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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the walls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandrasekharan et al. US 2015/0011096 A1.
Chandrasekharan et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a showerhead 211 for a processing chamber 201, the showerhead 211 comprising: a metal plate 302 (Paragraph 0028) attached to the processing chamber wall 322 via isolation ring 303; a ceramic faceplate 301 (Paragraph 0028) attached to the metal plate 302 via isolation ring 303 and including a plurality of gas outlets 315 on a substrate-facing surface; and a metal ring 312 surrounding the ceramic faceplate 301and attached to the processing chamber wall 322 via isolation ring 303.
Regarding claim 2, the ceramic faceplate 301 has a smaller diameter than the metal plate 302. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 4, the ceramic faceplate 301 has a smaller diameter than a diameter of the metal plate 302 and an outer diameter of the metal ring 312. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 5, an inner edge of the metal ring 312 contacts an outer edge of the ceramic faceplate 301. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 6, the ceramic faceplate 301 includes a first flange extending radially outwardly from a base portion of the ceramic faceplate 301; the metal ring 312 includes a second flange extending radially inwardly from an inner edge of the metal ring; and the second flange overhangs on the first flange. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 7, the metal ring 312 is attached to the metal plate 302. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 8, the metal ring 312 is integrated with the metal plate 302. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 30, a pedestal 223, wherein the metal ring contacts the pedestal via isolation ring 303.
Regarding claim 31, the metal ring 312 isolates the ceramic faceplate 301 from the pedestal 223.
Regarding claim 32, a gas source (Figure 2) to supply a gas to the showerhead via pipe 203, wherein the gas is dispersed into the processing chamber through the plurality of gas outlets 315 of the ceramic faceplate 301 of the showerhead.
Regarding claim 33, a fluid delivery system to supply a coolant to the metal plate 302 of the showerhead. (Paragraph 0028)
Regarding claim 34, the pedestal comprises one or more heaters 220.
Regarding claim 35, a vacuum pump 201 connected to the processing chamber. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 36, a gas source (Figured 2) connected to the processing chamber via pipe 203 to supply an inert gas to the processing chamber.
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.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan et al. US 2015/0011096 A1.
Chandrasekharan et al was discussed above and teaches the use of recess 360 to hold seals between the metal plate 302 and the ceramic faceplate 301, and to act as thermal chokes between the surfaces.
Chandrasekharan et al differs from the present invention in that Chandrasekharan et al does not teach recesses in the metal ring and the metal plate.
The motivation for adding the recesses to the metal ring and metal plate of Chandrasekharan et al is to hold seals or act as thermal chokes between the two surfaces as taught by Chandrasekharan et al and well known in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the recesses to the metal ring and metal plate of Chandrasekharan et al as taught by Chandrasekharan et al and well known in the art.
Claims 12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan et al. US 2015/0011096 A1, in view of Chandrasekharan et al, US 2015/0004798 A1 (Chandrasekharan et al ‘798).
Chandrasekharan et al was discussed above.
Chandrasekharan et al differs from the present invention in that Chandrasekharan et al does not teach the claimed gas supply and showerhead exhaust manifolds.
Chandrasekharan et al ‘798 teaches the claimed gas supply and exhaust manifold formed in the metal plate 139, ceramic faceplate 136, and ring 131
The motivation for replacing the gas supply and exhaust of Chandrasekharan et al is to provide an alternate gas supply and exhaust manifold as taught by Chandrasekharan et al ‘798. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the gas supply and exhaust of Chandrasekharan et al with the alternate and equivalent gas supply and exhaust manifolds taught by Chandrasekharan et al ‘798.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan et al. US 2015/0011096 A1, in view of Fujikawa et al, US 5,595,606.
Chandrasekharan et al was discussed above.
Chandrasekharan et al differs from the present invention in that Chandrasekharan et al does not teach a first plate including a heater and arranged on the metal plate; and a second plate including a cooling channel and arranged on the first plate.
Fujikawa et al teaches a first plate 60 including a heater 88 and arranged on the metal plate 58; and a second plate 62 including a cooling channel 84 and arranged on the first plate 60.
The motivation for adding a heater and cooler to the metal plate of Chandrasekharan et al is to control the temperature of the showerhead as taught by Fujikawa et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a heater and cooler to the metal plate of Chandrasekharan et al as taught by Fujikawa et al.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan et al. US 2015/0011096 A1, in view of Tran et al, US 10,755,900 B2.
Chandrasekharan et al was discussed above.
Chandrasekharan et al differs from the present invention in that Chandrasekharan et al does not teach that the metal ring, metal plate, and walls are plated with an anti-corrosive material.
Tran et al teaches plating surfaces of the showerhead 130 exposed to plasma or corrosive material with anti-corrosive material 150, 152.
The motivation for plating the metal ring, metal plate and walls of Chandrasekharan et al with an anti-corrosive material is to prevent the corrosion of the metal as is taught by Tran et al and well known in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.). I
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to plate the metal ring, metal plate and walls of Chandrasekharan et al with an anti-corrosive material taught by Tran et al and well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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: Chandrasekharan et al is used to reject claim 1 above. It is base on the broadness of claim 1 and that the RF contact 312 is a metal ring and thus reads on claim 1. However, the limitation of claim 3 requires that the outer diameter of the metal ring is the same as a diameter of the metal plate. If the RF contact 312 were modified to meet this limitation it would replace the isolation ring 303 and would render the apparatus inoperable because the metal ring touching the metal walls would result in the ring being charge to the voltage of the wall and not isolated as required to form the plasma. Likewise, if the isolation ring 303 were made of metal as suggest in the WO search report, the apparatus would also be inoperable for the same reason. Further the Examiner notes that there is no teaching to make the insolation ring out of metal. Multiple references were fount that teach that there needs to be an isolation ring. (See JP 2024046742 A, JP 2023502597 A, CN 109234708 B, US 11049698 B2, US 20180096865 A1, and US 20180087155 A1) Thus neither Chandrasekharan et al or the prior art teach or suggest that the isolation ring 303 be made out of metal and have the diameter of the metal plate,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. JP 7126431 B2 teaches the use of anti-corrosive material. US 7452827 B2 teaches the gas supply manifold and an exhaust manifold located in the showerhead.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716