Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 13-28 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4-6 recite claim limitations dependent from claim 3, which recites “wherein the controller is further configured to:”. As currently written, it is unclear if claims 4-6 are to be interpreted as belonging to the “controller….configured to” limitation, or if they are to be separate from the controller limitation and related to the capability of the apparatus as structurally defined. For the purposes of Examination, the Examiner construes claims 4-6 to be separate from the controller limitation.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varadarajan (US 20180047645 A1), in view of Mori (US 20170051406 A1) and Kusuda (JP 2010225646 A, using attached English machine translation), and using Johnsgard (US 6342691 B1) as a supporting reference.
Regarding claim 1, Varadarajan teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus (Fig. 2, [0044], substrate processing apparatus 200) comprising:
a process chamber comprising two or more stations (Fig. 2, [0044], multi-station apparatus employs single processing chamber 214 and 4 process stations 201-204);
a first susceptor within a first station (Fig. 2, [0126], each process station 201-204 has a heated pedestal), the first susceptor comprising:
a first independently controlled heating or cooling element (Fig. 1, [0043] heating element 110 heats pedestal and substrate), and
a second susceptor within a second station (Fig. 2, [0126], each process station 201-204 has a heated pedestal), the second susceptor comprising a heater (Fig. 1, [0043] heating element 110 heats pedestal and substrate); and
a controller (Fig. 2, [0129], system controller 250) comprising a processor and memory that provides instructions (Fig. 2, [0130], system controller 250 executes control instructions 258 on processor 252, the system control instructions 258, which are loaded into memory device 256 from mass storage device 254) to:
heat or cool the first heating zone using the first heating or cooling element ([0130], system control instructions 258 includes instructions for controlling heating element temperature, and Fig. 4, block 432, [0064], temperature of the substrate is adjusted to a first temperature, where the heating occurs via the heating element in the pedestal); and
heat the second susceptor to a second temperature using the heater (Fig. 10, [0127], two or more of the process stations may be heated to a different temperature than the first process station), wherein the second temperature is higher than the first temperature (Fig. 10, [0127], station 1 has a pedestal temperature of 250 C and station 2 has a pedestal temperature of 300 C).
Varadarajan fails to teach a first independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element, the first heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a first heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor; and
a second independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element, the second heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a second heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor; and
receive temperature readings from the first heating zone and the second heating zone; heat or cool the second heating zone using the second heating or cooling element, wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone, wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone of the surface of the first susceptor are heated or cooled to a substantially uniform first temperature, and wherein the difference in the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone and the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone is configured to compensate for temperature interaction between the first susceptor and the second susceptor.
However, Mori teaches a first independently controlled fan-shaped heating (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], first heater 110 for heating the first portion 16d is embedded in the first portion 16d) or cooling element, the first heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a first heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], first heater 110 for heating the first portion 16d is individually controlled separate from the other heating element portions to heat plate part 16); and
a second independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], second heater 112 for heating the second portion 16e is embedded in the second portion 16e), the second heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a second heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], second heater 112 for heating the second portion 16e is individually controlled separate from the other heating element portions to heat plate part 16); and
receive temperature readings from the susceptor (Mori, Fig. 3, temperature controller 66 receives temperature information of plate 16 via temperature measuring part 65); heat or cool the second heating zone using the second heating or cooling element (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], under the control of the heater controller, second portion 16e is heated by heater 112), wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone (Mori, Fig. 7, [0082]-[0084], heater 110 of first portion 16d and heater 112 of second portion 16e require different and independent temperature control due to non-symmetry of chamber components), and wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone of the surface of the first susceptor are heated or cooled to a substantially uniform first temperature (Mori, Fig. 7, [0082]-[0084], heater 110 of first portion 16d and heater 112 of second portion 16e require different and independent temperature control due to non-symmetry of chamber components to achieve desired film thickness and film quality).
Mori 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 heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
While Mori does not explicitly teach the limitation “wherein the difference in the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone and the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone is configured to compensate for temperature interaction between the first susceptor and the second susceptor”, Mori details examples wherein the relative positions of various chamber components to zones of the susceptor necessitates individual temperature control of said zones. The combination of the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the multi-station apparatus of Varadarajan, wherein susceptors are near one another and would be analogous to chamber component presence necessitating the individual temperature control of susceptor zones of Mori to reach target temperatures, would therefore be capable of meeting the claim limitation.
In further support, supporting reference Johnsgard teaches in a vacuum processing system, conductive heat transfer between two adjacent objects is proportional to the temperature difference between the objects and radiative heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the temperatures raised to the fourth power (Johnsgard, Col 3 L1-5). Therefore, the susceptors of Varadarajan would necessarily impact the temperature of one another via such a relation, and the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori would be utilized to account for the impact.
