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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 27, the limitation “the pre-heat chamber does not include an exhaust” is not supported by the original specification because this limitation is a negative limitation and the mere absence of a positive recitation in the specification and/or drawings is not basis for the exclusion of an element and it is not clear from the specification that the negative limitation is necessarily present in the disclosure, especially considering that there is no mention of “exhaust” in the specification in general. Therefore, claim 27 lacks written description support.
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) 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) in view of Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), Singh (US 20180254203 A1), Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), and Teng (US 6465369 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) teaches a multi-chamber processing cluster tool 100 comprising a factory interface 102 configured to receive substrates and having a robot 103 disposed therein for transferring substrates, a load lock chamber (104, 104a) coupled to the factory interface and having a first slit valve (105, 105a) disposed therebetween to selectively seal the load lock chamber from the factory interface, where the load lock chamber is maintained at a vacuum condition, and a lower load lock chamber 104b that may be used as a degas chamber coupled to the factory interface through a second slit valve 105b to selectively seal the degas chamber from the factory interface, one or more processing chambers (111, 112, 113) configured to process substrates, and a transfer chamber 108 coupled to the load lock chamber 104a, the degas chamber 104b, and the process chambers (111, 112, 113), where the transfer chamber includes a transfer robot 109 configured to transport substrates between the load lock chambers and process chambers (para 0054-0059, 0071, 0075; Fig. 2, 3A).
Schaller fails to explicitly teach a pre-heat chamber directly coupled to the factory interface and configured to heat the substrate. However, Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), in the analogous art of wafer processing, teaches a front end module/factory interface 114 may be directly coupled to a batch degas chamber 120 (pre-heat chamber) where the batch degas chamber connected to the factory interface may be included in addition to other batch degas chambers, including a degas chamber functioning as a load lock chamber with a slit valve between the degas chamber and the factory interface, where the reactor chamber of the batch degas (pre-heat) chamber may include heaters for heating and removing moisture/contaminants from substrates (para 0019, 0040, 0051-0054; Fig. 1-2). Schaller teaches a pre-heat chamber and/or degas chamber may be included in the apparatus (para 0075). Therefore, because Hruzek teaches that such chambers were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a batch degas chamber (pre-heat chamber) attached to the factory interface for degassing substrates before processing, thus improving throughput compared to a single degas chamber, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller and Hruzek fails to explicitly teach the load lock chamber includes a pump configured to create a vacuum environment when the first slit valve is in a closed position However, Singh (US 20180254203 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a load lock chamber 105 connected between a factory interface 114 and a transfer chamber 112 may include a pump 214 for controlling the pressure in the load lock chamber between an atmospheric and vacuum state (configured to create a vacuum environment when the first slit valve is in a closed position) (para 0018, 0022; Fig. 1-2). Schaller teaches the load lock chamber provides a vacuum interface (para 0056). Therefore, because Singh teaches that such pumps were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump in the load lock chamber of Schaller to control the pressure between an atmospheric state and a vacuum state to act as a vacuum interface with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller, Hruzek, and Singh fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber includes a second pump configured to create a vacuum environment when the second slit valve is in a closed position and includes a heat source configured to remove contaminants from the substrate. However, Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a degas chamber 320 may contain gate valves (313, 314), heaters 321 (heat source) for removing gases (contaminants) from the substrate, and a pump 355 capable of creating a vacuum environment when the gate valves (second slit valve) are closed (para 0011, 0030-0031; Fig. 3). Schaller teaches the load lock chamber used as a degas chamber may serve as a vacuum interface and is configured to perform a degassing process (para 0056, 0075). Therefore, because Bluck teaches that such degas chamber components were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump and heaters in the degas chamber of Schaller, where the degas chamber has slit valves on each side of the chamber, to perform the degassing process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, and Bluck fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber is configured to heat the substrate to a higher temperature than the pre-heat chamber. However, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. 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. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned references teach all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of heating the substrate to a higher temperature in the degas chamber than in the pre-heat chamber.
Alternatively, the combination of Schaller and Hruzek teaches the pre-heat chamber and degas chamber are both degas chambers (Schaller para 0075; Hruzek para 0040) but is silent to the temperature of heating in each chamber. However, Teng (US 6465369 B1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that degassing chambers may be operated having a first low temperature and a second higher temperature (col 3 line 15-67; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the temperatures of the pre-heat and degas chambers of Schaller and Hruzek with the degas temperatures of Teng because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of degassing. As a result, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng includes a pre-heat chamber configured to heat at a low temperature as well as a high temperature and a degas chamber configured to heat at the same low temperature and high temperature and thus is at least capable of heating the substrate to a second temperature in the degas chamber higher than a first temperature in the pre-heat chamber.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber is larger than the load lock chamber. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, so the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Alternatively, Bluck teaches the degas chamber 320 may include multiple carriers at the same time (para 0011, 0030-0031), thus resulting in a larger chamber than the load lock chamber 104a designed to hold a single substrate (Schaller Fig. 3A). Because Bluck teaches that such degas chamber arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the degas chamber arrangement of Bluck, including a larger area for holding multiple substrate carriers, in the apparatus of Schaller to perform the degassing process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches the batch degas chamber 120 (pre-heat chamber) may be disposed on a front side 114F opposite to a rear side 114R having the loadlock chambers (112A, 112B), where the degas chamber of Schaller is a loadlock chamber (pre-heat chamber opposite the degas chamber) (Hruzek para 0030-0033; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches the one or more process chambers (111, 112, 113) may include a pre-clean chamber (cleaning chamber) and a PVD chamber (one or more deposition chambers) (Schaller para 0071; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches the load lock chamber and degas chamber (104a, 104b) are in a stacked configuration (Schaller para 0073, 0075; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches one or more process chambers defined as a single PVD chamber, where the PVD chamber may have a gas source 82 (gas delivery system) for delivering a gas such as argon (capable of delivering process gases) to the chamber (Schaller para 0011, 0071; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber includes a substrate support for supporting a plurality of substrates. However, Hruzek teaches that a batch degas chamber that may be used between the factory interface 114 and the mainframe 101 of the apparatus and configured to perform the functions of the loadlock chamber, where the degas chamber is configured to perform a degas process on multiple substrates and including a cassette (124, 324) (substrate support) for holding multiple substrates, wherein the degas chamber may be in a vacuum environment and may include multiple heaters (para 0014, 0031-0032, 0041, 0043-0044; Fig. 1, 3A). Schaller teaches the degas chamber 104b may be between the factory interface 102 and the mainframe 110 and may contain a substrate support (para 0073-0075; Fig. 2, 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the degas chamber substrate support of Schaller with the degas chamber substrate support of Hruzek, including a cassette for holding a plurality of substrates, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng fails to explicitly teach the one or more process chambers include a first physical vapor deposition chamber and a second PVD chamber. However, Hruzek teaches that the process chambers 108A-108I may each be configured for performing ay suitable process of substrates such as PVD (para 0029; Fig. 1). Additionally, Schaller teaches multiple processing chambers may be different PVD chambers (para 0166). Therefore, because Hruzek and Schaller teaches that such process chamber arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least two PVD chambers (first PVD chamber and second PVD chamber) as the one or more processing chambers (111, 112, 113) of Schaller (Fig. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) in view of Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), Singh (US 20180254203 A1), Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), and Teng (US 6465369 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori (US 20140068962 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches the degas chamber 104b includes a substrate support for supporting the substrate (Schaller Fig. 3A) but fails to explicitly teach the heat source comprises a microwave heat source or one or more heating elements disposed in the substrate support. However, Mori (US 20140068962 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a degas chamber 100 may include a substrate support 102 for supporting a substrate 104, a heat source 106 (one or more heating elements) embedded in the substrate support as an alternative to a heat lamp, a microwave radiation source 108 (microwave heat source), and a vacuum source 118 (pump) used to maintain vacuum (para 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0034; Fig. 1). Bluck teaches that a degas chamber may include heating elements such as infrared lamps (para 0030-0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heaters/lamps of Schaller in view of Bluck with a heat source including resistive heaters embedded in the substrate support and a microwave radiation source because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of performing a degas process. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) in view of Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), Singh (US 20180254203 A1), Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), and Teng (US 6465369 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noorbakhsh (US 20210351014 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Teng teaches the slit valves each comprise a slit valve door 382 and an activation member 381 (actuator) configured to move the door between an open and closed position (selectively open or close a slit opening) (Schaller para 0102; Fig. 4A). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the actuator is configured for L-motion. However, Noorbakhsh (US 20210351014 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that slit doors may be moved in an L-motion by an actuator to reduce or prevent generation of unwanted particles through rubbing of chamber components (para 0021, 0031). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the actuator of Schaller with the actuators of Noorbakhsh moving the slit doors in an L-motion (configured for L-motion)s to reduce or prevent generation of unwanted particles because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 21-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) in view of Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), Singh (US 20180254203 A1), Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), and Lee (US 20110265831 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) teaches a multi-chamber processing cluster tool 100 comprising a factory interface 102 configured to receive substrates and having a robot 103 disposed therein for transferring substrates, one or more pods 101 (loadports) coupled to the factory interface and configured to store substrates, a load lock chamber (104, 104a) coupled to the factory interface and having a first slit valve (105, 105a) disposed therebetween to selectively seal the load lock chamber from the factory interface, where the load lock chamber is maintained at a vacuum condition, and a lower load lock chamber 104b that may be used as a degas chamber coupled to the factory interface through a second slit valve 105b to selectively seal the degas chamber from the factory interface, one or more processing chambers (111, 112, 113) configured to process substrates, and a transfer chamber 108 coupled to the load lock chamber 104a, the degas chamber 104b, and the process chambers (111, 112, 113), where the transfer chamber includes a transfer robot 109 configured to transport substrates between the load lock chambers and process chambers (para 0054-0059, 0071, 0075; Fig. 2, 3A).
Schaller fails to explicitly teach a pre-heat chamber directly coupled to the factory interface and configured to heat the substrate. However, Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), in the analogous art of wafer processing, teaches a front end module/factory interface 114 may be directly coupled to a batch degas chamber 120 (pre-heat chamber) where the batch degas chamber connected to the factory interface may be included in addition to other batch degas chambers, including a degas chamber functioning as a load lock chamber with a slit valve between the degas chamber and the factory interface, where the reactor chamber of the batch degas (pre-heat) chamber may include heaters for heating and removing moisture/contaminants from substrates, and wherein the batch degas chamber (pre-heat chamber) may be positioned adjacent to loadports 115 (one or more loadports on a same side of the factory interface as the pre-heat chamber) (para 0019, 0030-0033, 0040, 0051-0054; Fig. 1-2). Schaller teaches a pre-heat chamber and/or degas chamber may be included in the apparatus (para 0075). Therefore, because Hruzek teaches that such chambers were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a batch degas chamber (pre-heat chamber) attached to the factory interface on a same side of the factory interface as the pods/loadports of Schaller for degassing substrates before processing, thus improving throughput compared to a single degas chamber, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller and Hruzek fails to explicitly teach the load lock chamber includes a pump configured to create a vacuum environment when the first slit valve is in a closed position However, Singh (US 20180254203 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a load lock chamber 105 connected between a factory interface 114 and a transfer chamber 112 may include a pump 214 for controlling the pressure in the load lock chamber between an atmospheric and vacuum state (configured to create a vacuum environment when the first slit valve is in a closed position) (para 0018, 0022; Fig. 1-2). Schaller teaches the load lock chamber provides a vacuum interface (para 0056). Therefore, because Singh teaches that such pumps were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump in the load lock chamber of Schaller to control the pressure between an atmospheric state and a vacuum state to act as a vacuum interface with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller, Hruzek, and Singh fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber includes a second pump configured to create a vacuum environment when the second slit valve is in a closed position and includes a heat source configured to remove contaminants from the substrate. However, Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a degas chamber 320 may contain gate valves (313, 314), heaters 321 (heat source) for removing gases (contaminants) from the substrate, and a pump 355 capable of creating a vacuum environment when the gate valves (second slit valve) are closed (para 0011, 0030-0031; Fig. 3). Schaller teaches the load lock chamber used as a degas chamber may serve as a vacuum interface and is configured to perform a degassing process (para 0056, 0075). Therefore, because Bluck teaches that such degas chamber arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump and heaters in the degas chamber of Schaller, where the degas chamber has slit valves on each side of the chamber, to perform the degassing process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, and Bluck fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber includes a vent separate from the second pump disposed outside of an interface between the factory interface and the degas chamber. However, Schaller teaches vents 323 may be formed in a bottom wall of a chamber to connect to a pump and the degas chamber may be a load lock chamber (para 0075, 0114; Fig. 4A). Additionally, Lee (US 20110265831 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a load lock chamber may be evacuated to match the environment of the transfer chamber and be vented to match the environment of the factory interface by including one or more vent passages 230 and a pump passage 232 (vent separate from the second pump), where the vent passage may be disposed on a top of the chamber body or on one of the chamber walls (outside of an interface between the factory interface and the degas chamber) (para 0028; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump passage and at least one vent passage in the load lock/degas chamber of Schaller for controlling the evacuation of the load lock chamber.
Alternatively, though the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the vent is disposed outside of an interface between the factory interface and the degas chamber. However, shifting the position of the vent to a surface outside of an interface between the factory interface and the degas chamber would not have modified the operation of the device and thus is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the degas chamber is larger than the load lock chamber. However, the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, so the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Alternatively, Bluck teaches the degas chamber 320 may include multiple carriers at the same time (para 0011, 0030-0031), thus resulting in a larger chamber than the load lock chamber 104a designed to hold a single substrate (Schaller Fig. 3A). Because Bluck teaches that such degas chamber arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the degas chamber arrangement of Bluck, including a larger area for holding multiple substrate carriers, in the apparatus of Schaller to perform the degassing process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the batch degas chamber 120 (pre-heat chamber) may be disposed on a front side 114F opposite to a rear side 114R having the loadlock chambers (112A, 112B), where the degas chamber of Schaller is a loadlock chamber (pre-heat chamber opposite the degas chamber) (Hruzek para 0030-0033; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the one or more process chambers (111, 112, 113) may include a pre-clean chamber (cleaning chamber) and a PVD chamber (one or more deposition chambers) (Schaller para 0071; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the load lock chamber and degas chamber (104a, 104b) are in a stacked configuration (Schaller para 0073-0075; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the degas chamber may be the lower load lock chamber 104b (degas chamber is disposed below the load lock chamber) (Schaller para 0073-0075; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the vent 230 may include an air filter 236 (Lee para 0028; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US 20120325140 A1) in view of Hruzek (US 20210398824 A1), Singh (US 20180254203 A1), Bluck (US 20180061689 A1), and Lee (US 20110265831 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mori (US 20140068962 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Schaller, Hruzek, Singh, Bluck, and Lee teaches the degas chamber 104b includes a substrate support for supporting the substrate (Schaller Fig. 3A) but fails to explicitly teach the heat source comprises a microwave heat source or one or more heating elements disposed in the substrate support. However, Mori (US 20140068962 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a degas chamber 100 may include a substrate support 102 for supporting a substrate 104, a heat source 106 (one or more heating elements) embedded in the substrate support as an alternative to a heat lamp, a microwave radiation source 108 (microwave heat source), and a vacuum source 118 (pump) used to maintain vacuum (para 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0034; Fig. 1). Bluck teaches that a degas chamber may include heating elements such as infrared lamps (para 0030-0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heaters/lamps of Schaller in view of Bluck with a heat source including resistive heaters embedded in the substrate support and a microwave radiation source because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of performing a degas process. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed 2/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Teng (US 6465369 B1) and Lee (US 20110265831 A1).
Teng teaches heating degas chambers to multiple temperatures, thus making the degas chamber capable of heating to a higher temperature than the pre-heat chamber.
Lee teaches a vent separate from a pump for use in a load lock chamber where the vent may be disposed outside of an interface between the factory interface and the degas chamber.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not equate a degas chamber to a pre-heat chamber. This argument is not persuasive because one skilled in the art would understand a pre-heat chamber to be any chamber that can heat the substrate. Additionally, it should be noted that the degas chamber of Hruzek is at least capable of functioning as a pre-heat chamber for reducing substrate time spent in the degas chamber by operating at a lower temperature and/or for a shorter period of time.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights