DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “system foreline” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong (U.S. 2022/0018024) in view of Ghosh et al. (U.S. 2020/0216952).
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0029], Tong discloses a substrate processing chamber, comprising: a chamber body 202 including a first end and a second end (par.[0025]); a lid 204 coupled to the first end of the chamber body (par.[0029]); an isolator 258 disposed on an upper surface of the lid; a faceplate disposed on an upper surface of the isolator (par.[0029]); a substrate support 228 disposed on a shaft extending through the second end of the chamber body, wherein a processing region is defined between the substrate support and the faceplate (pars.[0025]-[0026]); a pumping liner positioned within the chamber body having a plurality of apertures 325; and an exhaust outlet 231 in fluid communication with a system foreline 264 and the plurality of apertures (pars.[0031]-[0039]).
Tong is silent on a pumping ring positioned within the chamber body, wherein the pumping ring comprises a flange extending in a plane generally parallel with a top surface of the substrate support, the flange defining a plurality of apertures.
Referring to Figure 1B and paragraphs [0031]-[0032], Ghosh et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art that a pumping ring positioned within the chamber body, wherein the pumping ring comprises a flange extending in a plane generally parallel with a top surface of the substrate support, the flange defining a plurality of apertures since it is an alternate and equivalent means used to provide uniform exhausting of process gases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Tong with a pumping ring positioned within the chamber body, wherein the pumping ring comprises a flange extending in a plane generally parallel with a top surface of the substrate support, the flange defining a plurality of apertures as taught by Ghosh et al. since it is an alternate and equivalent means used to provide uniform exhausting of process gases. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
With respect to claim 7, the substrate processing chamber of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. further comprising a pumping support 194 disposed between the pumping ring and the chamber body, wherein the pumping support defines: a pumping channel 144 in fluid communication with the plurality of apertures 14; and a pumping exit 148 in fluid communication with the pumping channel and the system foreline (Ghosh et al.-Fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong (U.S. 2022/0018024) in view of Ghosh et al. (U.S. 2020/0216952) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2009/0280040).
The teachings of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. have been discussed above.
Tong in view of Ghosh et al. is silent on wherein: the flange comprises a first section and a second section; the first section defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume.
With respect to claim 2, referring to Figure 3 and paragraph [0068]-[0070], Park et al. teach a pumping ring 20 wherein the flange comprises a first section (i.e. closest to exhaust A) and a second section; the first section defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume in order to provide uniform gas discharge through the pumping ring (par.[0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. with the flange comprises a first section and a second section; the first section defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume as taught by Park et al. in order to provide uniform gas discharge through the pumping ring.
With respect to claim 3, the substrate processing chamber of claim 2, wherein the first section is closer to the exhaust outlet than the second section (Park et al. -Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, the substrate processing chamber of claim 3, wherein the first portion of apertures includes a lesser number of apertures than the second portion of apertures (Park et al. -Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 5, the substrate processing chamber of claim 3, wherein the first portion of apertures includes an equal number of apertures as the second portion of apertures (Park et al. -Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, the substrate processing chamber of claim 5, wherein each aperture of the first portion of apertures includes a lesser void volume than each aperture of the second portion of apertures (Park et al.-Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong (U.S. 2022/0018024) in view of Ghosh et al. (U.S. 2020/0216952) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Mustafa et al. (U.S. 2021/0187521).
The teachings of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. have been discussed above.
Tong in view of Ghosh et al. is silent on wherein a bottom surface of the isolator is generally coplanar with a bottom surface of the faceplate.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0026], Mustafa et al. teach a substrate processing chamber wherein a bottom surface of the isolator 156 is generally coplanar with a bottom surface of the faceplate 110 as an alternate arrangement since it is obvious design choice in order to achieve the desired substrate processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. with wherein a bottom surface of the isolator is generally coplanar with a bottom surface of the faceplate as taught by Mustafa et al. since it is obvious design choice in order to achieve the desired substrate processing conditions.
Tong in view of Ghosh et al. is silent on the isolator includes an isolator body 156 and an isolator extension extending from the isolator body at an angle, wherein the isolator extension forms the bottom surface of the isolator.
With respect to claim 9, referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0026], Mustafa et al. teach a substrate processing chamber the isolator includes an isolator body 156 and an isolator extension extending from the isolator body at an angle, wherein the isolator extension forms the bottom surface of the isolator since it is obvious design choice in order to achieve the desired substrate processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. with wherein the isolator includes an isolator body and an isolator extension extending from the isolator body at an angle, wherein the isolator extension forms the bottom surface of the isolator as taught by Mustafa et al. since it is obvious design choice in order to achieve the desired substrate processing conditions.
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafa et al. (U.S. 2021/0187521) in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2009/0280040).
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0021]-[0026], Mustafa et al. disclose a gas distribution assembly, comprising: a pumping liner 114, 126 and an isolator 156 comprising a base portion, a body portion, and an extension portion, wherein the extension portion of the isolator is disposed above and generally parallel to the transition portion of the pumping ring.
Mustafa et al. is silent on a pumping ring comprising a ring body, a transition portion, and a flange extending transverse from the ring body, wherein: the flange defines a plurality of apertures extending from a top surface of the flange to a bottom surface of the flange; the flange includes a first section and a second section; the first section of the flange defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section of the flange defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume.
Referring to Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087], Park et al. teach a pumping ring 40 comprising a ring body 46, a transition portion 49, and a flange 45 extending transverse from the ring body, wherein: the flange defines a plurality of apertures 58 extending from a top surface of the flange to a bottom surface of the flange; the flange includes a first section and a second section; the first section of the flange defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section of the flange defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume since it is an alternate and equivalent means used to provide uniform exhausting of process gases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Mustafa et al. with a pumping ring comprising a ring body, a transition portion, and a flange extending transverse from the ring body, wherein: the flange defines a plurality of apertures extending from a top surface of the flange to a bottom surface of the flange; the flange includes a first section and a second section; the first section of the flange defines a first portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures and the second section of the flange defines a second portion of apertures of the plurality of apertures; and the first section defines a first sectional void volume based on the first portion of apertures and the second section defines a second sectional void volume based on the second portion of apertures, wherein the first sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume as taught by Park et al. since it is an alternate and equivalent means used to provide uniform exhausting of process gases. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
With respect to claim 11, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures includes a frustoconical shape (The shape of the aperture is designed to promote and enhance gas flow for the desired substrate process. Hence, it should be noted that the frustoconical shape of the claimed aperture was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular frustoconical shape of the claimed aperture was significant.).
With respect to claim 12, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein: the flange 45 includes a top surface and a bottom surface; and the top surface defines a first width of the at least one aperture and the bottom surface defines a second width of the at least one aperture, the first width being smaller than the second width (As stated above, the shape of the aperture is a matter of obvious design choice.).
With respect to claim 13, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the first portion of apertures 58 (i.e. near exhaust A) includes a lesser number of apertures than the second portion of apertures 58 (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 14, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the first portion of apertures 58 (i.e. near exhaust A) includes an equal number of apertures as the second portion of apertures 58 (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 15, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein each aperture of the first portion of apertures 58 (i.e. near exhaust A) includes a lesser void volume than each aperture of the second portion of apertures 58 (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 16, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein: the flange 45 includes a third section positioned between the first and second sections; the third section defining a third portion of apertures 58 of the plurality of apertures; and the third section defines a third sectional void volume based on the third portion of apertures, wherein the third sectional void volume is less than the second sectional void volume and greater than the first sectional void volume (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 17, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the third portion of apertures 58 includes a lesser number of apertures than the second portion of apertures 58 and a greater number than the first portion of apertures 58 (i.e. near exhaust A) (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 18, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the third portion of apertures 58 includes an equal number of apertures as at least one of the first portion of apertures 58 (i.e. near exhaust A) and the second portion of apertures 58 (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
With respect to claim 19, the gas distribution assembly of Mustafa et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein each aperture 58 of the third portion of apertures includes a lesser void volume than each aperture of the at least one of the first or second portion of apertures (Park et al.-Figures 4-7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong (U.S. 2022/0018024) in view of Ghosh et al. (U.S. 2020/0216952) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Mustafa et al. (U.S. 2011/0042009).
The teachings of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. have been discussed above.
Tong in view of Ghosh et al. is silent on a method of semiconductor processing comprising: flowing a carbon-containing precursor into a processing chamber.
Referring to paragraph [0007], Lee et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a method of semiconductor processing comprising: flowing a carbon-containing precursor (i.e. carbon tetrafluoride) into a processing chamber in order to perform the desired etching process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Tong in view of Ghosh et al. with flowing a carbon-containing precursor into a processing chamber as taught by Lee et al. in order to perform the desired etching process. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carducci’169, Park’969, Komiya’610, Cho’568, Tong’144, Ambal’346, Mustafa’572, Han Chang’322, Park’185, and Ma et al.’368 teach a pumping ring. Or’949 teach a plasma processing chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights