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
Claims 5, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “the arithmetic mean roughness is about 0.5 and about 2” is recited in claims 5, 17, 19, and 20 uses a relative term “about” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification ([0006], [0050], [0058], [0066]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner is unsure if the claimed range includes just whole numbers or also includes decimals to the tenth as the “0.5” suggests. Furthermore, could the arithmetic mean roughness be 0.3 – 3 as the term “about” allows for +/- the numerical values recited. For the purposes of examination, the range with the phrase “the arithmetic mean roughness is about 0.5 and about 2” is interpreted as 0.5-2.0. It is suggested that if applicant amends the claims by deleting the term “about”, for the sake of correspondence and to avoid lack of antecedent basis, applicant is urged to also amend the specification.
Claims 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that the light source emission wavelength ranges “about 380 nm to about 1000nm” and “about 100 nm to about 400nm” as recited in claims 19 and 20. The term “about” is not clarified in the specification. The specification (as seen in [0006] and [0035]) does not provide clarification of the wavelength range as the term “about” is unclear when used in the range. The examiner is unsure if the claimed range includes integers (whole number) or decimals. For example, if the wavelength ranges 370-1002 nm or 378.8 – 1001.5 nm.
For the purposes of examination, the wavelength range in claim 2 is interpreted as “380 nm to 1000 nm” and the wavelength range in claims 19 and 20 is interpreted as 100-400 nm. It is suggested that if applicant amends the claims by deleting the term “about”, for the sake of correspondence and avoid lack of antecedent basis, applicant is urged to also amend the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (US 2017/0103907) in view of McNulty et al (US 2002/0180351).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Chu et al teaches substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber 200 including a susceptor 206 to support a substrate 202; a reflective housing (reflector 254) outside the chamber; a light source (radiant heating lamps 204) in the reflective housing, the light source being configured to emit a light toward the susceptor; and a light adjuster between the light source and the susceptor, the light adjuster including a support portion (see Fig. 2) supported inside the chamber and a lens coupled to the support portion, and the lens 208 including a transmission portion configured to transmit the light.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Chu et al
The prior art of Chu et al fails to teach the lens includes a scattering pattern portion configured to scatter the light.
The prior art of McNulty et al teaches a light source 10 with a reflector (DBR 70) disposed on encapsulating structure 30. It is with a reasonable expectation of success that when using a lens in another part of the chamber such as the case of Chu et al and there is an additional need for scattering of light to further adjust the light path, one would look to the art such as McNulty et al with teaches light sources and lens with scattering portions. According to [0028] of McNulty et al the DBR 70 comprises a stack or series of materials (which are interpreted as the patterns). These patterns are ring shaped and adjust the scattering or reflective amount and path of the light. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a scattering portion in the lens as suggested by McNulty to enhance the adjustment of light transmitted to the wafer. In the case of McNulty the lens with scattering portion are located on the light source.
PNG
media_image2.png
688
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of McNulty et al (US 2002/0180351)
Regarding claim 2. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light source emits light having a wavelength in a range of about 380 nm to about 1000 nm. See claims 6 and 7 of Chu et al state that the wavelength is about 810 nm which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transmission portion includes one of SiO2, sapphire, and a combination thereof. See Chu et al teaches the first transmissive member (transmission portion 208) is made of quartz in [0035].
Regarding claim 4. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an internal space in the chamber, the internal space being between the light adjuster and the susceptor, and the internal space being maintained at a vacuum state. See the discussion of a vacuum pump 257 in [0040, the last sentence] of Chu et al.
Regarding claim 6. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lens is aligned in a direction perpendicular to a center of the susceptor, the lens having a dome shape protruding in a direction opposite to the susceptor. See Fig. 2 of Chu et al.
Regarding claim 7. Since the prior art of Chu et al does not teach the scattering pattern portion, Chu et al also fails to teach an area of the transmission portion is greater than an area of the scattering pattern portion.
See Fig. 4 (below) of McNulty illustrating a scattering layer 60 and Fig. 6 (above) of prior art of McNulty where the area of transmission is greater than the scattering area. The motivation to design the lens of Chu et al such that it will have an area of the transmission portion is greater than an area of the scattering pattern portion as suggested by the prior art of McNulty et al is that this is the optimal design such that light is adjusted as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a scattering portion in the lens as suggested by McNulty to enhance the adjustment of light transmitted to the wafer.
PNG
media_image3.png
670
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of McNulty et al (US 2002/0180351)
Regarding claim 8. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflective housing 254 of Chu et al reflects at least a part of the light. See [0039] of Chu et al.
Regarding claim 9. See Fig. 2 of Chu et al where it is illustrated that the support portion is fixed to the chamber. Recall the prior art of Chu et al does not teach the scattering pattern portion and nor does Chu et al teach that the scattering pattern portion has a ring shape. See Fig. 6 of McNulty et al where the scattering pattern portion 70 is curved in an arc shape. The prior art of McNulty et al fails to teach the scattering pattern portion has a ring shape. The shape of the lens and scattering pattern portion is a matter of design choice and optimization in that barring a showing of criticality the shape of the scattering pattern portion of the lens would have been determined without undue experimentation to ensure it yields the optimal scattering of the light. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a ring shaped scattering pattern portion in order to optimize the scattering of light.
Regarding claim 10. The prior art of Chu et al teaches substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber 200 including a susceptor 206 to support a substrate 202; a reflective housing (reflector 254) outside the chamber; a light source (radiant heating lamps 204) in the reflective housing, the light source being configured to emit a light toward the susceptor; and a light adjuster between the light source 204 and the susceptor 206, the light adjuster including a support portion (see Fig. 2) supported inside the chamber and a lens 208 coupled to the support portion, and the lens 208 including a transmission portion configured to transmit the light. See Fig. 2 where the light source 204 being configured to emit a light toward the susceptor 206.
The prior art of Chu et al fails to teach the lens includes a scattering pattern portion configured to scatter the light a scattering pattern portion, the scattering pattern portion including a first pattern having a ring shape and a first inner radius, a second pattern having a ring shape and a second inner radius, and a third pattern having a ring shape and a third inner radius.
The prior art of McNulty et al teaches a light source 10 with a reflector (DBR 70) disposed on encapsulating structure 30. It is with a reasonable expectation of success that when using a lens in another part of the chamber such as the case of Chu et al and there is an additional need for scattering of light to further adjust the light path, one would look to the art such as McNulty et al with teaches light sources and lens with scattering portions. According to [0028] of McNulty et al the DBR 70 comprises a stack or series of materials (which are interpreted as the patterns). These patterns are arc shaped and adjust the scattering or reflective amount and path of the light. The prior art of McNulty et al fails to teach the scattering pattern portion has a ring shape. The shape of the lens and scattering pattern portion and their corresponding dimensions are a matter of design choice and optimization in that barring a showing of criticality the shape of the scattering pattern portion of the lens would have been determined without undue experimentation to ensure it yields the optimal scattering of the light. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a plurality of ring shaped scattering pattern portions where the shape of the lens and plurality of scattering pattern portions and their corresponding dimensions (such as the inner radius) in order to optimize the scattering of light.
Regarding claim 11. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the lens (first transmissive member 208) is aligned in a direction perpendicular to a center of the susceptor 206, the lens having a dome shape protruding in a direction opposite to the susceptor. See Fig. 2 and [0031] of Chu et al .
Regarding claim 12. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the second pattern is outside the first pattern on the surface of the lens, and the third pattern is outside the second pattern on the surface of the lens. See the rejection of claim 10 above and note the plurality of patterns in Fig. 6 of McNulty et al. See Fig. 6 of McNulty et al where the scattering pattern portion 70 is curved in an arc shape. The location and dimension of the patterns on the surface of the lens is a matter of design choice and optimization in that barring a showing of criticality the location and dimension of the patterns on the surface of the lens would have been determined without undue experimentation to ensure it yields the optimal adjustment of the transmission, reflection, and scattering of the light. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a ring shaped scattering pattern portion in order to optimize the transmission, reflection, and scattering of the light.
Regarding claim 13. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the scattering pattern portion further includes a fourth pattern having a ring shape and a fourth inner radius, the fourth pattern being outside the third pattern on the surface of the lens, and the fourth Regarding claim inner radius being greater than the third inner radius. See the rejection of claim 10 above and note the plurality of patterns in Fig. 6 of McNulty et al.
Regarding claim 14. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first inner radius is less than the second inner radius, and the second inner radius is less than the third inner radius. See the rejection of claim 10 above and note the plurality of patterns in Fig. 6 of McNulty et al.
Regarding claim 18. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, further comprising an internal space in the chamber, the internal space being between the light adjuster and the susceptor, and the internal space being maintained at a vacuum state. See the discussion of a vacuum pump 257 in [0040, the last sentence] of Chu et al.
Claims 5, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (US 2017/0103907) in view of McNulty et al (US 2002/0180351) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-14, and 18 above, and in further view of Murayama et al (US 7,091,453).
The combined teachings of Chu et al and McNulty et al were discussed above.
The combined teachings fails to teach or fairly suggest the scattering pattern portion of the lens has an arithmetic mean roughness.
Namely the combined teachings fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scattering pattern portion of the lens includes a surface with an arithmetic mean roughness of about 0.5 to about 2.
Regarding claim 15. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of the first pattern is greater than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern.
Regarding claim 16. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern is greater than an arithmetic mean roughness of the third pattern.
Regarding claim 17. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 14, wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of the first pattern, an arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern, and an arithmetic mean roughness of the third pattern are about 0.5 to about 2.
The prior art of Murayama et al teaches subjecting the liner outer surface to surface roughening by honing see the abstract. See Fig. 4 of Murayama et al illustrates roughening the outer surface 2a, see col. 5 lines 8-54. See col. 5 lines 15-40 where the surface roughness is adjusted by dry or wet honing to control conditions such as quality, type, and hardness of the abrasive used to adjust the liner surfaces to an optimal surface roughness. Note that according to the original specification [0050] the arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the scattering portion is a result effective variable (result of the scattering pattern portion formed by etching). Murayama et al teaches that a surface roughness of less than 1.6 is optimal to ensure that liner will allow/block light as desired. Barring a showing of criticality the range of arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the scattering portion is deemed a result effective variable that would have been determined and optimized without undue routine experimentation. Recall the prior art McNulty et al suggests providing several different patterns to form the scattering pattern portion to control the reflection of the light due to each or specific patterns as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scattering pattern portion of the lens including the roughness of each pattern therein of the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Chu et al and McNulty et al to provide the optimal arithmetic mean roughness to a desired value of between 0.5 and 2 as this range is within the suggested range of Murayama et al in to order control the light path to the wafer.
Regarding claim 19. Recall the combined teachings of the prior art of Chu et al and McNulty et al as used in the rejections of claims 1 and 10 above. The prior art of Chu et al fails to teach the light source emits light having a wavelength of about 100nm to 400nm.
The prior art of McNulty et al teaches using the a light source that emits a wavelength of about 100nm to about 1mm. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to use a light source within the claimed range of 100-400nm is that the wavelength suggested by McNulty et al is light from UV light or blue-light emitting LEDs which is a known light source. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to use a light source within the claimed range of 100-400nm is that the wavelength suggested by McNulty et al as this wavelength range is UV which is a widely known and widely available light source.
Recall the combined teachings of Chu et al and McNulty et al fails to teach that an arithmetic mean roughness of the first pattern is greater than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern, the arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern is greater than an arithmetic mean roughness of the third pattern, and the arithmetic mean roughness of the first pattern, the arithmetic mean roughness of the second pattern, and the arithmetic mean roughness of the third pattern are about 0.5 to about 2.
The prior art of Murayama et al teaches subjecting the liner outer surface to surface roughening by honing see the abstract. See Fig. 4 of Murayama et al illustrates roughening the outer surface 2a, see col. 5 lines 8-54. See col. 5 lines 15-40 where the surface roughness is adjusted by dry or wet honing to control conditions such as quality, type, and hardness of the abrasive used to adjust the liner surfaces to an optimal surface roughness. Note that according to the original specification [0050] the arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the scattering portion is a result effective variable (result of the scattering pattern portion formed by etching). Murayama et al teaches that a surface roughness of less than 1.6 is optimal to ensure that liner will allow/block light as desired. Barring a showing of criticality the range of arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the scattering portion is deemed a result effective variable that would have been determined and optimized without undue routine experimentation. Recall the prior art McNulty et al suggests providing several different patterns to form the scattering pattern portion to control the reflection of the light due to each or specific patterns as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scattering pattern portion of the lens including the roughness of each pattern therein of the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Chu et al and McNulty et al to provide the optimal arithmetic mean roughness to a desired value of between 0.5 and 2 as this range is within the suggested range of Murayama et al in to order control the light path to the wafer.
Regarding claim 20. The substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 19, wherein the scattering pattern portion further includes a fourth pattern having a ring shape and a fourth inner radius, the fourth pattern being outside the third pattern on the exposed surface of the lens, and the fourth inner radius being greater than the third inner radius.
Recall the prior art of Chu et al fails to teach the lens includes a scattering pattern portion configured to scatter the light a scattering pattern portion, the scattering pattern portion including a first pattern having a ring shape and a first inner radius, a second pattern having a ring shape and a second inner radius, and a third pattern having a ring shape and a third inner radius.
The prior art of McNulty et al teaches a light source 10 with a reflector (DBR 70) disposed on encapsulating structure 30. It is with a reasonable expectation of success that when using a lens in another part of the chamber such as the case of Chu et al and there is an additional need for scattering of light to further adjust the light path, one would look to the art such as McNulty et al with teaches light sources and lens with scattering portions. According to [0028] of McNulty et al the DBR 70 comprises a stack or series of materials (which are interpreted as the patterns). These patterns are arc shaped and adjust the scattering or reflective amount and path of the light. The prior art of McNulty et al fails to teach the scattering pattern portion has a ring shape. The shape of the lens and scattering pattern portion and their corresponding dimensions are a matter of design choice and optimization in that barring a showing of criticality the shape of the scattering pattern portion of the lens would have been determined without undue experimentation to ensure it yields the optimal scattering of the light. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chu et al to provide a plurality of ring shaped scattering pattern portions where the shape of the lens and plurality of scattering pattern portions and their corresponding dimensions (such as the inner radius) in order to optimize the scattering of light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Bilsen (US 6,666,924) teaches a chamber 5 and adjustment 60 which a radiation source, reflector or absorbing material.
Dube et al (US 2016/0013274) teaches a chamber 100, reflective housing 102, a susceptor 112 with light sources 118A and 118B, and quartz chamber 104.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716