 143. Each inner heat source 141, 143 of the plurality of inner heat sources 141, 143 is oriented substantially parallel to the surface 161 of the support face 123 such that a longitudinal axis of each inner heat source 141, 143 is oriented at a difference of 5 degrees or less relative to a plane of the surface 161.”. Therefore, the limitation “substantially parallel” is defined and understandable. Accordingly, the limitation “substantially parallel” as recited in claims 1, 13 and 24 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 114420585 A, previously cited) in view of 정현묵 et al. (KR 102009864 B1, hereinafter KR’864, previously cited), and further in view of Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in Qin Fig.4) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Qin Translated Document - third paragraph from the bottom of page 1 discloses: “The invention relates to the technical field of semiconductor processing device”), comprising:
a lower window (lower window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below);
an upper window (upper window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below), the lower window (lower window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) and the upper window (upper window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) at least partially defining an internal volume (internal volume, Qin annotated Fig.4 below);
a substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4) (Qin Translated Document - second paragraph from the bottom of page 6 discloses: “the base 108 is used for bearing the substrate 107”) disposed in the internal volume (internal volume, Qin annotated Fig.4 below), the substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4) comprising a support face (support face, Qin annotated Fig.4 below);
one or more inner heat sources (inner heat sources includes upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4), each inner heat source of the one or more inner heat sources (each of inner heat sources including upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4) oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the support face (support face, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) (Qin Fig.4 shows that each of inner heat sources including upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021 oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the support face of the base 108); and
one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) disposed outwardly of the one or more inner heat sources (inner heat sources includes upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4);
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Qin does not disclose:
each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, and
a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof
KR’864 teaches a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in KR’864 Fig.2) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 1 teaches: “A thin film is deposited and etched using the substrate processing apparatus to produce a semiconductor device”), comprising:
the lower outer heat sources (lower outer heat sources are lamp heaters 330 of the second heating means 300b, KR’864 Fig.2) (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 3 teaches: “second heating means 300b for heating the edge region in the chamber 100.”) oriented nonparallel (as shown in KR’864 Fig.7b) to the surface of the support face (upper surface of the susceptor 210, KR’864 Fig.2) (KR’864 teaches the lamp heaters 330 of the second heating means 300b oriented nonparallel to the upper surface of the susceptor 210 because each heating mean has adjusting unit 340 provided below the support 310 to adjust the angle of the lamp heater 330 as shown in Figs.7(a) & 7(b); specifically, KR’864 Fig.2 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 3 teaches: “The plurality of lamp heaters 330 inserted into the hole 321 of the 320 and the control unit 340 is provided below the support 310 to adjust the angle of the lamp heater 330.”; and KR’864 Translated Document – first paragraph on page 5 further teaches: “when the film thickness at the edge of the substrate 10 is made thinner than the center portion, the irradiation angle of the lamp heater 340 is moved upward so that the second heating means 300b faces the edge of the substrate 10.”. Therefore, KR’864 teaches the lower outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face).
PNG
media_image4.png
651
787
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin, by adding adjusting unit to each of the lower outer heat sources in order to adjust the angle of each of the lower outer heat sources to make it oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as taught by KR’864, in order to provide uniform heating for the lower surface of the substrate in the case the substrate thickness at the edge of the substrate is made thinner than the center portion, and accordingly, the deposition thickness of the thin film can be increased by further increasing the temperature by radiating heat to a portion where the film thickness is thin, as recognized by KR’864 [KR’864, Translated Document – first paragraph on page 5]; therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Qin in view of KR’864 does not explicitly teach:
the upper outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, and
a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof
Komatsu teaches a processing chamber (100, Komatsu Fig.1) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Komatsu Abstract & Pars.0002, 0107), comprising:
the upper outer heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) oriented nonparallel (as shown in Komatsu Fig.1) to the surface of the support face (upper surface of the base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu Fig.1).
