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 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B, drawn to claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 in the reply filed on 10/02/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/02/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant recites, in multiple claims, the limitation “wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at the center of the shock absorbing plate, when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate, is in a range of about 1.4 mm to about 1.6 mm,” however, this limitation is indicative of a different point in time/a different condition compared to the apparatus depicted in Fig. 9 of the instant application. In Fig. 9, the connection members engage all plates and compress the plates such that the shock-absorbing plate is under pressure and is of uniform thickness. Furthermore, claim 1 directly discloses the connection members as holding the plates together. Therefore, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the examiner will be interpreting Fig. 9 as the claimed apparatus. As such, limitations directed to when the apparatus is not under pressure would be considered intended use.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites wherein plurality of lamps are configured to heat a substrate,” when it should read as “wherein the plurality of lamps are configured to heat a substrate.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069) and Walker et al. (US 10329008), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), and Lo (US 4847136) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Maruyama teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate support (susceptor 9) configured to support a substrate; a lamp plate (the structure where optical paths 30-1 are disposed) including a lower surface an upper surface opposite to the lower surface of the lamp plate (as evidenced by Fig. 20, the structure where the optical paths 30-1 are disposed comprise upper and lower surfaces), and a plurality of lamps (optical paths 30-1) configured to heat the substrate, and wherein each hole of a plurality of lamp holes extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of a corresponding plate (as evidenced by Fig. 20, optical paths 30-1 extend through an entirety of the structure where optical paths 30-1 are disposed) [Fig. 20 & Col. 21 lines 30-48].
Maruyama does not specifically disclose a shock absorbing plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the lamp plate and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the shock absorbing plate; an upper shower head plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the shock absorbing plate and a lower surface facing the upper surface of the upper shower head plate; and a lower shower head plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the upper shower head plate, a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the lower shower head plate and facing the substrate, and a plurality of spray holes configured to supply a gas onto the substrate, and wherein each of the lamp plate, the shock absorbing plate, the upper shower head plate, and the lower shower head plate further includes: a center hole configured to pass the gas, a plurality of lamp holes configured to allow a plurality of lamps to pass therethrough, respectively, and wherein each hole of the center hole extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of a corresponding plate.
Breiling teaches a shock absorbing plate (first layer 802a) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the lamp plate (radical diffuser plate 801) and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the shock absorbing plate (as evidenced by Fig. 8C the first layer 802a has lower and upper surfaces); an upper shower head plate (second layer 802b) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the shock absorbing plate and a lower surface facing the upper surface of the upper shower head plate (as evidenced by Fig. 8C the second layer 802b has lower and upper surfaces); and a lower shower head plate (precursor delivery plate 803) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the upper shower head plate, a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the lower shower head plate and facing the substrate (as evidenced by Figs. 1A and 8C the second layer 802b has lower and upper surfaces, with a lower surface facing a substrate), and a plurality of spray holes (through-holes 808) configured to supply a gas onto the substrate, and wherein each of the lamp plate, the shock absorbing plate, the upper shower head plate, and the lower shower head plate further includes: a center hole (through-holes 808 positioned within the centers of each layer) configured to pass the gas, and wherein each hole of the center hole extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of a corresponding plate (as evidenced by Fig. 8b, through-holes 808 extend through all plates) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003]. It is further noted that the combination of references would disclose "a plurality of lamp holes configured to allow a plurality of lamps to pass therethrough, respectively," because the lamps of Maruyama go all the way through its lamp plate to face a substrate. Therefore, modifying Maruyama to include multiple layers would result in the lamps going all the way through the multiple layers to face a substrate.
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose a plurality of edge holes configured to allow a plurality of connection members to pass therethrough, wherein the plurality of connection members are configured to hold together the lamp plate, the shock absorbing plate, the upper shower head plate, and the lower shower head plate, and wherein the plurality of edge holes extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of a corresponding plate.
Walker teaches and a plurality of edge holes (through-bore 136) configured to allow a plurality of connection members (fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100; as evidenced by Fig. 1, there a plurality of fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100) to pass therethrough, wherein the plurality of connection members are configured to hold together the various structures (fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100 mechanically clamps various layers of the structural assembly 10), and wherein the plurality of edge holes extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of a corresponding structure (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100 extends from top surfaces of the various layers of the structural assembly 10) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 9-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plates of Modified Maruyama to include connection members and holes to accommodate those connection members, as in Walker, to mechanically fasten the different plates and to ensure an air tightedness [Walker - Col. 3 lines 14-19].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the shock absorbing plate is configured to absorb a shock between the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate in a vertical direction,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the second layer 802B of Breiling is comprised of the same material as the instant application (polyimide), therefore it would be capable of absorbing shock [IA – 0069; Breiling - 0068, 0103].
Regarding Claim 2:
Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate, and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate.
Breiling teaches wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate (the first layer 802a may comprise of polyimide, while the second layer 802b may comprise of 300 steel or other stainless steels) and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of each of the lamp plate (the radical diffuser plate 801 may comprise of an aluminum alloy) and the upper shower head plate (it is noted that the materials listed are the same as those in the instant application, those materials being metal and polyimide for the respective plates. Therefore, since the materials are the same, the physical properties would be the same as the instant application) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003].
Furthermore, Skelly et al. (US 3787338) discloses that PI may have a friction coefficient ranging from 0.16 to 0.8. Lauer (US 20080053453) discloses 300 series steel as having an elastic modulus of 15-40 x 106 psi. Lo (US 4847136) discloses that PI films may have an elastic modulus of 5.4 x 105 psi.
Regarding Claim 7:
Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Breiling teaches wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (the thermal isolators may comprise polyimides and other plastics) [Breiling - 1A, 8C & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003].
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Maruyama (Maruyama modified by Breiling) does not specifically disclose wherein each of the connection members comprises a bolt and a nut.
Walker teaches wherein each of the connection members comprises a bolt (bolt 110) and a nut (nut 108) [Fig. 2 & Col. 6 lines 17-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plates of Modified Maruyama to include connection members and holes to accommodate those connection members, as in Walker, to mechanically fasten the different plates and to ensure an air tightedness [Walker - Col. 3 lines 14-19].
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069) and Walker et al. (US 10329008), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), and Lo (US 4847136) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 7, and 9 above, and further in view of Spencer et al. (US 4657618), Yan et al. (US 20080142057), and Sako et al. (US 4156127). Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) has also been utilized as an evidentiary non-patent literature reference herein.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 7, and 9 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate is in a range of about 1.4 mm to about 1.6 mm.
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Yan discloses a PTFE insulation layer that is between 0.5 mm and 3 mm thick [Fig. 2 & 0019]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sako also discloses that PTFE layer thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the thickness of a PTFE layer changes its heat conductivity [Sako - Col. 3 lines 23-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain a desired heat transfer profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate is largest at a center thereof and decreases from the center toward an edge of the shock absorbing plate, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness structure once under no compression.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein the shock absorbing plate has an elliptical shape when viewed from a side surface of the shock absorbing plate, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming an elliptical shape when under no compression.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate: the vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at the center of the shock absorbing plate is in a range of about 1.4 mm to about 1.6 mm, and a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at the edge of the shock absorbing plate is in a range of about 1.3 mm to about 1.4 mm, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness structure once under no compression. Furthermore, Yan discloses a PTFE structure that can range between 0.5 mm and 3 mm thick. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sako also discloses that PTFE layer thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the thickness of a PTFE layer changes its heat conductivity [Sako - Col. 3 lines 23-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain a desired heat transfer profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069), and Spencer et al. (US 4657618), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), Lo (US 4847136), Mitani et al. (US 5831648), and Farino et al. (US 5783340) as evidentiary references. Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) has also been utilized as an evidentiary non-patent literature references herein.
Regarding Claim 10:
Maruyama teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a first plate (the structure where optical paths 30-1 are disposed) [Fig. 20 & Col. 21 lines 30-48].
Maruyama does not specifically disclose a shock absorbing plate under the first plate;
a second plate under the shock absorbing plate; wherein the shock absorbing plate comprises: a plurality of holes configured to penetrate the shock absorbing plate in a vertical direction, wherein the first plate is apart from the second plate in the vertical direction, wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the first plate and the second plate, and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of the first plate and the second plate.
Breiling teaches a shock absorbing plate (first layer 802a) under the first plate (radical diffuser plate 801); a second plate (second layer 802b) under the shock absorbing plate; wherein the shock absorbing plate comprises: a plurality of holes (through holes 808) configured to penetrate the shock absorbing plate in a vertical direction, wherein the first plate is apart from the second plate in the vertical direction (radical diffuser plate is spaced apart from second layer 802b by first later 802a), wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the first plate and the second plate (the first layer 802a may comprise of polyimide, while the second layer 802b may comprise of 300 steel or other stainless steels; the friction coefficient) and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of the first plate and the second plate (the radical diffuser plate 801 may comprise of an aluminum alloy; it is noted that the materials listed are the same as those in the instant application, those materials being metal and polyimide for the respective plates. Therefore, since the materials are the same, the physical properties would be the same as the instant application) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003].
Furthermore, Skelly et al. (US 3787338) discloses that PI may have a friction coefficient ranging from 0.16 to 0.8. Lauer (US 20080053453) discloses 300 series steel as having an elastic modulus of 15-40 x 106 psi. Lo (US 4847136) discloses that PI films may have an elastic modulus of 5.4 x 105 psi.
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein the shock absorbing plate has a circular shape when viewed in the vertical direction, wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at a center thereof, when pressure is not applied to the shock absorbing plate, is greatest and decreases from the center toward an edge thereof, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness structure once under no compression.
The limitations “wherein the shock absorbing plate is configured to absorb a shock between the first plate and the second plate in the vertical direction,” are also merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the second layer 802B of Breiling is comprised of the same material as the instant application (polyimide), therefore it would be capable of absorbing shock [IA – 0069; Breiling - 0068, 0103].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate has acid resistance to hydrogen fluoride (HF).
Breiling teaches wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate has acid resistance to hydrogen fluoride (HF) (the thermal isolators may comprise polyimides and other plastics) [Breiling - 1A, 8C & 0068]. It is noted that the materials used for the first layer 802A of Breiling (polyimide) are the same are the same as those in the instant application. Therefore, since the materials are the same, the physical properties would be the same as the instant application) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003]. Farino et al. (US 5783340) also discloses that polyimide is resistant to HF [Farino - Col. 12 lines 33-37].
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate has heat resistance at 300 °C.
Breiling teaches wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate has heat resistance at 300 °C (the thermal isolators may comprise polyimides and other plastics) [Breiling - 1A, 8C & 0068]. It is noted that the materials used for the first layer 802A of Breiling (polyimide) are the same are the same as those in the instant application. Therefore, since the materials are the same, the physical properties would be the same as the instant application) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003]. Mitani et al. (US 5831648) also disclose that polyimide is temperature resistant up to 400 degrees Celsius [Mitali - Col. 26 lines 19-37].
Regarding Claim 17:
Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises a polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material.
Breiling teaches wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (the thermal isolators may comprise polyimides and other plastics) [Breiling - 1A, 8C & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069), and Spencer et al. (US 4657618), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), Lo (US 4847136), Mitani et al. (US 5831648), and Farino et al. (US 5783340) as evidentiary references, and with Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) as an evidentiary non-patent literature reference, as applied to claims 10, 14-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (US 10329008).
The limitations of claims 10, 14-15, and 17 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Maruyama teaches wherein the plurality of holes of the shock absorbing plate comprise: a center hole (a through-holes 808 positioned within the centers of each layer) configured to pass a gas, a plurality of lamp holes configured to pass a plurality of lamps, [Breiling - Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
Modified Maruyama also discloses a plurality of lamp holes configured to pass a plurality of lamps because the lamps of Maruyama go all the way through its lamp plate to face a substrate. Therefore, modifying Maruyama to include multiple layers would result in the lamps going all the way through the multiple layers to face a substrate.
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein plurality of lamps are configured to heat a substrate,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The optical paths 30-1 of Maruyama supply light energy to the wafer to control temperature distribution on the wafer and to perform heating [Maruyama - Col. 22 lines 13-31].
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose a plurality edge holes configured to pass a plurality of connection members, and wherein the plurality of connection members are configured to hold together the first plate, the shock absorbing plate, and the second plate.
Walker teaches and a plurality of edge holes (through-bore 136) configured to pass a plurality of connection members (fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100; as evidenced by Fig. 1, there a plurality of fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100) to pass therethrough, wherein the plurality of connection members are configured to hold together the various structures (fluid-tight mechanical fastening system 100 mechanically clamps various layers of the structural assembly 10) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 9-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plates of Modified Maruyama to include connection members and holes to accommodate those connection members, as in Walker, to mechanically fasten the different plates and to ensure an air tightedness [Walker - Col. 3 lines 14-19].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069), and Spencer et al. (US 4657618), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), Lo (US 4847136), Mitani et al. (US 5831648), and Farino et al. (US 5783340) as evidentiary references, and with Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) as an evidentiary non-patent literature reference, as applied to claims 10, 14-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Yan et al. (US 20080142057) and Sako et al. (US 4156127).
The limitations of claims 10, 14-15, and 17 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Maruyama (Maruyama modified by Breiling) does not specifically disclose wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at the center of the shock absorbing plate, when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate, is in a range of about 1.4 mm to about 1.6 mm, and wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at the edge of the shock absorbing plate, when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate, is in a range of about 1.3 mm to about 1.4 mm.
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness structure once under no compression. Furthermore, Yan discloses a PTFE structure that can range between 0.5 mm and 3 mm thick. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sako also discloses that PTFE layer thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the thickness of a PTFE layer changes its heat conductivity [Sako - Col. 3 lines 23-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain a desired heat transfer profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 6001175) in view of Breiling et al. (US 20140235069), Spencer et al. (US 4657618), Yan et al. (US 20080142057), and Sako et al. (US 4156127), with Skelly et al. (US 3787338), Lauer (US 20080053453), and Lo (US 4847136) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 18:
Maruyama teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (reaction chamber of Fig. 20) configured to provide a space for processing a substrate; a substrate support (susceptor 9) configured to support the substrate; a lamp plate (the structure where optical paths 30-1 are disposed) including a lower surface an upper surface opposite to the lower surface of the lamp plate (as evidenced by Fig. 20, the structure where the optical paths 30-1 are disposed comprise upper and lower surfaces), and a plurality of lamps (optical paths 30-1) configured to heat the substrate [Fig. 20 & Col. 21 lines 30-48].
Maruyama does not specifically disclose a shock absorbing plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the lamp plate and a lower surface opposite the upper surface of the shock absorbing plate; an upper shower head plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the shock absorbing plate and a lower surface opposite the upper surface of the upper shower head plate; and a lower shower head plate including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the upper shower head plate, a lower surface opposite the upper surface of the lower shower head plate and the substrate, and a plurality of spray holes configured to supply a gas onto the substrate, wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate, and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate.
Breiling teaches a shock absorbing plate (first layer 802a) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the lamp plate (radical diffuser plate 801) and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the shock absorbing plate (as evidenced by Fig. 8C the first layer 802a has lower and upper surfaces); an upper shower head plate (second layer 802b) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the shock absorbing plate and a lower surface facing the upper surface of the upper shower head plate (as evidenced by Fig. 8C the second layer 802b has lower and upper surfaces); and a lower shower head plate (precursor delivery plate 803) including an upper surface contacting the lower surface of the upper shower head plate, a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the lower shower head plate and facing the substrate (as evidenced by Figs. 1A and 8C the second layer 802b has lower and upper surfaces, with a lower surface facing a substrate), and a plurality of spray holes (through-holes 808) configured to supply a gas onto the substrate, wherein a friction coefficient of the shock absorbing plate is less than a friction coefficient of each of the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate (the first layer 802a may comprise of polyimide, while the second layer 802b may comprise of 300 steel or other stainless steels; the friction coefficient) and wherein an elastic modulus of the shock absorbing plate is less than an elastic modulus of each of the lamp plate (the radical diffuser plate 801 may comprise of an aluminum alloy) and the upper shower head plate (it is noted that the materials listed are the same as those in the instant application, those materials being metal and polyimide for the respective plates. Therefore, since the materials are the same, the physical properties would be the same as the instant application) [Fig. 1A, 8C & 0068, 0103].
Furthermore, Skelly et al. (US 3787338) discloses that PI may have a friction coefficient ranging from 0.16 to 0.8. Lauer (US 20080053453) discloses 300 series steel as having an elastic modulus of 15-40 x 106 psi. Lo (US 4847136) discloses that PI films may have an elastic modulus of 5.4 x 105 psi.
Modified Moriyama does not specifically disclose wherein a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at a center thereof, when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate, is greatest and decreases from the center toward an edge thereof, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness/elliptical structure once under no compression.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the shock absorbing plate is configured to absorb a shock between the lamp plate and the upper shower head plate in a vertical direction,” is also an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the second layer 802B of Breiling is comprised of the same material as the instant application (polyimide), therefore it would be capable of absorbing shock [IA – 0069; Breiling - 0068, 0103].
Regarding Claim 19:
Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Breiling teaches wherein a material constituting the shock absorbing plate comprises polyimide (PI) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (the thermal isolators may comprise polyimides and other plastics) [Breiling - 1A, 8C & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lamp plate of Breiling to comprise of multiple layers, as in Breiling, since the showerhead arrangement of Breiling provides improved heat regulation [Breiling - 0006, 0066, 0119]. Furthermore, modifying the processing apparatus of Maruyama to include PECVD capabilities as opposed to just thermal CVD would be obvious since plasma enhanced CVD may be performed at lower temperatures with greater flexibility in process chemistry [Breiling - 0003].
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Maruyama does not specifically disclose wherein, when no pressure is applied to the shock absorbing plate: the vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at a center of the shock absorbing plate is in a range of about 1.4 mm to about 1.6 mm, and a vertical thickness of the shock absorbing plate at an edge of the shock absorbing plate is in a range of about 1.3 mm to about 1.4 mm, however, this limitation is being considered as an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Spencer discloses that Teflon is a suitable material for a thermal insulator [Spencer - Col. 14 lines 25-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first layer 802a of Breiling to comprise of Teflon, since such is a suitable material for a thermal insulator. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Furthermore, Breiling discloses that other low-thermal conductivity plastics may be used for the first layer 802a [Breiling - 0068].
Pneumatic Handbook (Barber, 1997, p. 515-516, 521, 581) discloses that elliptical structures (such as structures comprising PTFE) are known in the art, and it is also disclosed that these structures are able to revert to an elliptical shape when no compression is applied, and flatten when a compression is applied [Barber - Pages 515-516, 521, 581]. As such, the first layer 802A of Breiling would be capable of forming a variable thickness structure once under no compression. Furthermore, Yan discloses a PTFE structure that can range between 0.5 mm and 3 mm thick. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sako also discloses that PTFE layer thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the thickness of a PTFE layer changes its heat conductivity [Sako - Col. 3 lines 23-30]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain a desired heat transfer profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Verbaas et al. (US 20190040529), Yao et al. (US 20100276084), and Honda et al. (US 20070068798) teach multilayer showerheads [Verbaas – Fig. 3; Yao – Fig. 2; Honda – Fig. 2].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718