Modified Varadarajan fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to temperature readings from the first heating zone and the second heating zone.
However, Kusuda teaches a controller configured to receive temperature readings from the first heating zone and the second heating zone (Kusuda, Figs. 3 & 7, [0047]-[0049], control unit 3 receive temperature readings from plural sensors 710 that are provided individually to each heater in heater zones 711-716).
Kusuda 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 dedicated temperature reading sensors to each heating zone and corresponding temperature control unit inputs and logic in the manner of Kusuda to the apparatus of modified Varadarajan as doing so would allow for continuous temperature adjustment during operation via PID control (Kusuda, [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Varadarajan teaches a first susceptor (Fig. 2, [0126], each process station 201-204 has a heated pedestal).
Varadarajan fails to teach a third independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element, the third heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a third heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor; and
a fourth independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element, the fourth heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a fourth heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor.
However, Mori teaches a third independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], third heater 114 for heating the third portion 16f is embedded in the third portion 16f), the third heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a third heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], third heater 114 for heating the third portion 16f is individually controlled separate from the other heating element portions to heat plate part 16); and
a fourth independently controlled fan-shaped heating or cooling element (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], fourth heater 116 for heating the fourth portion 16g is embedded in the third portion 16g), the fourth heating or cooling element configured to provide independent heating or cooling to a fourth heating zone of a surface of the first susceptor (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], fourth heater 116 for heating the fourth portion 16g is individually controlled separate from the other heating element portions to heat plate part 16).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Varadarajan fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: receive temperature readings from the third heating zone and the fourth heating zone; heat or cool a third heating zone of the first susceptor using the third heating or cooling element; and heat or cool a fourth heating zone of the first susceptor using the fourth heating or cooling element.
While Mori does not explicitly state wherein the controller is configured to: heat or cool a third heating zone of the first susceptor using the third heating or cooling element; and heat or cool a fourth heating zone of the first susceptor using the fourth heating or cooling element, Mori does detail examples wherein the relative positions of various chamber components to zones of the susceptor necessitates individual temperature control of said zones. For example, Mori teaches that in an area near the exhaust part, gas residence time is reduced and therefore film deposition rate is reduced (Mori, [0080]), necessitating independent heater control of the susceptor portion to achieve desired film thickness and quality results (Mori, [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the individual heater zone control components and methodology as taught by Mori to individually control all heater zones, taking into account any and all contributions from proximally located chamber components, to achieve desired film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Modified Varadarajan fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to temperature readings from the third heating zone and the fourth heating zone.
However, Kusuda teaches a controller configured to receive temperature readings from the third heating zone and the fourth heating zone (Kusuda, Figs. 3 & 7, [0047]-[0049], control unit 3 receive temperature readings from plural sensors 710 that are provided individually to each heater in heater zones 711-716).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the dedicated temperature reading sensors to each heating zone and corresponding temperature control unit inputs and logic in the manner of Kusuda to the apparatus of modified Varadarajan as doing so would allow for continuous temperature adjustment during operation via PID control (Kusuda, [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Varadarajan fails to teach wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the third heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone, the second heating zone, and the fourth heating zone.
However, Mori teaches wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the third heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone, the second heating zone, and the fourth heating zone (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], under the control of the heater controller, the first to fourth portions 16d, 16e, 16f, and 16g can have different temperatures, thus enabling creating definite temperature differences in the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Varadarajan fails to teach wherein the first heating zone, the second heating zone, the third heating zone, and the fourth heating zone are heated or cooled to the substantially uniform first temperature.
While Mori does not explicitly state wherein the first heating zone, the second heating zone, the third heating zone, and the fourth heating zone are heated or cooled to the substantially uniform first temperature, Mori does detail examples wherein the relative positions of various chamber components to zones of the susceptor necessitates individual temperature control of said zones. For example, Mori teaches that in an area near the exhaust part, gas residence time is reduced and therefore film deposition rate is reduced (Mori, [0080]), necessitating independent heater control of the susceptor portion to achieve desired film thickness and quality results (Mori, [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the individual heater zone control components and methodology as taught by Mori to individually control all heater zones to target a singular uniform temperature across the susceptor, taking into account any and all contributions from proximally located chamber components, to achieve desired film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Varadarajan fails to teach wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the fourth heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone, the second heating zone, and the third heating zone.
However, Mori teaches wherein an amount of heat provided to or removed from the fourth heating zone is different from the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone, the second heating zone, and the third heating zone (Mori, Fig. 7, [0079], under the control of the heater controller, the first to fourth portions 16d, 16e, 16f, and 16g can have different temperatures, thus enabling creating definite temperature differences in the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Varadarajan teaches wherein the first temperature is less than 150 C ([0130], system control instructions 258 includes instructions for controlling heating element temperature, and Fig. 4, block 432, [0064], temperature of the substrate is adjusted to a first temperature, wherein the pedestal temperature range is between 50 C to 635 C, [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Varadarajan teaches wherein the second temperature is greater than 150 °C ([0130], system control instructions 258 includes instructions for controlling heating element temperature, and Fig. 4, block 432, [0064], temperature of the substrate is adjusted to a first temperature, wherein the pedestal temperature range is between 50 C to 635 C, [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Varadarajan fails to teach wherein the first heating or cooling element comprises a cooling element, and wherein heating or cooling the first heating zone comprises flowing a coolant through the cooling element.
However, Mori teaches wherein the first heating or cooling element comprises a cooling element (Mori, Fig. 14, [0111], cooling medium passage 91 contains cooling passages 91a-91d), and wherein heating or cooling the first heating zone comprises flowing a coolant through the cooling element (Mori, Figs. 13 and 14, [0111], cooling medium passage 91 contains cooling passages 91a-91d through which a cooling medium flows to control temperature of zones 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Varadarajan teaches wherein the first heating or cooling element comprises a heating element (Fig. 1, [0043] heating element 110 heats pedestal and substrate), wherein the heating element comprises a resistive heater ([0064], heating element 110 may be a resistive heater), and wherein heating or cooling the first heating zone comprises providing power to the resistive heater ([0064], heating element 110 may be a resistive heater that generates heat at a single or varying temperature based on a current flowed through the coil).
Regarding claim 11, Varadarajan fails to teach wherein the second heating or cooling element comprises a cooling element, and wherein heating or cooling the second heating zone comprises flowing a coolant through the cooling element.
However, Mori teaches wherein the second heating or cooling element comprises a cooling element (Mori, Fig. 14, [0111], cooling medium passage 92 contains cooling passages 92a-92d), and wherein heating or cooling the second heating zone comprises flowing a coolant through the cooling element (Mori, Figs. 13 and 14, [0111], cooling medium passage 92 contains cooling passages 92a-92d through which a cooling medium flows to control temperature of zones 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the apparatus of Varadarajan as doing so would allow for increased ability to adjust temperature across a substrate for uniformity as necessitated by chamber geometry and film quality requirements (Mori, [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 12, Varadarajan teaches wherein each station of the two or more stations comprises a process chamber and a handling chamber (Fig. 2, [0044], multi-station apparatus employs single processing chamber 214 and 4 process stations 201-204, where each process station has its own showerhead 106, Fig. 1, [0045], and substrate loading device which includes robot 226 and substrate carousel 290, [0044]), wherein the handling chamber comprises a shared intermediate space between the one or more stations (Fig. 2, [0044], multi-station apparatus employs single processing chamber 214 and 4 process stations 201-204, where all process stations share one vacuum pump 118 and common gas evacuation path to said pump, Fig. 1, [0045], and substrate loading device which includes robot 226 and substrate carousel 290, [0044]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 12/08/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Mori, teach the claim limitations “wherein the difference in the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone and the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone is configured to compensate for temperature interaction between the first susceptor and the second susceptor” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. The Applicant states that since Mori does not contemplate temperature interaction between susceptors, the limitation is not taught. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them to be persuasive.
As detailed in the 103 rejections section above, Mori details examples wherein the relative positions of various chamber components to zones of the susceptor necessitates individual temperature control of said zones. The combination of the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori into the multi-station apparatus of Varadarajan, wherein susceptors are near one another and would be analogous to chamber component presence necessitating the individual temperature control of susceptor zones of Mori to reach target temperatures, would therefore be capable of meeting the claim limitation. In further support, supporting reference Johnsgard teaches in a vacuum processing system, conductive heat transfer between two adjacent objects is proportional to the temperature difference between the objects and radiative heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the temperatures raised to the fourth power (Johnsgard, Col 3 L1-5). Therefore, the susceptors of Varadarajan would necessarily impact the temperature of one another via such a relation, and the heaters/cooling passages and control logic of Mori would be utilized to account for the impact.
The Examiner also notes that the limitation “wherein the difference in the amount of heat provided to or removed from the first heating zone and the amount of heat provided to or removed from the second heating zone is configured to compensate for temperature interaction between the first susceptor and the second susceptor”, while written as part of the controller, does not disclose any specific structure that is necessarily present to execute the actions (ie instructional steps), and therefore does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, as rejected above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Verghese (US 20190276934 A1) teaches adjacent susceptors/chambers wherein the temperatures of each susceptor are compensated via measurement and control.
Odagiri (US 20150113826 A1) teaches adjacent susceptors and varied flow paths to manage temperatures.
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
Prosecution Insights