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
The amendment filed 08/15/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/16/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14-25 are pending.
Claims 15-16 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 4, 7, and 10-13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 14-16 are currently amended.
Claims 17-25 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita (US 20170253971 A1), in view of Honma (US 20100229797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamorita teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0068], substrate processing apparatus 303) comprising:
a process chamber in which a substrate is processed (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0069]-[0071], processing container 1 within which wafers W are processed);
a substrate support provided in the process chamber and comprising a plurality of placement parts on which the substrate is placed (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0069]-[0071], rotary table 2 is provided in processing container 1, and has recesses 24 into which wafers W are placed);
a rotating part configured to rotate the substrate support (Kawamorita, Fig. 7, [0087], driving part 23 rotates shaft 22, which is connected to rotary table 2);
a heater provided below or within the substrate support and configured to heat the substrate (Kawamorita, Fig. 7, [0087], driving part 23 rotates shaft 22, which is connected to rotary table 2);
a first nozzle provided above the plurality of placement parts so as to face the plurality of placement parts (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0071]-[0072], injector 131c is provided above recesses 24 in rotary table 2);
a second nozzle provided above the plurality of placement parts so as to face the plurality of placement parts as an auxiliary nozzle and arranged in parallel with the first nozzle (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0071]-[0072], injector 132c is provided above recesses 24 in rotary table 2 and runs parallel to injector 131c);
a third nozzle provided above the plurality of placement parts so as to face the plurality of placement parts as another auxiliary nozzle and arranged in parallel with the first nozzle (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0071]-[0072], injector 133c is provided above recesses 24 in rotary table 2 and runs parallel to injector 131c); and
a controller configured to be capable of controlling the rotating part such that a positional relationship between the substrate and the first nozzle changes as a rotation of the substrate support proceeds (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0093], control part 100 controls operations of the entire apparatus, which includes rotation of rotary table 2, where the wafers W in recesses 24 move in parallel to nozzles 131c-133c, [0069]-[0071]).
Kawamorita fails to teach a first portion where no hole is provided such that a process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the first portion, a second portion where no hole is provided such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the second portion, a third portion where no hole is provided such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the third portion, wherein the first portion, the second portion and the third portion are provided at positions facing the heater, and wherein the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle are arranged such that a diameter of the first nozzle, a diameter of the second nozzle and a diameter of the third nozzle gradually decrease from a rotationally upstream portion to a rotationally downstream portion along a rotation direction of the substrate support.
However, Honma teaches a first portion where no hole is provided such that a process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the first portion (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104], supply section end of gas nozzle 32B has no holes), a second portion where no hole is provided such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the second portion (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104], supply section end of gas nozzle 31 has no holes), a third portion where no hole is provided such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the third portion (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104], supply section end of gas nozzle 33B has no holes), and wherein the first portion, the second portion and the third portion are provided at positions facing the heater (Honma, Figs. 1 and 5, gas nozzles 31-33 extend over and face concave portion 24 of turntable 2, where heating unit 8 is located below turntable 2, [0071]).
Modified Kawamorita does not explicitly teach wherein the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle are arranged such that a diameter of the first nozzle, a diameter of the second nozzle and a diameter of the third nozzle gradually decrease from a rotationally upstream portion to a rotationally downstream portion along a rotation direction of the substrate support.
While Honma does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Honma teaches a relation wherein increasing the diameter of the gas compensation pipe increases the diameter of the injection holes, thereby allowing the gas to be in contact with specific areas of the wafer for a longer time, thereby compensating for differences in gas concentration due to varying rotation speed of the turntable (Honma, [0101], [0103]). Honma also teaches a compensation nozzle may be configured to have a larger diameter than the main gas nozzles, that plural compensation nozzles may be provided for a main nozzle, that the positions of the compensation gas nozzles may be different than illustrated (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104]). Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing would have been capable of utilizing the teachings of Honma to vary the relative diameters and arrangements of the nozzles such that a larger amount of the reaction gas for compensation can be supplied to areas with the lower concentration of the reaction gas along the radius direction of the turntable, thereby compensating for the gas concentration as needed (Honma, [0104]) to achieve uniformity of a film deposited on a substrate (Honma, [0041]).
