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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/9/26. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on 3/9/26 is entered and the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
In this application, the bottom of the chamber wall is interpreted as the bottom wall of the chamber and the side of the chamber wall in interpreted as the side wall of the chamber consistent with the specification.
It is suggested to amend the claim and specification to use the standard terms for defining the chamber side wall and chamber bottom wall.
For the purpose of consistency, it also suggested to amend claims 1 and 5 as shown below.
(Currently Amended) A substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a reaction chamber provided with a chamber wall;
a susceptor disposed within the reaction chamber to support a substrate;
a gas supply unit to supply a gas to the substrate; and
an exhaust duct disposed within the reaction chamber, comprising:
an inner ring comprising a first inner end and a second inner end, [[;]]wherein the first inner end is configured to contact a bottom of the chamber wall, and wherein the second inner end comprises a top surface, a bottom surface disposed beneath the top surface and extending closer to (a side of) the chamber wall than the top surface, and a sloped surface connecting the top surface to the bottom surface; and
an outer ring provided with a plurality of holes, the outer ring comprising a first outer end and a second outer end;
wherein the first outer end is configured to contact (the) [a] side of the chamber wall and the second outer end is configured to be engaged with the sloped surface of the second inner end.
A similar correction is suggested for claim 5 where it refers to “the chamber wall”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: gas supply "unit" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. According to specification [0017, 0034], the gas supply unit is interpreted as showerhead and equivalent structure thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to specifically claims 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection under obviousness and including additional prior at for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, surfaces of the second inner end of the inner ring and the outer ring are not required to be parallel to the bottom of the chamber wall and it reads on tilted partition plates having tilted ends or sloped surfaces of Moyama and Shimizu.
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, 4-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 20120000886 A1) in view of Moyama (US 20240047184 A1) and Shimizu (US 20220148861).
Regarding claim 1, 5, 6: Honda discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1, 3) comprising:
a reaction chamber (11) provided with a chamber wall;
a susceptor (12) disposed within the reaction chamber to support a substrate (W);
a gas supply unit (showerhead 27) to supply a gas to the substrate; and
an exhaust duct (exhaust chamber 14 including rods 29 and exhaust adjustment plates 28 as shown in Fig. 1 or rods 32 and 33 and plates 31a and 31b as shown in Fig. 3) disposed within the reaction chamber, comprising:
an inner ring (inner rod 32 and exhaust adjustment plate 31a) comprising a first inner end (32) and a second inner end (31a);
wherein the first inner end (inner rod 32) is configured to contact a bottom of the chamber wall (Fig 3); and
an outer ring (rod 33 and exhaust adjustment plate 31b) provided with a plurality of holes, the outer ring comprising a first outer end (that is in contact with the inner rod 33 as shown in Fig. 3) and a second outer end (that extends towards the inside of the chamber as shown in Fig. 3);
wherein the first outer end is configured to contact a side of the chamber wall (the side that is supported by the outer rod 33 as shown in Fig. 3) and the second outer end is configured to be engaged with the second inner end wherein the exhaust adjustment plates are movable and capable of engaging with each other (31b as shown in Fig. 3) ([0042, [0059-0060], [0092]).
Honda as discussed above teaches an exhaust duct wherein the vertical distance between exhaust adjustment plates 31a and 31b can be adjusted. Honda does not disclose the specific shape of the plates including sloped end surface.
Moyama discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a baffling structure 40/40a and 41/41a wherein the blades 40a may be inclined in circumferential direction to adjust the opening ratio between the blades 40a/41a as an obvious alternate arrangement of blades (Figs. 1, [0039-0040, 0065]). As can be seen from Fig. 4, the end parts of the member 21 are sloped.
Shimizu also discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a partition structure 50 (Figs. 4, 5) wherein the plate-shaped members 51 (Figs. 9) may be inclined in circumferential direction to adjust the opening pattern between the members 51 as an obvious alternate arrangement of partition structure [0030-0031, 0037]. As can be seen from Figs. 2 and 9, the end parts of the member 51 are sloped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ring of the Honda by the teaching of Moyama and Shimizu so that the partition members overlap with each other (from top view) as well as having inclined end as an obvious change in shape to adjust and optimize the exhaust flow rate.
It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of baffle plates. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 4: the inner ring has an L-shaped cross section as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 7: Honda does not specify the material of the exhaust duct being made of Aluminum.
Moyama discloses a baffling structure made of an alloy of aluminum and may be surface treated by anodization (Al2O3) or ceramic spraying (AlN) ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have choose an aluminum containing materials as an obvious choice for the baffle structure because such materials are known to be resistance to corrosion environment in plasma processing apparatus.
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). Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding claims 8, 9: the plurality of through holes in the exhaust plates may be a circular, rectangular, or slit shape ([0017-0018]). The hole may have a diameter of 3 mm ([0044]).
Regarding claim 11, 12: A turbo molecular pump (hereinafter, referred to as a TMP) and a dry pump (hereinafter, referred to as a DP) (both not shown) are connected to the exhaust pipe 16 (exhaust port) (Fig. 3, [0037]).
Regarding claim 13: the apparatus has a showerhead 27 to supply a gas to the substrate ([0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 20120000886 A1) in view of Moyama (US 20240047184 A1) and Shimizu (US 20220148861) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LEE (US 20110042009 A1).
Regarding claim 2, 20: Honda in view of Moyama and Shimizu as discussed above teaches an exhaust duct wherein an exhaust pump is located directly below the exhaust line and there in no exhaust opening at the bottom of the inner ring 32.
Lee discloses a substrate processing apparatus including an exhaust duct structure (liner 50) as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 including an inner ring (liner 30) and outer ring (baffle plate 20) and an exhaust pump is located offset from the vertical exhaust line. The inner ring 30 having openings at the bottom to allow exhaust gas to communicate with the exhaust pump located at the center and bottom portion of the chamber. As shown in Fig 3, the openings (exhaust part 40) are adjustable by a control plate 60 in order to control the exhaust rate as desired ([0046-0048], [0069-0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the pumping arrangement of Lee in Honda in view of Moyama and Shimizu and to modify the inner ring of the Honda with the inner liner of Lee in order to improve the capability of adjusting the exhaust rate.
Regarding claim 3: The openings (exhaust part 40) are adjustable by a control plate 60 and thus the opening can be adjusted and changed to slit shape and an obvious alternative choice for exhausting the processing gas. Further as discussed above, Honda discloses the through holes in the exhaust plates may be a circular, rectangular, or slit shape ([0017-0018]) which suggest choice of a particular shape of the opening is considered as obvious alternative choice for exhausting the processing gas.
It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the openings. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 20120000886 A1) in view of Moyama (US 20240047184 A1) and Shimizu (US 20220148861) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of KIM (20130284288).
Honda view of Moyama and Shimizu as discussed above teaches the exhaust plate having a number of through holes for exhausting process gas at a desired rate. Honda does not discuss that the number of holes and the distribution of the holes can be selected such that the process gas are exhausted at a lower rate at the region closer to the chamber wall and consequently a flow of plasma may be concentrated on the substrate.
Kim teaches that the size of openings (or equivalently the number of openings) at the region closer to the chamber side wall can be selected to reduce and optimize a desire exhaust rate at the region closer to the chamber side wall (Figs. 7 and 12, [0044-0046, 0051]). As shown in Fig. 12, the amount of plasma exhausted through the first hole 551 may be greater than the amount of plasma exhausted through the second hole 552 or the third hole 553. Consequently, a flow of plasma may be concentrated on the substrate (W) ([0046]). Thus, the size and equivalently the number of openings in the exhaust plate is known result effective parameter that can be selectively optimized to achieve a desire flow pattern around the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the number of holes in the exhaust plate of Honda in view of in view of Moyama and Shimizu in order to reduce or optimize the exhaust rate at the outer exhaust ring and alternatively allow higher exhausting through the inner exhaust ring in order to optimize a flow of plasma to be concentrated on the substrate.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Horiguchi (US 20110290419 A1) teaches an apparatus wherein an inner L-shape baffle plate 340 having opening at the bottom thereof to allow process gas to be exhaust trough a pump located at corner side of the chamber bottom wall.
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 Parviz Hassanzadeh whose telephone number is (571)272-1435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-1446. 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.
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights