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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 is not a single sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 19 are 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 10 and its dependent claim 11 recite the limitation "the plenum" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the plenum" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "In some embodiments" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-9, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komiya et al, US 2003/0094135 A1.
Komiya et al teaches:
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 16, a semiconductor process chamber comprising: a substrate support 3 to support a substrate 1; a faceplate 14 to deliver a process gas to the substrate 1; and pumping liner for a process chamber, comprising: a main body 25, configured to surround a substrate support 3 of the process chamber 15, the main body comprising: a plurality of openings 27 configured to surround the substrate support 3 and to receive at least one of unreacted process gas or reacted gas products 13 that originate from a process gas delivered toward the substrate support 3, wherein one or more first openings of the plurality of openings 27 have a first size (small) that is different from a second size (large) of one or more second openings of the plurality of openings, and wherein each of the plurality of openings (see Figure 7) is configured to provide a constant targeted gas mass flow rate (Figure 8, mass flow rate) that is within ±5% of a target gas mass flow rate; and at least one gas outlet 11 configured to evacuate from the pumping liner at least one of the unreacted process gas or the reacted process gas byproducts received via the plurality of openings (Figure 1). Komiya et al also teaches a method of manufacturing a variable size opening pumping liner, comprising: forming a main body of the pumping liner 25 and forming a plurality of openings 27 in the main body 25 (See Figure 22, step S5, Paragraph 0227).
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of openings comprises 17 openings in Figure 6 or 72 in Figure 7, both of which fall within the range of about 10 openings to about 120 openings.
Regarding claim 3. The pumping liner of claim 1, wherein the plurality of openings 27 in Figure 7 comprises a plurality of groups of openings (9 groups, 8 groups of 2 symmetric with each other about the diameter along the exhaust line 11 and 1 group of 1 opposite the exhaust line), wherein for each group of the plurality of groups of openings, each opening within the group has a same size. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 4, each opening of the plurality of openings 27 is circular. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 5, the plurality of openings 27 are configured to be uniformly spaced about the perimeter of the substrate support 3. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 6, the plurality of openings are arranged so that there are fewer openings near the gas outlet and more openings further away from the gas outlet. (Figure 6)
Regarding claim 7, the plurality of openings are arranged to prevent stagnant zones of process gas flow across the substrate support.
Regarding claim 8, the plurality of openings 27 are arranged in parallel lines. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 9, the plurality of openings 27 gradually increase in size from a first point that is proximate to the gas outlet to a second point. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 14, the substrate support comprises a heater. (Paragraph 0011)
Regarding claim 16, a method of manufacturing a variable size opening pumping liner, comprising: forming a main body of the pumping liner 25 and forming a plurality of openings 27 in the main body 25 (See Figure 22, step S5, Paragraph 0227)
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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya et al, US 2003/0094135 A1.
Komiya et al was discussed above and teaches a method of manufacturing a variable size opening pumping liner (see Figure 22).
Komiya et al differs from the present invention in that Komiya et al does not teach that forming the main body of the variable size opening pumping liner comprises at least one of machining, metalworking, casting, forging, three-dimensional printing, injection molding or over-molding a material to form the main body and drilling or punching to form the plurality of openings.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that machining, metalworking, casting, forging, three-dimensional printing, injection molding or over-molding, drilling, and punching are all well known methods of manufacturing and commonly used to manufacture pumping liners.
The motivation for replacing the generic manufacturing method of Komiya et al with a specific known method of manufacturing is to provide a specific way to make the pumping liner as required by Komiya et al but not disclosed.
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 generic manufacturing method of Komiya et al with a specific known method of manufacturing.
Claims 10, 11, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya et al, US 2003/0094135 A1 as applied to claims 1-9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Kennedy et al, 6,408,786 B1.
Komiya et al differs from the present invention in that Komiya et al does not teach that the pumping liner is made of an erosion resistant metal, an erosion resistant polymer, an erosion resistant composite, aluminum, aluminum 6061, stainless steel or combinations thereof; or a ceramic coating/erosion resistant coating on the liner.
Kennedy et al teaches the use of erosion resistant metal, an erosion resistant polymer, an erosion resistant composite, aluminum, aluminum 6061, stainless steel or combinations thereof; or a ceramic coating/erosion resistant coating on the liner (Column 1 line 28-Column 2 line 36).
The motivation for making the pumping liner of Komiya et al out of an erosion resistant metal, an erosion resistant polymer, an erosion resistant composite, aluminum, aluminum 6061, stainless steel or combinations thereof with a ceramic coating/erosion resistant coating on the liner as taught by Kennedy et al is to provide a specific material of construction as required by Komiya et al but not disclosed by Komiya et al. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the pumping liner of Komiya et al out of an erosion resistant metal, an erosion resistant polymer, an erosion resistant composite, aluminum, aluminum 6061, stainless steel or combinations thereof with a ceramic coating/erosion resistant coating on the liner as taught by Kennedy et al.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya et al, US 2003/0094135 A1, in view of Pathak et al, US 11,952,660 B2.
Komiya et al was discussed above, and also teaches that the hole size for the plurality of holes increases with distance from the outlet.
Komiya et al differs from the present invention in that Komiya et al does not teach one or more baffles and has one or more access points for the gas outlet.
Pathak et al teaches the use of 2 baffles 117a, 117b, each baffle forming 2 access points (at the edges of the baffles 117a, 117b) in a pumping liner 114.
The motivation for adding the baffles of Pathak et al to the pumping liner of Komiya et al is to improve and control the flow in the pumping liner as taught by Pathak 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 the baffles of Pathak et al to the pumping liner of Komiya et al.
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. US 20140261176 A1 teaches the use of a pumping liner.
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