DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-7 under United States Patent Application No. 2016/0027671 to Ranish et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al and alternatively United States Patent Application No. 2018/0261479 to Ito et al.
The Examiner notes that Collins teaches the susceptor, disk, and ring and is relied upon for the rejection of the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “form” should be corrected as “from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether it be alone or in combination, does not expressly teach the ring that is mounted on the liner is disposed at an elevation between an elevation of the susceptor and the elevation of the disc or that the gap is less than 1 mm. Specifically, though there is a quartz ring in Collins, this ring is not separated by a gap even though it is between the susceptor and the disk. Moreover, this ring would not be mounted on the liner as it fixed to the disk. Even when we look at Ito, the ring is not between the susceptor and the disc, but surrounds the disc/susceptor as broadly recited in Claim 1.
It is noted that independent Claim 1 is extremely broad and reads upon many different variations of a quartz ring and quartz disc and is also not limited to apparatuses used for semiconductor processing, even though the disclosure of the instant application is clearly drawn to this art. As such, the Examiner advises that amendments to Claim 1, to place it in condition for allowance, include limitations to narrow the claims within the semiconductor processing art and the liner connection to the ring. The Examiner further advises an interview if there are any questions about amendments to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Collins teaches a disk and ring assembly Fig. 1, 3A, comprising: a quartz disk 172 having an outer diameter; a plurality of holes or slots 201 formed in the quartz disk; and a quartz ring 302 having an inner diameter 304 less than the outer diameter 306 of the quartz disk (quartz material disclosed in [0024; 0039]) [0023-0045].
In regards to Claim 4, Collins teaches the quartz disk is fabricated from a quartz material transmissive to light [0024] and the quartz ring is fabricated from an opaque quartz material (as it is formed out of quartz with a glassy carbon coating which is inherently not transparent [0039])
In regards to Claim 7, Collins teaches the quartz disk and the quartz ring each comprise a plurality of pieces.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2018/0261479 to Ito et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Ito teaches a disk and ring assembly Fig. 2, 3 comprising: a quartz disk 74 [0039] having an outer diameter; a plurality of holes or slots 77, 79 formed in the quartz disk; and a quartz ring 20, 29 [0083 quartz covering on 20] having an inner diameter less than the outer diameter of the quartz disk (as shown in Fig. 3) [0030-0088].
In regards to Claim 7, Ito teaches the quartz disk and the quartz ring each comprise a plurality of pieces, as shown in Fig. 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al in view of United States Patent No. 6666924 to van Bilsen.
The teachings of Collins are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 2, Collins does not expressly teach the quartz disk and the quartz ring are fabricated from a quartz material having an OH content of less than about 30 ppm.
Van Bilsen teaches a quartz material for a reaction chamber, wherein the quartz material has an OH content of 10 ppm (as shown in Fig. 2, and Fig. 3; Col. 4 line 19-Col. 6 line 54).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the quartz material analogous to that of Collins out of quartz that has an OH content of 10 ppm, as taught by van Bilsen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 2.
In regards to Claim 3, Collins does not expressly teach the quartz material has a transmission rate greater than about 90%.
Van Bilsen teaches a quartz material for a reaction chamber, wherein the quartz material has an OH content of 10 ppm (as shown in Fig. 2, and Fig. 3; Col. 4 line 19-Col. 6 line 54). Van Bilsen further teaches that the OH content is directly related to the absorption of the energy, such that the transmission of energy increases as the OH concentration decreases, as shown in Fig. 3, where the energy absorbed is less than 10% (or transmission is greater than about 90%, as shown in Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 30-Col. 6 line 33).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the quartz material analogous to that of Collins out of quartz that has an OH content of 10 ppm, as taught by van Bilsen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Furthermore, as van Bilsen teaches the OH ppm levels is directed related to the transmission of light (the opposite of the energy absorbed), it is considered that the transmission rate is a result effective variable dependent on the OH concentration at the ppm level and both the ppm and transmission rate can be modified to tailor the quartz to absorb or transmit certain wavelengths or energies (Col. 6 lines 27-33).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of van Bilsen expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for controlling the amount of energy/wavelengths absorbed or transmitted, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0037537 to Ryu et al.
In regards to Claim 8, Collins teaches an assembly for a process chamber 100 Fig. 1, 2A, comprising: a susceptor 105 having a substrate-receiving surface 104; a plurality of arms 203 coupled to and extending from the susceptor; a liner (inner wall of 103) disposed radially outward of and surrounding the susceptor and arms (as shown in Fig. 1); a disk 172 coupled to the arms and disposed opposite the susceptor, the disk having a diameter 306 [0023-0045].
Collins does not expressly teach a ring coupled to the liner, the ring having an inner diameter, wherein the inner diameter of the ring is less than the diameter of the disk.
Ryo teaches an assembly for a process chamber 10 Fig. 1 comprising a susceptor (top half of 20) with a disk (bottom half of 20) and a liner (in the form of chamber wall edge ring 16 Fig. 14), that mounts a ring 60E (which is the same as the ring in Fig. 1 [0055-0056], and is such analogous to 62 in Fig. 2) that blocks light and has an inner diameter that is smaller than the inner diameter of the substrate/wafer W and the overall susceptor 20 and is mounted to the liner through 64, the inner diameter being smaller than the diameter of the disk [0033-0067].
Ryo teaches blocking light from above the susceptor allows for controlling the light irradiation area of the substrate on a control region of the substrate and thus adjusts a growth rate of silicon on that region [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Collins by adding the ring of Ryo to the liner of Collins. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of controlling the light irradiation area of the substrate on a control region of the substrate and thus adjusts a growth rate of silicon on that region. Because the substrate of Collins is inherently a smaller diameter than the susceptor and the disk of Collins, adding the ring of Ryo would implicitly create a ring that has an inner diameter that is less than the diameter of the disk.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 9, Collins in view of Ryo teach the disk and the ring are arranged in an overlapping orientation, as they would be concentrically aligned or planar over the substrate.
In regards to Claim 13, Collins teaches the liner comprises a recess (central opening of liner) and the ring is coupled to the liner within the recess (as it is mounted in the interior opening of the liner in Ryo, and thus also in Collins, as per the rejection of Claim 8 above).
In regards to Claim 14, Collins teaches that the liner comprises a rim (outer edge inside that forms the margin of the opening) and the ring is coupled to the liner on the rim, as generally shown through the teachings of Ryo in Fig. 14, and is inherent from the rejection of Claim 8 above).
In regards to Claim 15, Collins teaches a process chamber 100 Fig. 1, comprising: a chamber body (body of 100) having a susceptor 105 disposed therein, the chamber body comprising: an upper chamber volume 156 defined by an upper window 128 above a plane of the susceptor; and a lower chamber volume 158 defined by a lower window 114 and below the plane of the susceptor 105; a plurality of arms 203 coupled to and extending from the susceptor; a liner (interior wall of 103. 100) disposed radially outward of and surrounding the susceptor and arms (as shown in Fig. 1); a disk 172 coupled to the arms and disposed opposite the susceptor, the disk having a diameter (306 Fig. 3A) [0023-0045].
Collins does not expressly teach a ring coupled to the liner, the ring having an inner diameter, wherein the inner diameter of the ring is less than the diameter of the disk.
Ryo teaches an assembly for a process chamber 10 Fig. 1 comprising a susceptor (top half of 20) with a disk (bottom half of 20) and a liner (in the form of chamber wall edge ring 16 Fig. 14), that mounts a ring 60E (which is the same as the ring in Fig. 1 [0055-0056], and is such analogous to 62 in Fig. 2) that blocks light and has an inner diameter that is smaller than the inner diameter of the substrate/wafer W and the overall susceptor 20 and is mounted to the liner through 64, the inner diameter being smaller than the diameter of the disk [0033-0067].
Ryo teaches blocking light from above the susceptor allows for controlling the light irradiation area of the substrate on a control region of the substrate and thus adjusts a growth rate of silicon on that region [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Collins by adding the ring of Ryo to the liner of Collins. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of controlling the light irradiation area of the substrate on a control region of the substrate and thus adjusts a growth rate of silicon on that region. Because the substrate of Collins is inherently a smaller diameter than the susceptor and the disk of Collins, adding the ring of Ryo would implicitly create a ring that has an inner diameter that is less than the diameter of the disk.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 18, Collins in view of Ryo teach a top surface of the disk and a bottom surface of the ring define a gap therebetween, as they overlap each other but do not touch each other.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0037537 to Ryu et al, as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6666924 to van Bilsen.
The teachings of Collins in view of Ryu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 10 and 16, Collins in view of Ryu does not expressly teach the quartz disk and the quartz ring are fabricated from a quartz material having an OH content of less than about 30 ppm.
Van Bilsen teaches a quartz material for a reaction chamber, wherein the quartz material has an OH content of 10 ppm (as shown in Fig. 2, and Fig. 3; Col. 4 line 19-Col. 6 line 54).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the quartz material analogous to that of Collins in view of Ryu out of quartz that has an OH content of 10 ppm, as taught by van Bilsen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 2.
In regards to Claims 11 and 17, Collins in view of Ryu does not expressly teach the quartz material has a transmission rate greater than about 90%.
Van Bilsen teaches a quartz material for a reaction chamber, wherein the quartz material has an OH content of 10 ppm (as shown in Fig. 2, and Fig. 3; Col. 4 line 19-Col. 6 line 54). Van Bilsen further teaches that the OH content is directly related to the absorption of the energy, such that the transmission of energy increases as the OH concentration decreases, as shown in Fig. 3, where the energy absorbed is less than 10% (or transmission is greater than about 90%, as shown in Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 30-Col. 6 line 33).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the quartz material analogous to that of Collins in view of Ryu out of quartz that has an OH content of 10 ppm, as taught by van Bilsen, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Furthermore, as van Bilsen teaches the OH ppm levels is directed related to the transmission of light (the opposite of the energy absorbed), it is considered that the transmission rate is a result effective variable dependent on the OH concentration at the ppm level and both the ppm and transmission rate can be modified to tailor the quartz to absorb or transmit certain wavelengths or energies (Col. 6 lines 27-33).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of van Bilsen expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for controlling the amount of energy/wavelengths absorbed or transmitted, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0275777 to Collins et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0037537 to Ryu et al, as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0050819 to Behdjat et al.
The teachings of Collins in view of Ryu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 8.
In regards to Claim 12, Collins teaches the disk is fabricated from a quartz material transmissive to light [0024] but Collins in view of Ryu do not expressly teach and the ring is fabricated from an opaque quartz material (but do teach the ring blocks light).
Behdjat teaches a ring 200 in a semiconductor processing apparatus Fig. 1, 2A-C, is made out of opaque quartz to block out radiation from external sources and has a high thermal resistivity and scatter light [0032; 0020-0042].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the ring of Collins in view of Ryu, which blocks radiation, out of opaque quartz as taught by Behdjat, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716