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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) in view of Keeton et al (US 2003/0190823).
Sakuma discloses the method claimed including processing substrate comprising a substrate (W) placed in a processing chamber (4) on a plurality of lift pins 42 (also, see Figure 3), lifting the substrate with the plurality of lift pins to a position coplanar with a flange (60) of a radiation shield (shown by 58 which is shown to shield the substrate; also, see Figures 2 and 4), a plurality of lamps (20) for heating, lower the substrate down to a substrate support (34), processing the substrate, and removing or unloading the substrate from the processing chamber (para 0077). But, Sakuma does not show preheating the substrate in a preheat position as claimed.
Keeton shows it is known to lift a substrate (44) in a preheat position before being loaded onto a substrate/wafer support (42) wherein the substrate is preheated to prevent thermal shock when placed on the substrate support having a hot surface of the substrate wafer support/holder. Also, see para 0006-0009.
In view of Keeton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma with the substrate that is preheated in a pre-heat position before being loaded on the substrate support so that the substrate wafer is prevented from thermal shock which can cause substrate warpage/curl due to temperature differences between the substrate and the substrate holder.
With respect to claim 2, Keeton discloses for the substrate in a preheated position that is in close proximity to a quartz wall (24) that defines a processing chamber as illustrated in Figure 4, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to provide the pre-heat position that is about 5 mm to 300 mm from the window where a plurality of heating lamps is positioned thereby as a matter of routine optimization so that the substrate can be rapidly heated for a faster preheating of the substrate.
With respect to claim 5, Keeton discloses for lowering the substrate after preheating, and as the substrate is preheated to prevent thermal shock between the substrate and the substrate support/holder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a temperature differential of less than 50 C or any other suitable range as a matter of routine optimization to reduce the thermal shock therebetween and predictably prevent undesired substrate warpage or curl.
With respect to claim 6, Keeton discloses that the substrate can be in a pre-heated position that is in close proximity to a quartz wall (24), and it would have been obvious to provide the pre-heat position that can be at an elevation greater than a loading or unloading height of the substrate to bring the substrate closer to the plurality of lams so that the substrate can be predictably heated rapidly for a faster preheating of the substrate.
With respect to claim 7, Keeton discloses for the substrate that is preheated prior to any contact with the substrate support (also, see Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Keeton as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al (US 6,221,166).
Sakuma in view of Keeton discloses the radiation shield but does not show that the cylindrical main body is made of an opaque material and the flange that comprises an optically transparent material.
Nguyen discloses a radiation shield (150/151) with a body (151) that is low transmissive section made of an opaque material and a flange section (150) that is high transmissive section made of a transparent material (column3, lines 41-49).
In view of Nguyen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma as modified by Keeton with the main body made of an opaque material which enables to shield radiation and prevent heat loss while allowing heat radiation to pass through the flange portion that is outside the heating area of the substrate so that radiation heat can be effectively concentrated and contained within the boundary of the substrate being heated.
With respect to claim 4, Nguyen discloses that the opaque material can be made of an opaque quartz with the transparent material being a transparent quartz (column 3, lines 45-49).
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) in view of Nguyen et al (US 6,221,166).
Sakuma discloses the processing chamber claimed including a processing chamber body (4), a window (12) disposed over the chamber body, a substrate support (34), a plurality of lamps (20) disposed above the window, and a radiation shield (shown by 58 which is shown to shield the substrate; also, see Figures 2 and 4) disposed between the window and a substrate support wherein the radiation shield includes a cylindrical body and a flange (60) coupled to the cylindrical body. But, Sakuma does not disclose that the cylindrical main body is made of an opaque material and the flange that comprises an optically transparent material.
Nguyen discloses a radiation shield (150/151) with a body (151) that is of a low transmissive section made of an opaque material and a flange section (150) that is of a high transmissive section made of a transparent material (column3, lines 41-49).
In view of Nguyen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma as modified by Keeton with the main body made of an opaque material which enables to shield radiation and prevent heat loss while allowing heat radiation to pass through the flange portion that is outside the heating area of the substrate so that radiation heat can be effectively concentrated and contained within the boundary of the substrate being heated.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Sakuma as modified Nguyen discloses that the cylindrical main body that can be made of an opaque quartz with the flange made of a transparent quartz (see column 3, lines 45-49 of Nguyen).
With respect to claim 12, Sakuma discloses a plurality of pins (42) that enables the substrate to be positioned in at least three positions including a pre-heat position co-planar with the flange of the radiation shield (as shown in Figure 4), a transfer position co-planer with a slit valve door (24 as illustrated in Figure 3), and a processing position atop the substrate support (as illustrated in Figure 5).
With respect to claim 16, Sakuma discloses the cylindrical main body (58) having a thickness that can be about several mm (para 0061) wherein the flange (60) which is shown to have a relatively smaller thickness (diameter) than that of the cylindrical body as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the flange having a thickness of between 1 mm and 5 mm as a matter of routine optimization, lacking criticality, to prevent heat transfer or heat loss through the flange portion, i.e., higher the thickness more heat loss or heat transfer would occur through the flange due to its heat exchange.
With respect to claim 17, Sakuma discloses a radiation shield (shown by 58 which is shown to shield the substrate; also, see Figures 2 and 4) including a cylindrical body and a flange (60) extending from a distal end of the cylindrical body and orthogonal to a central axis of the cylindrical main body, but Sakuma does not disclose that the cylindrical main body is made of an opaque material and the flange that comprises an optically transparent material. Nguyen discloses a radiation shield (150/151) with a body (151) that is of a low transmissive section made of an opaque material and a flange section (150) that is of a high transmissive section made of a transparent material (column3, lines 41-49). In view of Nguyen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma as modified by Keeton with the main body made of an opaque material which enables to shield radiation and prevent heat loss while allowing heat radiation to pass through the flange portion that is outside the heating area of the substrate so that radiation heat can be effectively concentrated and contained within the boundary of the substrate being heated.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Nguyen discloses that the opaque material can be made of an opaque quartz with the transparent material being a transparent quartz (column 3, lines 45-49).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Nguyen as applied to claims 8, 10-12 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Behdjat et al (US 2015/0050819).
Sakuma in view of Nguyen discloses the processing chamber claimed including the cylindrical main body that is made of an opaque quartz but does not show the opaque quartz is black quartz.
Behdjat discloses that an opaque quartz can be made of black quart (see Abstract).
In view of Behdjat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma, as modified by Nguyen, with the opaque quartz that can be made provided with black quartz as an alternate substitution or known technique to render the quartz material opaque as known in the art.
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Nguyen as applied to claims 8, 10-12 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Rohrmann et al (US 2020/0388517).
with respect to claims 14, 15 and 20, Sakuma in view of Nguyen discloses the processing chamber claimed including the cylindrical main body having a diameter that is slightly larger than the diameter of a wafer (para 0061) but does not explicitly show the cylindrical main body having an outer radius of between 180 mm to 200 mm (equivalent to about 360 mm and 400 mm in diameter) or the inner radius of between 140 mm to 160 mm (equivalent to about 280 mm and 320 mm in diameter).
Rohrmann discloses it is known that a substrate wafer is known to have various diameters that can range from 4 inch (about 101 mm) to 12 inch (about 300 mm). See para 0084.
In view of Rohrmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Sakuma with the cylindrical main body having an outer radius between 180 mm and 200 mm (equivalent to about 360 mm to 400 mm) or an inner radius between 140 mm and 160 mm (equivalent to about 280 mm and 320 mm in diameter) that can encompass the substrate wafer having various diameters including the substrate wafer with 300 mm in diameter within the cylindrical main body as a matter of routine optimization to predictably contain the wafer substrate within the cylindrical main body to effectively heat the substrate wafer while minimizing heat loss from the cylindrical main body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761