PNG
media_image5.png
753
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864, by making upper outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as taught by Komatsu, in order to increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps, as recognized by Komatsu [Komatsu, Par.0069]. Furthermore, in combination, the modification would also provide uniform heating for the upper surface of the substrate in the case the film thickness at the edge of the substrate is made thinner than the center portion, and accordingly, the deposition thickness of the thin film can be increased by further increasing the temperature by radiating heat to a portion where the film thickness is thin; thus, the entire substrate can be processed with uniformly distributed heat. Therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
It is noted that in combination, by making each of the outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited, explained and incorporated above; Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches:
a reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source (longitudinal axis of each of the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) of the one or more outer heat sources (the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) such that the reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) surrounds the respective outer heat source (the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) and the longitudinal axis thereof (longitudinal axis of each of the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) (It is noted that in combination, since each of the outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited, explained and incorporated above, therefore, in combination, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof)
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Qin also discloses wherein:
the one or more inner heat sources (inner heat sources includes upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4) comprise a first set of inner heat sources (lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4) below the lower window (lower window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) and a second set of inner heat sources (upper inner ring lamp group 1011, Qin Fig.4) above the upper window (upper window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below);
the one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) comprise a first set of outer heat sources (lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) below the lower window (lower window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) and a second set of outer heat sources (upper outer ring lamp group 1012, Qin Fig.4) above the upper window (upper window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below); and
each inner heat source (each of inner heat sources including upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4) and each outer heat source (each of outer heat sources including upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) includes a lamp (each of the inner heat sources and each of the outer heat sources includes a lamp because Qin Translated Document – third paragraph on page 7 teaches: “the first heating lamp group 101 comprises: an upper inner ring lamp group 1011 arranged on the inner ring and an upper outer ring lamp group 1012 arranged on the outer ring” and Qin Translated Document – last paragraph on page 7 teaches: “the second heating lamp group 102 comprises: a lower inner ring lamp set 1021 set in the inner ring and a lower outer ring lamp set 1022 set on the outer ring”) configured to emit infrared radiation (IR) light (Qin Translated Document – third paragraph on page 7 teaches: “the first heating lamp 101 on the inner ring lamp 1011 and the upper outer ring lamp 1012 emitting heat radiation; said lamp group mainly radiates infrared ray to generate heat radiation”, Qin Translated Document – second paragraph from the bottom of page 9 teaches: “the infrared ray emitted by the lower outer ring lamp group 1022”, and Qin Translated Document – last paragraph on page 9 teaches: “the infrared ray emitted by the lower inner ring lamp group 1021”).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources is oriented at an angle relative to the surface of the support face (It is noted that KR’864 teaches each of the lower outer heat sources oriented at an angle relative to the surface of the support face [see KR’864 Fig.7(b)], as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above; additionally, Komatsu teaches each of the upper outer heat sources oriented at an angle relative to the surface of the support face [see fourth lamp module 64 in Komatsu Fig.1], as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources is oriented at an angle relative to the surface of the support face, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of independent claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Komatsu teaches:
wherein the angle (angle β, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) is within a range of 43 degrees and 85 degrees instead of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim (Komatsu Claim 8 teaches: “wherein the inclination angles of the lamps range between about 5° and about 47°.”, it is noted that the inclination angle of the lamp mentioned in claim 8 of Komatsu is the inclination angle with respect to the vertical axis, see Komatsu Fig.1. In other words, the angle α shown in Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below is between about 5° and about 47° as indicated by Komatsu Claim 8. Therefore, the angle β (i.e., the inclination angle of the lamp relative to the surface of the support face) is between 43° and 85°, according to Triangle Sum Theorem. Since the reference Komatsu shows the overlap. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the inclination angle of the prior art is 43 degrees and 85 degrees which overlaps the inclination angle of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
PNG
media_image6.png
753
768
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the inclination angle of the prior art is within a range of 43 degrees and 85 degrees, which overlaps the inclination angle within a range of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by making the inclination angle of the outer heat sources relative to the surface of the support face to be within a range of 43 degrees and 85 degrees, as taught by Komatsu, in order for the light emitted from the lamps evenly distribute over the entire surface of the substrate, and thus, increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps. Therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Regarding claim 6, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Qin also discloses:
wherein each reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) comprises a base material (Qin Translated Document – paragraph 11 on page 4 teaches: “the reflecting plate group is made of stainless steel, aluminium and copper in the one kind of or the combination of several kinds”) and an inner coating (Qin Translated Document – paragraph 12 on page 4 teaches: “the surface of the reflecting plate comprises a gold plating layer”).
Regarding claim 7, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Qin also discloses:
wherein the base material includes stainless steel or aluminum (it is noted that the limitation “stainless steel or aluminum” is in alternative form, therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Qin discloses the base material can be stainless steel or aluminum because Qin Translated Document – paragraph 11 on page 4 teaches: “the reflecting plate group is made of stainless steel, aluminium and copper in the one kind of or the combination of several kinds”), and the inner coating includes one or more of: gold (Au), silver (Ag), and/or one or more ceramics (it is noted that the limitation “one or more of: gold (Au), silver (Ag), and/or one or more ceramics” is in alternative form, therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Qin discloses the inner coating includes gold because Qin Translated Document – paragraph 12 on page 4 teaches: “the surface of the reflecting plate comprises a gold plating layer”).
Regarding claim 9, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Qin does not disclose:
wherein each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources is linearly movable using a base motor.
KR’864 teaches a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in KR’864 Fig.2) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 1 teaches: “A thin film is deposited and etched using the substrate processing apparatus to produce a semiconductor device”),
wherein each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources (each of lamp heaters 330 of the second heating means 300b, KR’864 Fig.2) is linearly movable using a base motor (“motor using a DC motor or the like”, KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 4) (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 4 teaches: “a driving unit (not shown) and a controller (not shown) for driving the adjusting unit 340 may be further provided to adjust the radiant heat irradiation angle of the lamp heater 330. The driving unit may rotate the bolt 342 by the rotation of the motor using a DC motor or the like. In addition, the control unit may control the driving unit to control the irradiation angle of the lamp heater 330 by controlling the rotation of the bolt 342.”, and KR’864 Figs.6(a)-(c) shows that 342a and 342b can be controlled independently in order to move the lamp heater 330, thus, the lamp heater 330 is linearly movable using motor when both 342a and 342b are controlled to move up and down at the same time)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding a base motor coupled to adjusting unit of each of outer heat sources, as taught by KR’864, in order to provide automated, precise, and powerful adjustments for moving the lamp heater in order to provide uniform heating for the substrate in the case the substrate thickness is not uniform across the entire surface of the substrate; thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Regarding claim 10, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) comprise:
a first set (upper outer ring lamp group 1012, Qin Fig.4) of one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) above the upper window (upper window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below), wherein:
each heat source of the first (each of upper outer ring lamp group 1012, Qin Fig.4) set includes a laser, a light emitted diode (LED) or a resistive heater (it is noted that the limitation “a laser, a light emitted diode (LED) or a resistive heater” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required. In this case, Qin discloses each of upper outer ring lamp group 1012 is infrared lamp because Qin Translated Document – third paragraph on page 7 teaches: “the first heating lamp 101 on the inner ring lamp 1011 and the upper outer ring lamp 1012 emitting heat radiation; said lamp group mainly radiates infrared ray to generate heat radiation”, it is noted that infrared lamp is known as resistive heater), and
each heat source of the first set (each of upper outer ring lamp group 1012, Qin Fig.4) is directed toward the substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4) (it is noted that Komatsu teaches upper outer heat sources are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face of the substrate support [see fourth lamp module 64 in Komatsu Fig.1], Komatsu Fig.1 shows each of upper outer heat sources is directed toward the substrate support, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above; thus, in combination, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches each heat source of the first set is directed toward the substrate support); and
a second set (lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) of one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) below the lower window (lower window, Qin annotated Fig.4 below), wherein:
each heat source of the second set (each of the lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) includes a lamp (Qin Translated Document – second paragraph from the bottom of page 9 teaches: “the infrared ray emitted by the lower outer ring lamp group 1022”), and
each heat source of the second set (each of the lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) is directed toward one or more of a pre-heat ring disposed outwardly of the substrate support, one or more liners (liners, Qin annotated Fig.4 below because Qin Translated Document – second paragraph from the bottom of page 6 discloses 104 is lining and discloses: “the upper quartz cover 103 is buckled on the top surface of the quartz lining 104, the lower quartz cover 105 is buckled on the bottom surface of the quartz lining 104 so as to form the reaction, cavity”) disposed outwardly of the substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4), or one or more sidewalls of the processing chamber (it is noted that the limitation “one or more of a pre-heat ring disposed outwardly of the substrate support, one or more liners disposed outwardly of the substrate support, or one or more sidewalls of the processing chamber” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required. In this case, in combination, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches each of the lower outer heat sources is directed toward one or more liners disposed outwardly of the substrate support because KR’864 already teaches the lower outer heat sources are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above, and also see KR’864 Fig.3(a) for the path of the ray emitted from the lower outer heat sources when the lower outer heat sources are tilted to be nonparallel to the surface of the support face. Therefore, in combination, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches each of the lower outer heat sources is directed toward one or more liners disposed outwardly of the substrate support).
PNG
media_image7.png
753
855
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Qin also discloses:
wherein each reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) further comprises an outer coating (Qin Translated Document – paragraph 12 on page 4 teaches: “the surface of the reflecting plate comprises a gold plating layer”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 114420585 A, previously cited) in view of 정현묵 et al. (KR 102009864 B1, hereinafter KR’864, previously cited), Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Ranish et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0147053 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu does not explicitly teach:
wherein an end of each reflective sleeve is disposed at a distance relative to one of the lower window or the upper window that is nearest to the reflective sleeve, and the distance is 10 mm or higher
Ranish teaches a processing chamber (100, Ranish Fig.1) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Ranish Par.0008 teaches: “Embodiments described herein generally relate to an improved power distribution assembly for a lamphead assembly for use in a thermal processing chamber. In one embodiment, a lamphead assembly is provided. The lamphead assembly includes a plurality of lamps for thermal processing of semiconductor substrates”):
wherein each heating source (each of lamps 142, Ranish Fig.1) is disposed at a distance relative to one of the lower window (lower dome 104, Ranish Fig.1) (it is noted that Ranish Fig.1 show all the lamps 142 are disposed at approximately same distance from the lower dome 104; thus, the distance between each of the lamps 142 and the lower dome 104 is interpreted to be the distance relative to the nearest of the lower dome 104) or the upper window (it is noted that the limitation “one of the lower window or the upper window” is in alterative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) that is nearest to the reflective sleeve (reflector 143, Ranish Fig.1), and the distance is 1 mm to about 40 mm instead of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim (Ranish Par.0043 teaches: “In one embodiment, the lamps 142 may be positioned approximately 1 mm to about 40 mm from the lower dome 104. The lamps include bulbs 141 surrounded by an optional reflector 143.”. Since the reference Ranish shows the overlap. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the distance between the heat source and the nearest of the lower window disclosed by the prior art is 1 mm to about 40 mm, which overlaps the distance of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
Since the primary reference Qin discloses each of the lower surface of the reflective sleeve 2022 is located below the heating source 1022 (see Qin Fig.1), thus, the distance between the lower surface of the reflective sleeve 2022 and the lower window is larger than the distance between heating source 1022 and the lower window (see Qin annotated Fig.1 below). Therefore, in combination, by adding the teaching of the distance between the heat source and the nearest of the lower window is 1 mm to about 40 mm, as taught by Ranish; in combination, Qin in view of KR’864, Komatsu and Ranish teaches an end of each reflective sleeve is disposed at a distance relative to the nearest of the lower window, and the distance is more than 1 mm to more than about 40 mm.
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the distance between the end of each reflective sleeve and the nearest of the lower window disclosed by the prior art is more than 1 mm to more than about 40 mm, which overlaps the distance of 10 mm or higher as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding teaching of heat source is disposed at a distance relative to the lower window that is nearest to the reflective sleeve, and the distance is 1 mm to about 40 mm, as taught by Ranish, in order to facilitate heat transfer from the lamps to the substrate, and also facilitate uniform irradiation of the substrate. Thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Claims 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,081,072 A, previously cited), and further in view of Ranish et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0212037 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 11, Komatsu discloses a processing chamber (processing chamber 1, Komatsu Fig.1) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Komatsu Abstract & Pars.0002, 0107), comprising:
a lower window (lower window, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below);
an upper window (upper window includes the lid 2 and the base member 40, Komatsu Fig.1), the lower window (lower window, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) and the upper window (upper window includes the lid 2 and the base member 40, Komatsu Fig.1) at least partially defining an internal volume (internal volume, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below);
a substrate support (base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu Fig.1) disposed in the internal volume (internal volume, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below), the substrate support (base plate 17, Komatsu Fig.1) comprising an outer radius (outer radius, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) and a support face (upper face of the base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu Fig.1); and
one or more heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below), each heat source of the one or more heat sources (each of the fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) aligned at an offset (offset, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) relative to a center of the substrate support (center of the base plate 17, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below), the offset (offset, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) is a ratio of the outer radius (outer radius, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) (It is noted that there must be an offset because the outermost halogen lamps 45 are located in the outer peripheral region while the center of the substrate support is at the center. Thus, there must be an offset; however, Komatsu does not teach that the ratio is 0.65 or higher as required by claim 11.), and
at least one heat source of the one or more heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) comprising:
an arcuate lamp (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) having a cylindrical bulb tube (tube 55, Komatsu Fig.6) and a filament (filament 56, Komatsu Fig.6) having a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of filament 56, Komatsu Fig.6) aligned at the offset (offset, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below), the filament (filament 56, Komatsu Fig.6) extending along an arc (Komatsu Fig.6 shows the filament 56 extending along an arc), and
one or more reflective segments (reflector 43, Komatsu Figs.1-2) disposed partially about the arcuate lamp (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
753
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose:
the ratio is 0.65 or higher,
the cylindrical bulb tube extending along an arc; and
the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape
Suzuki teaches a lamp (lamp 4, Suzuki Fig.3) for wafer heating and heating light source (Suzuki Abstract) comprising:
the cylindrical bulb tube (lamp arc tube 10, Suzuki Fig.3) and the filament (filament 12, Suzuki Fig.3) extending along an arc (as shown in Suzuki Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komatsu, by adding teachings of the cylindrical bulb tube and the filament extending along an arc, as taught by Suzuki, in order to increase the effective filament length within a limited installation space, thereby increasing radiant output and heating efficiency while providing a more uniform distribution of thermal radiation along the circumferential outer heating zone of the substrate.
Komatsu in view of Suzuki does not explicitly teach:
the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape
Ranish teaches a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Ranish Abstract), comprising:
one or more reflective segments (reflector 202, Ranish Fig.3) disposed partially about the lamp (lamp 212, Ranish Fig.3), the one or more reflective segments (reflector 202, Ranish Fig.3) having across-section that is parabolic in shape (Ranish Fig.3 shows that the reflector 202 having across-section that is parabolic in shape)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komatsu in view of Suzuki, by making the one or more reflective segments having across-section that is parabolic in shape, as taught by Ranish, in order to collect a greater portion of the radiation emitted by the outermost lamp and redirect that radiation toward the wafer, particularly toward the peripheral region of the wafer, thereby improving irradiation efficiency and reducing radiant energy that would otherwise be lost away from the wafer. Therefore, improve the overall wafer heating treatment process.
Komatsu in view of Suzuki and Ranish does not explicitly teach:
the ratio is 0.65 or higher
Regarding the limitation that the ratio is 0.65 or higher, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above where the reference Komatsu teaches certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.).
In this case, Komatsu discloses certain ratio because Komatsu discloses certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17 (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above), and having a specific ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio would impact the alignment of the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the locations/portions of the substrate to be heated by the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the emission efficiency of the light from the heat sources and the temperature uniformity of the substrate. A processing chamber with an optimized alignment of lamps would facilitate heat transfer from the lamps to the substrate, increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps, and also facilitate uniform irradiation of the substrate, ensuring the substrate can be processed with uniformly distributed heat; thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved. Therefore, the ratio is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Komatsu ratio by making the ratio to be 0.65 or higher as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 16, Komatsu in view of Suzuki and Ranish teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 11, Komatsu also teaches:
wherein at least one heat source of the one or more heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) is oriented at an angle (as shown in Komatsu Fig.1) relative to a surface of the support face (surface of the upper face of the base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Komatsu in view of Suzuki and Ranish teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 16, Komatsu also teaches:
wherein the angle (angle β, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below) is within a range of 43 degrees and 85 degrees instead of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim (Komatsu Claim 8 teaches: “wherein the inclination angles of the lamps range between about 5° and about 47°.”, it is noted that the inclination angle of the lamp mentioned in claim 8 of Komatsu is the inclination angle with respect to the vertical axis, see Komatsu Fig.1. In other words, the angle α shown in Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below is between about 5° and about 47° as indicated by Komatsu Claim 8. Therefore, the angle β (i.e., the inclination angle of the lamp relative to the surface of the support face) is between 43° and 85°, according to Triangle Sum Theorem. Since the reference Komatsu shows the overlap. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the inclination angle of the prior art is 43 degrees and 85 degrees which overlaps the inclination angle of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
PNG
media_image6.png
753
768
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the inclination angle of the prior art is within a range of 43 degrees and 85 degrees, which overlaps the inclination angle within a range of 65 degrees to 90 degrees as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,101,138 A, previously cited), Ranish et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0212037 A1, newly cited) and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 114420585 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Komatsu in view of Suzuki and Ranish teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 11, Komatsu also teaches:
wherein each heat source of the one or more heat sources (each of fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) is oriented nonparallel (as shown in Komatsu Fig.1) to a surface of the support face (surface of the upper face of the base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu annotated Fig.1 below), and
the processing chamber (processing chamber 1, Komatsu Fig.1) further comprises a plurality of inner heat sources (first, second, and third lamp modules 61, 62, 63, Komatsu Fig.1) disposed inwardly of the one or more heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
753
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Komatsu in view of Suzuki and Ranish does not teach:
each inner heat source of the plurality of inner heat sources oriented substantially parallel to the surface of the support face.
Qin teaches a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in Qin Fig.4) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Qin Translated Document - third paragraph from the bottom of page 1 discloses: “The invention relates to the technical field of semiconductor processing device”):
each inner heat source of the plurality of inner heat sources (each of upper inner ring lamp group 1011, Qin Fig.4) oriented substantially parallel to the surface of the support face (surface of the upper face of the base 108, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) (Qin Fig.4 shows that each of upper inner ring lamp group 1011 oriented substantially parallel to surface of the upper face of the base 108).
PNG
media_image8.png
735
844
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute the Komatsu inner heat sources (see the Komatsu first, second, and third lamp modules 61, 62, 63 with reflectors 41, 42 in Komatsu Fig.1) with the Qin inner heat sources (see the Qin upper inner ring lamp group 1011 in Qin Fig.4), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing heat to the inner (or near center) portion of the substrate in order to process the substrate. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 14, Komatsu in view of Suzuki, Ranish and Qin teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 13, Komatsu in view of Suzuki, Ranish and Qin does not explicitly teaches:
wherein the ratio is 0.7 or higher.
Regarding the limitation that the ratio is 0.7 or higher, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above where the reference Komatsu teaches certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.).