Honma is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the nozzle designs and connection to the source gas in the manner taught by Honma into the apparatus of Kawamorita as doing so would reduce cost and complexity by replacing the branched pipe/nozzle design and mixed flow splitter having multiple gas sources (Kawamorita, [0036]-[0040]) with single straight tube nozzles having one gas source (Honma, Fig. 3), while still allowing for positional compensation of gas concentration distribution across a more central portion of a wafer that has a lower gas concentration due to rotation of the turntable, thereby improving overall film uniformity (Honma, [0055], [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “such that a process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the first portion“, “such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the second portion”, and “such that a process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the third portion“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The nozzle of Honma extends over the heated area of the turntable and has a portion without holes through which gas flows, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamorita teaches wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating part such that a distance between the substrate and the first nozzle changes in accordance with the rotation of the substrate support (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0093], control part 100 controls operations of the entire apparatus, which includes rotation of rotary table 2, where a wafer W in a recess 24 moves in a parallel, radial direction to nozzles 131c-133c, [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamorita teaches wherein a positional relationship between a surface of the substrate and the first nozzle is variable (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0069]-[0072], wafer W in a recess 24 moves in a parallel, radial manner to nozzles 131c-133c).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamorita teaches wherein the plurality of placement parts revolve within the process chamber in accordance with the rotation of the substrate support (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0069]-[0072], recess 24 in rotary table 2 moves in a parallel, radial manner to nozzles 131c-133c).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamorita teaches wherein a surface area vertically overlapping between the substrate support and the first portion changes in accordance with the rotation of the substrate support proceeds (Kawamorita, Fig. 5, [0069]-[0072], as rotary table 2 rotates, recess portions 24 and non-recessed portions of rotary table 2 located in between recesses 24 alternately pass under gas nozzles 131c-133c).
Regarding claim 17, Kawamorita teaches wherein a first hole is provided at a front end of the first nozzle, wherein a second hole is provided at a front end of the second nozzle, and wherein a third hole is provided at a front end of the third nozzle (Kawamorita, Fig. 1, [0042], at least one gas discharge hole 151-153 is provided in injectors 131-133, respectively, where the positions of the holes can be adjusted in various manners to uniformly spread gas, where Fig. 1 shows that a position of a hole 151/152/153 can be at the front end of the injectors 131-133).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamorita teaches wherein no hole other than the first hole is provided at the first nozzle, wherein no hole other than the second hole is provided at the second nozzle, and wherein no hole other than the third hole is provided at the third nozzle (Kawamorita, Fig. 1, [0042], at least one gas discharge hole 151-153 is provided in injectors 131-133, respectively, where the positions of the holes can be adjusted in various manners to uniformly spread gas, where Fig. 1 shows that a position of a hole 151/152/153 can be at the front end of the injectors 131-133).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamorita teaches wherein the first hole, the second hole and the third hold are arranged at positions facing the substrate (Kawamorita, Fig. 6, [0079], gas discharge holes 151-153 face the top surface of rotary table 2).
Regarding claim 20, Kawamorita teaches wherein the first hole, the second hole and the third hold are arranged at positions facing the substrate (Kawamorita, Fig. 6, [0079], gas discharge holes 151-153 face the top surface of rotary table 2).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamorita fails to teach wherein the first portion is provided between the first hole and a wall of the process vessel; wherein the second portion is provided between the second hole and the wall of the process vessel, and wherein the third portion is provided between the third hole and the wall of the process vessel.
However, Honma teaches wherein the first portion is provided between the first hole and a wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 32B that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes 36a and chamber wall 12A); wherein the second portion is provided between the second hole and the wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 31 that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes and chamber wall 12A), and wherein the third portion is provided between the third hole and the wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 33B that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes 36b and chamber wall 12A).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the nozzle designs and connection to the source gas in the manner taught by Honma into the apparatus of Kawamorita as doing so would reduce cost and complexity by replacing the branched pipe/nozzle design and mixed flow splitter having multiple gas sources (Kawamorita, [0036]-[0040]) with single straight tube nozzles having one gas source (Honma, Fig. 3), while still allowing for positional compensation of gas concentration distribution across a more central portion of a wafer that has a lower gas concentration due to rotation of the turntable, thereby improving overall film uniformity (Honma, [0055], [0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Kawamorita fails to teach wherein the first portion is provided between the first hole and a wall of the process vessel; wherein the second portion is provided between the second hole and the wall of the process vessel, and wherein the third portion is provided between the third hole and the wall of the process vessel.
However, Honma teaches wherein the first portion is provided between the first hole and a wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 32B that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes 36a and chamber wall 12A); wherein the second portion is provided between the second hole and the wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 31 that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes and chamber wall 12A), and wherein the third portion is provided between the third hole and the wall of the process vessel (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0105], supply section end of gas nozzle 33B that has no holes is provided between the ejection holes 36b and chamber wall 12A).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the nozzle designs and connection to the source gas in the manner taught by Honma into the apparatus of Kawamorita as doing so would reduce cost and complexity by replacing the branched pipe/nozzle design and mixed flow splitter having multiple gas sources (Kawamorita, [0036]-[0040]) with single straight tube nozzles having one gas source (Honma, Fig. 3), while still allowing for positional compensation of gas concentration distribution across a more central portion of a wafer that has a lower gas concentration due to rotation of the turntable, thereby improving overall film uniformity (Honma, [0055], [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, Kawamorita teaches wherein a diameter of the first hole, a diameter of the second hole and a diameter of the third hole are different from one another (Kawamorita, [0044], the diameters and positions of the gas discharges holes 151-153 of injectors 131-133 are provided and adjusted in plural diameters and positions to compensate for gas being supplied insufficiently or excessively to specific positions across a wafer, to achieve processing with improved in-plane uniformity).
Regarding claim 24, Kawamorita fails to explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the first hole, a diameter of the second hole and a diameter of the third hole gradually decrease from the rotationally upstream portion to the rotationally downstream portion along the rotation direction of the substrate support.
While Honma does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Honma teaches a relation wherein increasing the diameter of the gas compensation pipe increases the diameter of the injection holes, thereby allowing the gas to be in contact with specific areas of the wafer for a longer time, thereby compensating for differences in gas concentration due to varying rotation speed of the turntable (Honma, [0101], [0103]). Honma also teaches a compensation nozzle may be configured to have a larger diameter than the main gas nozzles, that plural compensation nozzles may be provided for a main nozzle, that the positions of the compensation gas nozzles may be different than illustrated (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104]). Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing would have been capable of utilizing the teachings of Honma to vary the relative diameters and arrangements of the nozzles such that a larger amount of the reaction gas for compensation can be supplied to areas with the lower concentration of the reaction gas along the radius direction of the turntable, thereby compensating for the gas concentration as needed (Honma, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the nozzle designs and connection to the source gas in the manner taught by Honma into the apparatus of Kawamorita as doing so would reduce cost and complexity by replacing the branched pipe/nozzle design and mixed flow splitter having multiple gas sources (Kawamorita, [0036]-[0040]) with single straight tube nozzles having one gas source (Honma, Fig. 3), while still allowing for positional compensation of gas concentration distribution across a more central portion of a wafer that has a lower gas concentration due to rotation of the turntable, thereby improving overall film uniformity (Honma, [0055], [0041]).
Regarding claim 25, Kawamorita fails to teach wherein the diameter of each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle and a size of each of the first hole, the second hole and the third hole are set such that thermal decomposition amounts of the process gas supplied from the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle are equal to one another.
While Honma does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Honma teaches a relation wherein increasing the diameter of the gas compensation pipe increases the diameter of the injection holes, thereby allowing the gas to be in contact with specific areas of the wafer for a longer time, thereby compensating for differences in gas concentration due to varying rotation speed of the turntable (Honma, [0101], [0103]). Honma also teaches a compensation nozzle may be configured to have a larger diameter than the main gas nozzles, that plural compensation nozzles may be provided for a main nozzle, that the positions of the compensation gas nozzles may be different than illustrated (Honma, Fig. 14, [0103]-[0104]). Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing would have been capable of utilizing the teachings of Honma to vary the relative diameters and arrangements of the nozzles such that a larger amount of the reaction gas for compensation can be supplied to areas with the lower concentration of the reaction gas along the radius direction of the turntable, thereby compensating for the gas concentration as needed (Honma, [0104]) to achieve uniformity of a film deposited on a substrate (Honma, [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “are set such that thermal decomposition amounts of the process gas supplied from the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle are equal to one another” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The nozzles of Honma extend over the heated area of the turntable and have a portion without holes through which gas flows, have varying nozzle diameters and corresponding varying hole diameters, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita (US 20170253971 A1) in view of Honma (US 20100229797 A1), and further in view of Okabe (US 20120222615 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 17-25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kawamorita fails to teach wherein a length of the first nozzle, a length of the second nozzle and a length of the third nozzle gradually decrease from the rotationally upstream portion to the rotationally downstream portion along the rotation direction of the substrate support.
However, Okabe teaches wherein a length of the first nozzle, a length of the second nozzle and a length of the third nozzle gradually decrease from the rotationally upstream portion to the rotationally downstream portion along the rotation direction of the substrate support (Okabe, Fig. 8, [0071], the length of reactant gas nozzles 31A-31C decrease along the rotational direction A, Fig. 1).
Okabe is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the multiple different length gas reaction nozzles of Okabe to the apparatus of modified Kawamorita as doing so would allow the reaction gas to be uniformly distributed across the turntable surface, compensating for issues where concentration of the reactant gas at the outer area of the turntable due to the rotational speed is reduced (Okabe, [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kawamorita fails to teach wherein a length of the first nozzle, a length of the second nozzle and a length of the third nozzle gradually decrease from the rotationally upstream portion to the rotationally downstream portion along the rotation direction of the substrate support.
However, Okabe teaches wherein a length of the first nozzle, a length of the second nozzle and a length of the third nozzle gradually decrease from the rotationally upstream portion to the rotationally downstream portion along the rotation direction of the substrate support (Okabe, Fig. 8, [0071], the length of reactant gas nozzles 31A-31C decrease along the rotational direction A, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the multiple different length gas reaction nozzles of Okabe to the apparatus of modified Kawamorita as doing so would allow the reaction gas to be uniformly distributed across the turntable surface, compensating for issues where concentration of the reactant gas at the outer area of the turntable due to the rotational speed is reduced (Okabe, [0073]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita (US 20170253971 A1) in view of Honma (US 20100229797 A1), and further in view of Fujino (US 20170232457 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 17-25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kawamorita fails to teach wherein a front end of each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle is configured to be open.
However, Fujino teaches wherein a front end of each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle is configured to be open (Fujino, Fig. 7, [0088], nozzle 10 has end opened, through which gas is ejected).
Fujino is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the open ejection end gas nozzle design of Fujino into the gas nozzles of Kato as doing so would allow for a larger gas amount to be distributed to the area where the end of the pipe is located, thereby allowing for another process knob to spatially improve film thickness uniformity (Fujino, [0085], [0088]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 08/15/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kato and Honma, teach the claim limitations “a third nozzle provided above the plurality of placement parts so as to face the plurality of placement parts as another auxiliary nozzle and arranged in parallel with the first nozzle, the third nozzle comprising a third portion where no hole is provided such that the process gas is thermally decomposed while passing through the third portion; wherein the first portion, the second portion and the third portion are provided at positions facing the heater, and wherein the first nozzle, the second nozzle and the third nozzle are arranged such that a diameter of the first nozzle, a diameter of the second nozzle and a diameter of the third nozzle gradually decrease from a rotationally upstream portion to a rotationally downstream portion along a rotation direction of the substrate support” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718