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
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2022/0122879) in view of Bobek et al. (US 12,211,673)..
Regarding claim 1, Patil et al. teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
a processing chamber, 700, comprising:
a chamber body, 705, comprising a sidewall and a base;
a pumping liner, 718, seated atop the chamber body;
a faceplate, 720, seated atop the pumping liner;
a substrate support, 725, disposed within the chamber body, the substrate support comprising a support plate, 730, and a shaft, 750, coupled with the support plate;
a seal plate, 760, that is coupled with the shaft and that extends below the support plate, the seal plate having a greater diameter than the support plate, wherein the seal plate comprises an RF gasket, 777, disposed radially outward of the support plate, wherein:
the substrate support and the seal plate are vertically translatable within the chamber body between a transfer position in which the RF gasket is vertically spaced apart from a bottom surface of the pumping liner and a process position in which the RF gasket is in contact with the bottom surface of the pumping liner, see figures 7A and 7B; and
a processing region formed between the faceplate and the support plate is isolated from an environment below the sealing plate when the substrate support and the seal plate are in the process position, see figure 7B and paragraphs 0064 through 0066.
Patil et al. does not teach a bellow that extends between the base of the chamber body and a support on which the shaft of the substrate support is mounted and that isoaltes an interiror of the below from a higher pressure environment. Bobek et al. teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising a processing chamber, comprising a sidewall, 212, and a base, 216. Bobek et al. further teaches a substrate support plate, 228, and a shaft, 226, and a support on which the shaft is mounted, see figure 2, and a bellow that extends between the base of the chamber and the support, see figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the bellow taught by Bobek et al. with the substrate support and shaft of Patil et al. in order to seal and protect the shaft when it is lowered outside of the chamber body.
Regarding claim 2, Patil et al. does not teach a dielectric spacer disposed between the pumping liner and the faceplate. Bobek et al. teaches a processing system with a dielectric spacer, 258, between a liner and a lid, 204. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the spacer of Bobek et al. with the system of Patil et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of thermally isolating the faceplate from the processing system.
Regarding claim 4, Patil et la. teaches the processing region is symmetrical with respect to each of gas flow, thermal distribution, and RF distribution, see figures 7A and 7B, which shows a symmetrical processing region about a central axis, and paragraph 0067 discusses the symmetrical RF distribution.
Regarding claim 5, Patil et al. teaches the processing region is structurally symmetrical, see figure 7A.
Regarding claim 13, Patil et al. teaches:
a transfer chamber, 112, coupled with the processing chamber, 108; and
at least one additional processing chamber that shares the base of the chamber body with the chamber and the transfer chamber, wherein the processing region of the processing chamber and a processing region of the at least one additional processing chamber are isolated from one another when the substrate support is in the process position, see paragraph 0052.
Regarding claim 14, Patil et al. teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
a transfer chamber, 112, that comprises at least one transfer apparatus, 110;
a plurality of processing chambers, 108, that are horizontally aligned with one another, each of the plurality of processing chambers being coupled with the transfer chamber, wherein each of the plurality of processing chambers comprises:
a chamber body, 705, comprising a sidewall and a base;
a pumping liner, 718, seated atop the chamber body;
a faceplate, 720, seated atop the pumping liner;
a substrate support, 725, disposed within the chamber body, the substrate support comprising a support plate, 730, and a shaft, 750, coupled with the support plate;
a seal plate, 760, that is coupled with the shaft and that extends below the support plate, the seal plate having a greater diameter than the support plate, wherein the seal plate comprises an RF gasket, 777, disposed radially outward of the support plate, wherein:
the substrate support and the seal plate are vertically translatable within the chamber body between a transfer position in which the RF gasket is vertically spaced apart from a bottom surface of the pumping liner and a process position in which the RF gasket is in contact with the bottom surface of the pumping liner, see figures 7A and 7B; and
a processing region formed between the faceplate and the support plate is isolated from an environment below the sealing plate when the substrate support and the seal plate are in the process position, see figure 7B and paragraphs 0064 through 0066.
Patil et al. does not teach a bellow that extends between the base of the chamber body and a support on which the shaft of the substrate support is mounted and that isoaltes an interiror of the below from a higher pressure environment. Bobek et al. teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising a processing chamber, comprising a sidewall, 212, and a base, 216. Bobek et al. further teaches a substrate support plate, 228, and a shaft, 226, and a support on which the shaft is mounted, see figure 2, and a bellow that extends between the base of the chamber and the support, see figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the bellow taught by Bobek et al. with the substrate support and shaft of Patil et al. in order to seal and protect the shaft when it is lowered outside of the chamber body.
Regarding claim 15, Patil et al. teaches the base of each of the plurality of processing chambers forms a bottom surface of the transfer chamber, see figure 1 which shows the chambers connected together at the same horizontal level.
Regarding claim 16, Patil et al. teaches the plurality of processing chambers are arranged in a single row on one side of the at least one transfer apparatus, see figure 1 which teaches multiple first rows of processing chambers, 108, as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Patil et al. teaches the plurality of processing chambers are arranged in a plurality of rows on multiple sides of the at least one transfer apparatus, see figure 1, which shows this configuration.
Regarding claim 18, Patil et al. teaches a lid plate, 405, that is seated atop the chamber body of each of the plurality of processing chambers.
Regarding claim 21, Patil et la. teaches: the pumping liner, 718, defines a plurality of exhaust apertures configured to allow gases and byproducts to be pumped from the processing region; the pumping liner, 718, is coupled to define a portion of a lateral boundary of the processing region; and the pumping liner contacts the RF gasket,777, to complete an RF return path, see paragraphs 0058 for description of pumping liner and figure 7C showing RF path.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2022/0122879) in view of Bobek et al. (US 12,211,673) and further in view of Sulyman et al. (US 2022/0293451).
Regarding claim 8, neither Patil et al. nor Bobek et al. teach a semiconductor processing system, further comprising:
a plurality of lift pins that are extendible through the support plate, wherein each of the plurality of lift pins comprises:
a spring-loaded plunger that is coupled with the base of the chamber body;
and a pin member that is biased by the spring-loaded plunger in an upward direction.
Sulyman et al. teaches a semiconductor processing system comprising:
a plurality of lift pins, 200, that are extendible through the support plate, wherein each of the plurality of lift pins comprises:
a spring-loaded plunger, 260, that is coupled with the base of the chamber body, see spring 270;
and a pin, 210, member that is biased by the spring-loaded plunger in an upward direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lift pins of Sulyman et al. with the system taught by the combination of Patil et al. in view of Bobek et al. in order to provide a pin support to receive the substrates as they are loaded into the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 9, Sulyman et al. teaches each of the plurality of lift pins, 200, comprises a pin guide, 220, that is coupled with one or both of the seal plate and a head of the pin member.
Regarding claim 10, Sulyman et al. teaches each of the plurality of lift pins comprises a pin bellow, 250, that extends between the seal plate and the base of the chamber body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The prior art does not teach that the spring loaded plunger and the pin member separate, as claimed. Sulyman et al. is considered the best prior art and teaches the plunger is attached to the distal end of the pin, so it would not be obvious to modify the prior art to teach this.
The prior art does not teach the plunger and spring between the recess of the plunger and the base of the chamber body, as claimed. Sulyman et al. is considered the best prior art and this is not how the plunger and spring function in the Sulyman et al. reference and there is no motivation to modify the reference to teach this feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the applicant’s amendment, previously relied upon prior art, Bobek et al. was combined with Patil et al. to teach the invention claimed in amended claims 1 and 14. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13-18 and 21 are rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
30 March 2026