In this case, Komatsu discloses certain ratio because Komatsu discloses certain dimensions of the offset relative to the center of the base plate 17 and the outer diameter of the base plate 17 (see Komatsu annotated Fig.1 above), and having a specific ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio would impact the alignment of the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the locations/portions of the substrate to be heated by the outer heat sources, thus, affecting the emission efficiency of the light from the heat sources and the temperature uniformity of the substrate. A processing chamber with an optimized alignment of lamps would facilitate heat transfer from the lamps to the substrate, increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps, and also facilitate uniform irradiation of the substrate, ensuring the substrate can be processed with uniformly distributed heat; thus, quality of the processed substrate can be improved. Therefore, the ratio is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Komatsu ratio by making the ratio to be 0.7 or higher as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 15, Komatsu in view of Suzuki, Ranish and Qin teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 13, Komatsu does not disclose:
wherein each heat source and each inner heat source includes a lamp configured to emit infrared radiation (IR) light.
Qin teaches a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in Qin Fig.4) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Qin Translated Document - third paragraph from the bottom of page 1 discloses: “The invention relates to the technical field of semiconductor processing device”):
wherein each heat source (each of upper outer ring lamp group 1012, Qin Fig.4) and each inner heat source (each of upper inner ring lamp group 1011, Qin Fig.4) includes a lamp configured to emit infrared radiation (IR) light (Qin Translated Document – third paragraph on page 7 teaches: “the first heating lamp 101 on the inner ring lamp 1011 and the upper outer ring lamp 1012 emitting heat radiation; said lamp group mainly radiates infrared ray to generate heat radiation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komatsu in view of Suzuki, Ranish and Qin, by making each heat source and each inner heat source includes a lamp configured to emit infrared radiation (IR) light, as taught by Qin, in order to offer faster, more uniform, and precisely controllable heating via radiation, which is critical for rapid thermal processing and epitaxy, minimizing thermal stress, improving efficiency, and allowing for specific wavelength tuning for better material interaction; additionally, IR lamps also help to prevent hot spots and reduce wafer damage. Therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 114420585 A, previously cited) in view of 정현묵 et al. (KR 102009864 B1, hereinafter KR’864, previously cited), Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Ranish et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0066193 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches the apparatus set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein a longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source.
Ranish teaches a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Ranish Abstract & Par.0003), comprising:
wherein a longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve (tubular stainless steel sleeves 96, Ranish Fig.3D) is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source (lamp 36, Ranish Fig.3D) (Ranish Fig.3D shows that the longitudinal axis of the tubular stainless steel sleeves 96 is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the lamp 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding the teaching of longitudinal axis of the reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, as taught by Ranish, in order to collimate and direct the thermal radiation emitted by the outer lamp(s) toward the intended outer heating region of the substrate, thereby reducing radiation spillover into the inner heating zone, reducing thermal interference between the inner and outer heating zones, and improving the independence of inner-zone and outer-zone temperature control; therefore, resulting in improved substrate temperature uniformity.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 114420585 A, previously cited) in view of 정현묵 et al. (KR 102009864 B1, hereinafter KR’864, previously cited), Komatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145697 A1, previously cited), Cai et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0279174 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Bahl (U.S. Patent No. 6,072,160 A, newly cited).
Regarding claim 24, Qin discloses a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in Qin Fig.4) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Qin Translated Document - third paragraph from the bottom of page 1 discloses: “The invention relates to the technical field of semiconductor processing device”), comprising:
a substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4) (Qin Translated Document - second paragraph from the bottom of page 6 discloses: “the base 108 is used for bearing the substrate 107”) disposed in an internal volume (internal volume, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) of the processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in Qin Fig.4), the substrate support (base 108, Qin Fig.4) comprising a support face (support face, Qin annotated Fig.4 below);
one or more inner heat sources (inner heat sources includes upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4), each inner heat source of the one or more inner heat sources (each of inner heat sources including upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4) oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the support face (support face, Qin annotated Fig.4 below) (Qin Fig.4 shows that each of inner heat sources including upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021 oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the support face of the base 108); and
one or more outer heat sources (outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022, Qin Fig.4) disposed outwardly of the one or more inner heat sources (inner heat sources includes upper inner ring lamp group 1011 and lower inner ring lamp group 1021, Qin Fig.4); and
each reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) comprising:
a base material (Qin Translated Document – paragraph 11 on page 4 teaches: “the reflecting plate group is made of stainless steel, aluminium and copper in the one kind of or the combination of several kinds”),
a coating (Qin Translated Document – paragraph 12 on page 4 teaches: “the surface of the reflecting plate comprises a gold plating layer”)
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Qin does not disclose:
each outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face,
a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof,
the base material of the reflective sleeve having a thickness within a range of 1.00 mm to 5.00 mm,
the reflective sleeve comprising an inner coating, and an outer coating, the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having a second thickness within range of 80 microns to 150 microns,
wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source
KR’864 teaches a processing chamber (processing chamber as shown in KR’864 Fig.2) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 1 teaches: “A thin film is deposited and etched using the substrate processing apparatus to produce a semiconductor device”), comprising:
the lower outer heat sources (lower outer heat sources are lamp heaters 330 of the second heating means 300b, KR’864 Fig.2) (KR’864 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 3 teaches: “second heating means 300b for heating the edge region in the chamber 100.”) oriented nonparallel (as shown in KR’864 Fig.7b) to the surface of the support face (upper surface of the susceptor 210, KR’864 Fig.2) (KR’864 teaches the lamp heaters 330 of the second heating means 300b oriented nonparallel to the upper surface of the susceptor 210 because each heating mean has adjusting unit 340 provided below the support 310 to adjust the angle of the lamp heater 330 as shown in Figs.7(a) & 7(b); specifically, KR’864 Fig.2 Translated Document – last paragraph on page 3 teaches: “The plurality of lamp heaters 330 inserted into the hole 321 of the 320 and the control unit 340 is provided below the support 310 to adjust the angle of the lamp heater 330.”; and KR’864 Translated Document – first paragraph on page 5 further teaches: “when the film thickness at the edge of the substrate 10 is made thinner than the center portion, the irradiation angle of the lamp heater 340 is moved upward so that the second heating means 300b faces the edge of the substrate 10.”. Therefore, KR’864 teaches the lower outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face).
PNG
media_image4.png
651
787
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin, by adding adjusting unit to each of the lower outer heat sources in order to adjust the angle of each of the lower outer heat sources to make it oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as taught by KR’864, in order to provide uniform heating for the lower surface of the substrate in the case the substrate thickness at the edge of the substrate is made thinner than the center portion, and accordingly, the deposition thickness of the thin film can be increased by further increasing the temperature by radiating heat to a portion where the film thickness is thin, as recognized by KR’864 [KR’864, Translated Document – first paragraph on page 5]; therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
Qin in view of KR’864 does not explicitly teach:
the upper outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face;
a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof,
the base material of the reflective sleeve having a thickness within a range of 1.00 mm to 5.00 mm,
the reflective sleeve comprising an inner coating, and an outer coating, the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having a second thickness within range of 80 microns to 150 microns,
wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source
Komatsu teaches a processing chamber (100, Komatsu Fig.1) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Komatsu Abstract & Pars.0002, 0107), comprising:
the upper outer heat sources (fourth lamp module 64 including outermost halogen lamps 45, Komatsu annotated Figs.1 & 2 below) oriented nonparallel (as shown in Komatsu Fig.1) to the surface of the support face (upper surface of the base plate 17 of the wafer support 4, Komatsu Fig.1);
the base material (base material of sidewalls 66a and 66b, Komatsu Fig. 8 and Par.0052) of the reflective sleeve (the reflectors 41 to 43 has a structure in which the sidewalls 66a and 66b of the main body 66, Komatsu Figs.1 & 8 and Par.0052) having a thickness within a range of 1.00 mm to 5.00 mm (Komatsu Par.0052 teaches: “In order to increase the cooling efficiency, each of the reflectors 41 to 43 has a structure in which the sidewalls 66 a and 66 b of the main body 66 are made extremely thin so that most of the inner space thereof can be used as the cooling medium channel 68. However, if the sidewalls 66 a and 66 b are too thin, the strengths of the reflectors 41 to 43 are decreased. In order to obtain sufficient cooling efficiency, the thickness of the sidewalls 66 a and 66 b is preferably set to be less than or equal to about 5 mm. In order to obtain sufficient strength, it is preferably set to be greater than or equal to about 1.2 mm.”; it is noted that 1.2 mm is within the claimed range.),
the reflective sleeve (the reflectors 41 to 43 has a structure in which the sidewalls 66a and 66b of the main body 66, Komatsu Figs.1 & 8 and Par.0052) comprising an inner coating (coating on one sidewall of the main body 66, wherein the one sidewall faces the inner heating region of the processing chamber 100; Komatsu Figs.1-2 & 8 and Par.0055 teaches: “The main body 66 may be made of, e.g., stainless steel (SUS), and the reflective surface thereof is coated, e.g., gold-plated, with a material having high reflectivity.”), and an outer coating (coating on the other sidewall of the main body 66, wherein the other sidewall faces the outer heating region of the processing chamber 100; Komatsu Figs.1-2 & 8, and Par.0055 teaches: “The main body 66 may be made of, e.g., stainless steel (SUS), and the reflective surface thereof is coated, e.g., gold-plated, with a material having high reflectivity.”), the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having a second thickness (since the coating is the same on sidewalls 66a and 66b, thus, the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having a second thickness)
PNG
media_image5.png
753
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864, by making upper outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as taught by Komatsu, in order to increase the emission efficiency of the light from the lamps, as recognized by Komatsu [Komatsu, Par.0069]. Furthermore, in combination, the modification would also provide uniform heating for the upper surface of the substrate in the case the film thickness at the edge of the substrate is made thinner than the center portion, and accordingly, the deposition thickness of the thin film can be increased by further increasing the temperature by radiating heat to a portion where the film thickness is thin; thus, the entire substrate can be processed with uniformly distributed heat. Therefore, quality of the processed substrate can be improved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding the teachings of the base material of the reflective sleeve having a thickness within a range of 1.00 mm to 5.00 mm, the reflective sleeve comprising an inner coating, and an outer coating, the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having a second thickness, as taught by Komatsu, in order to increase the cooling efficiency, as recognized by Komatsu [Komatsu, Par.0052]; therefore, improve reflector cooling performance while maintaining sufficient structural strength, and further increase reflection of radiant energy toward the substrate and reduce energy losses due to absorption by the reflector.
It is noted that in combination, by making the outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited, explained and incorporated above; Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches:
a reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source (longitudinal axis of each of the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) of the one or more outer heat sources (the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) such that the reflective sleeve (upper outer ring reflecting plate group 2012 with the first separating plate 1061, and lower outer ring reflecting plate group 2022 with the second separating plate 1062, Qin Fig.4) surrounds the respective outer heat source (the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) and the longitudinal axis thereof (longitudinal axis of each of the modified outer heat sources includes upper outer ring lamp group 1012 and lower outer ring lamp group 1022 that are oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, as cited, explained and incorporated above) (It is noted that in combination, since each of the outer heat sources oriented nonparallel to the surface of the support face, as cited, explained and incorporated above, therefore, in combination, Qin Fig.4 in view of KR’864 and Komatsu teaches a respective reflective sleeve disposed about a longitudinal axis of each respective outer heat source of the one or more outer heat sources such that the reflective sleeve surrounds the respective outer heat source and the longitudinal axis thereof)
PNG
media_image3.png
753
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu does not explicitly teach:
the second thickness within range of 80 microns to 150 microns,
wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source
Cai teaches a lamp (Cai Fig.2):
the second thickness within range of 80 microns to 150 microns (Cai teaches the thickness within range of about 100 μm to about 250 μm because Cai Par.0047 teaches: “the reflective coating 26 can be formed to any desired thickness, but are particularly suitable for films formed on the micrometer (μm) scale. For example, the reflective coating 26 can have a thickness that is about 50 μm to about 500 μm, such as about 100 μm to about 250 μm.”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the second thickness of the prior art is within a range of 100 microns to 250 microns, which overlaps the second thickness within range of 80 microns to 150 microns as required by the claim, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness. It is noted that the reference Komatsu already teaches the inner and outer coatings having the same thickness, as cited and incorporated above; therefore, in combination, Qin in view of KR’864, Komatsu and Cai teaches the inner coating and the outer coating respectively having the second thickness within the claimed range.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864 and Komatsu, by adding the teachings of the second thickness within range of about 100 μm to about 250 μm, as taught by Cai, in order to improve durability, oxidation resistance, and long-term reflectivity of the reflector under repeated high-temperature lamp heating conditions, thereby improving heating efficiency and extending reflector service life.
Qin in view of KR’864, Komatsu and Cai does not explicitly teach:
wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source.
Bahl teaches a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Bahl Abstract):
wherein: a longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve (reflector sleeve 300, Bahl Fig.6B) is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source (lamp 301, Bahl Fig.6B) (Bahl Fig.6B shows that the longitudinal axis of the reflector sleeve 300 is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the lamp 301), and an end of the respective reflective sleeve (bottom end of the reflector sleeve 300, Bahl Fig.6B) extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source (bulb of lamp 301, Bahl Fig.6B) (Bahl Fig.6B shows that the bottom end of the reflector sleeve 300 extends past an end of a bulb of the lamp 301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qin in view of KR’864, Komatsu and Cai, by making longitudinal axis of the respective reflective sleeve is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the respective outer heat source, and an end of the respective reflective sleeve extends past an end of a bulb of the respective outer heat source, as taught by Bahl, in order to improve optical alignment between the lamp and the reflective sleeve so that radiation emitted laterally from the lamp is intercepted more symmetrically and redirected toward the wafer, while extending the reflective sleeve beyond the lamp end would help capture and redirect radiation that would otherwise escape past the lamp, thereby increasing radiant energy delivery efficiency and improving control of the irradiated region.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Chang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,768,043 B2) discloses a thermal processing chamber having an array of radiant heating lamps for heating, among other components, a back side of a substrate support disposed within the process chamber.
Kawarazaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0157168 A1) discloses a heat treatment apparatus for heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with a flash of light, comprising a chamber for receiving a substrate, a flash lamp for irradiating said substrate supported by said susceptor with a flash of light, an analyzer for analyzing a behavior of said substrate, based on a temperature profile acquired from the temperature of the front surface of said substrate measured by said temperature measuring part at least after the irradiation with said flash of light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights