DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (5/2/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) are pending and being examined.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Yashima (US 5685949) in view of Koji Maruyama (US 7442274) and Zhang et al (CN104425197).
Koji Yashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 1, 10) comprising:
a chamber (22) including a processing space;
a support table (30) provided within the processing space of the chamber and configured to support a substrate;
a dielectric plate (21) covering an opening in an upper wall of the chamber;
a transparent electrode provided on the dielectric plate (20);
Koji Yashima discloses using heating rays using halogen lamps to heat a substrate in less time while processing with plasma (Abstract) but does not specifically disclose using laser and a cooling device configured to cool the transparent electrode by injecting a cooling gas toward the transparent electrode.
Koji Maruyama discloses a plasma apparatus (Fig 1) where light source (40) is used in presence of plasma generated using RF applied to an electrode where the light source could be a halogen lamp or a laser (Col 4 lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used laser for heating lamps for quickly heating the substrate.
Koji Yashima in view of Koji Maruyama do not disclose cooling the electrode and attached dielectric plate. It is noted that after the process or during the process the dielectric plate and electrode would need to be cooled for handling and protect from cracking.
Zhang et al discloses air cooling of dielectric window in a plasma chamber where cooling air is introduced through multiple holes (Abstract, para 16 and Fig 4). The cooling apparatus includes fan box (85) with multiple air holes to blow air over a dielectric plate (10) parallel to upper surface of the dielectric plate and suction block (86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used cooling arrangement taught by Zhang in Koji Yashima.
Regarding claim 10 Zhang discloses adjusting the angle between 40o-50o. Therefore, having some mechanical device to adjust it would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 11 injection at an angle is disclosed by Zhang. Also, additional injection block would only be a duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 12 the electrode is disclosed to be indium tin oxide (Col 8 lines 65-68) and dielectric plate of SiO2 which would be quartz (Col 6 lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 13, dry air is disclosed as cooling gas by Zhang and others.
Regarding claim 14, Koji Yashima in view of Koji Maruyama disclose a second power supply (19) to an electrode at the support table for bias (Koji Maruyama Fig 5). Power supply 15 corresponds to the first power supply applied to upper electrode with respect to the substrate support electrode.
All the limitations of claim 15 are disclosed as discussed above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Yashima (US 5685949) in view of Koji Maruyama (US 7442274) and Zhang et al (CN104425197) and McChesney (US 20210050188).
Regarding claim 3 it is noted that as recited in claim 4, gas is injected at an inclined direction and is disclosed in Zhang. However, it is noted that in a similar cooling apparatus by McChesney, it is taught that the normal angle (Fig 6B) being 25o-35o but could be anything suitable to control the temperature of the dielectric window (Para 35).
Therefore, regarding claim 3, the angle being 0 would be obvious for required temperature uniformity.
Claims 5-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Yashima (US 5685949) in view of Koji Maruyama (US 7442274) and Zhang et al (CN104425197) and Masaki Suzuki (US 20050145341).
Koji Yashima in view of Koji Maruyama and Zhang et al do not particularly disclose regarding claim 5 that the injection ports are spaced.
Masaki Suzuki disclose a dielectric window cooling by blowing air horizontally through equally spaced holes using a fan (Fig 10) and in a slightly different way in Fig 11 across horizontal dielectric window.
Therefore, using spaced holes to uniformly spread cooling air in dielectric window of Koji Yashima in view of Koji Maruyama and Zhang et al would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Claim 6 requires the length of the suction port in second direction (corresponding to Y direction in Fig 2) is greater than a length of each injection port in the same direction. This points to the fact that the suction port is wide to provide suction to all air flows. Zhang discloses a wide suctions box to exhaust all the cooling air and thus meets the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected with claim 2 as being disclosed before.
Claim 8 appears to require another pair of gas injection and suction. This would be merely a duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 9 the walls in Zhang and Masaki Suzuki provide the functions of guides blocks.
Claim 16 is rejected with claim 5.
Regarding claim 17 having air flow width more than the electrode and dielectric window would have been obvious since a shorter width would not cool them at the edge and cooling uniformity would suffer.
Regarding claim 18 the injection block and suction block should not overlap the electrode and dielectric window so that air flow is over them completely.
Regarding claim 19 laser is disclosed as above by Koji Maruyama.
Limitations of claim 20 are disclosed as above except the height of the injection block and suction block. Regarding the heights, it is noted that they would be determined by optimization to ensure uniform flow for uniform cooling. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a too narrow suction opening will not be effective in exhausting all the air reaching it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jia (CN108807214) discloses cooling air at different angles on a dielectric window (Fig 3 and 4).
Nicholas Pasch (US 5696428) discloses a plasma processing apparatus where a laser beam is used to irradiate a substrate and coil with a first power supply (28) used for plasma and a second power supply (32) is used.
Moon (KR 10-2019-0136662) discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) where a dielectric window 140 is cooled by cooling gas made to flow parallel to the window as in (Fig 12-14).
Yi et al (CN 108468086) disclose a plasma CVD apparatus (Fig 1) where a dielectric window 23 is cooled by flowing cooling gas parallel to the window surface (Fig 2).
Stowell et al (US 20150348757) disclose a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) where a dielectric window 106 is cooled by flowing cooling gas parallel to the window surface (160).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716