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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkins et al, US 2013/0109192 A1.
Hawkins et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a substrate support 10, comprising: a disc body arranged along a rotation axis with an upper surface 54 and a lower surface 56 axially offset by a thickness 58 of the disc body, the upper surface 54 having: a circular concavity 60 extending about the rotation axis; an annular ledge portion 68 radially outward of the concavity 60 and extending circumferentially about the concavity 60; annular rim portion 54 radially outward of the ledge portion 68 and extending circumferentially about the ledge portion 68; wherein the concavity 60 has a circular perforated portion (portion of concavity 60 containing perforations 88 as seen in Figure 8) extending about the rotation axis with perforations 88 to etch at least one of the substrate support and a backside of a substrate 28 seated on the substrate support with an etchant communicated through the perforations 88; and wherein the concavity 60 has an annular unperforated portion (portion of concavity 60 radially outward of perforations 88 as seen in Figure 8) radially outward of the perforated portion and extending circumferentially about the perforated portion to axially space issue of the etchant 94 from backside of the substrate to limit etching of the backside of the substrate by the etchant (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, the plurality of perforations 88 extend through the thickness of the disc body, the plurality of perforations fluidly coupling the lower surface 56 of the disc body to the upper surface 54 of the disc body. (Figure 9)
Regarding claim 7, the lower surface 56 of the disc body defines therein one or more elongated slot 72 extending radially relative to the rotation axis.
Regarding claim 10, the ledge portion of the upper surface defines a substrate seat extending circumferentially about the concavity.
Regarding claim 11, the ledge portion 68 of the upper surface 54 defines a negative ledge angle radially outward of the substrate, the ledge portion sloping downward toward the lower surface of the disc body radially outward of the substrate seat. (Figure 6)
Regarding claim 12, the ledge portion 68 of the upper surface 54 defines a positive ledge angle radially outward of the substrate, the ledge portion sloping upwards and away from the lower surface of the disc body radially outward of the substrate seat. (Figure 6)
Regarding claim 20, a material layer deposition method, the method comprising the steps of: a substrate support 10, comprising: a disc body arranged along a rotation axis with an upper surface 54 and a lower surface 56 axially offset by a thickness 58 of the disc body, the upper surface 54 having: a circular concavity 60 extending about the rotation axis; an annular ledge portion 68 radially outward of the concavity 60 and extending circumferentially about the concavity 60; annular rim portion 54 radially outward of the ledge portion 68 and extending circumferentially about the ledge portion 68; wherein the concavity 60 has a circular perforated portion (portion of concavity 60 containing perforations 88 as seen in Figure 8) extending about the rotation axis with perforations 88 to etch at least one of the substrate support and a backside of a substrate 28 seated on the substrate support with an etchant communicated through the perforations 88; and wherein the concavity 60 has an annular unperforated portion (portion of concavity 60 radially outward of perforations 88 as seen in Figure 8) radially outward of the perforated portion and extending circumferentially about the perforated portion to axially space issue of the etchant 94 from backside of the substrate to limit etching of the backside of the substrate by the etchant (Figure 9), seating the substrate 28 on the substrate support; flowing a material layer precursor (H2 +TCS source) 40, 90 across the substrate 28; depositing a material layer onto the substrate using the material layer precursor; flowing an etchant (HCl) 52, 94 to the lower surface of the substrate during the step of depositing the material layer onto the substrate; communicating the etchant to the upper surface of the substrate support through the perforated portion of concavity; issuing the etchant into a cavity defined between the substrate support and a backside of the substrate using the perforated portion of the concavity and to etching at least one of the substrate support and a backside of a substrate seated on the substrate support; and axially spacing issue of the etchant from the backside of the substrate using the unperforated portion of the concavity to limit etching of the backside of the substrate by the etchant using the unperforated portion of the concavity (Figure 9). (Figures 7-9, Paragraphs 0037-0038)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al, US 2013/0109192 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13,
Hawkins et al was discussed above.
Hawkins et al differs from the present invention in that Hawkins et al does not teach the ratio of widths of the unperforated portion and the perforated portion is between 1:10 and 1:1, or between 3:10 and 1:1, or between 5:1 and 1:1; or the perforated portion of the concavity has a diameter between about 200 millimeters and about 250 millimeters, wherein the unperforated portion has a radial width between about 20 millimeters and about 60 millimeters.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable ranges of the ratio of the widths of the unperforated portion and perforated portion or dimensions of the unperforated portion and perforated portion by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable ranges or dimensions, such person would have been motivated to modify Hawkins et al to include the ratio of widths of the unperforated portion and the perforated portion between 1:10 and 1:1, or between 3:10 and 1:1, or between 5:1 and 1:1; or the perforated portion of the concavity has a diameter between about 200 millimeters and about 250 millimeters, wherein the unperforated portion has a radial width between about 20 millimeters and about 60 millimeters.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, it is well known in the art that the ratio of the widths of the unperforated portion and perforated portion or dimensions of the unperforated portion and perforated portion control the amount of penetration of the etching gas into the substrate holder and to the backside of the wafer in apparatus like Hawkins et al. To that end, the ratio of the widths of the unperforated portion and perforated portion and dimensions of the unperforated portion and perforated portion are result-effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hawkins et al so that the ratio of widths of the unperforated portion and the perforated portion is between 1:10 and 1:1, or between 3:10 and 1:1, or between 5:1 and 1:1; or the perforated portion of the concavity has a diameter between about 200 millimeters and about 250 millimeters, wherein the unperforated portion has a radial width between about 20 millimeters and about 60 millimeters. To that end, claims 2 and 13 are obvious in view of Hawkins et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where 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, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
Hawkins et al was discussed above and teaches one or more elongated slot 72.
Hawkins et al differs from the present invention in that Hawkins et al does not teach that: the unperforated portion of the concavity axially overlays the one or more elongated slot (claim 8); or the rim portion of the upper surface of the disc body overlays the one or more elongated slot (claim 9).
It was held that the rearrangement of parts is obvious (see In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to rearrange the location of the one or more elongated slot of Hawkins et al so that: the unperforated portion of the concavity axially overlays the one or more elongated slot (claim 8); or that the rim portion of the upper surface of the disc body overlays the one or more elongated slot (claim 9).
Claims 4-6 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al, US 2013/0109192 A1, in view of Chu et al, US 2017/0103907 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
Hawkins et al teaches a semiconductor processing system 12, comprising: a chamber body 20 with a hollow interior 14, 18; a divider 20 with a divider aperture fixed within the interior of the chamber body and separating the interior into an upper chamber 14 and a lower chamber 18; a substrate support as recited in claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) arranged within the divider aperture and supported for rotation within the interior of the chamber body for rotation about the rotation axis (Figures 7-9); and wherein the lower surface 56 of the disc body has one or more elongated slot 72 defined therein and extending radially relative to the rotation axis.
Hawkins et al differs from the present invention in that Hawkins et al does not teach the concavity has one or more lift pin aperture extending through the thickness of the disc body, the one or more lift pin aperture fluidly coupling the lower surface of the disc body to the upper surface of the disc body.
Chu et al teaches a concavity that has one or more lift pin aperture 207 extending through the thickness of the disc body 206, the one or more lift pin aperture fluidly coupling the lower surface of the disc body to the upper surface of the disc body. (Figures 2 and 3)
The motivation for adding the lift pin apertures and lift pins of Chu et al to the apparatus of Hawkins et al is to enable the apparatus of Hawkins et al to raise and lower the substrate to unload and load the substrate onto the substrate holder of Hawkins as required to function but not shown. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the lift pin apertures and lift pins of Chu et al to the apparatus of Hawkins et al.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, and 16,
Hawkins et al and Chu et al were discussed above and teaches one or more lift pin aperture and elongated slot.
Hawkins et al differs from the present invention in that Hawkins et al does not teach that: the one or more lift pin aperture is defined within the perforated portion of the concavity, wherein at least one of the plurality of perforations separates the one or more lift pin aperture from the unperforated portion of the concavity, wherein the rim portion of the upper surface of the disc body overlays the one or more elongated slot, and wherein the one or more elongated slot is radially aligned with the one or more lift pin aperture (claim 5 and 15); or the one or more lift pin aperture is defined within the unperforated portion of the concavity, wherein none of the plurality of perforations radially separate the one or more lift pin aperture from the ledge portion of the upper surface of the disc body, wherein the unperforated portion of the concavity axially overlays the one or more elongated slot, and wherein the one or more elongated slot is circumferentially offset from the one or more lift pin aperture (claim 6 and 16).
It was held that the rearrangement of parts is obvious (see In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to rearrange the location of the one or more lift pin aperture and elongated slot of Hawkins et al and Chu et al so that: the one or more lift pin aperture is defined within the perforated portion of the concavity, wherein at least one of the plurality of perforations separates the one or more lift pin aperture from the unperforated portion of the concavity, wherein the rim portion of the upper surface of the disc body overlays the one or more elongated slot, and wherein the one or more elongated slot is radially aligned with the one or more lift pin aperture (claim 5 and 15); or the one or more lift pin aperture is defined within the unperforated portion of the concavity, wherein none of the plurality of perforations radially separate the one or more lift pin aperture from the ledge portion of the upper surface of the disc body, wherein the unperforated portion of the concavity axially overlays the one or more elongated slot, and wherein the one or more elongated slot is circumferentially offset from the one or more lift pin aperture (claim 6 and 16).
Regarding claim 17, Hawkins et al teaches that the ledge portion 68 of the upper surface 54 defines a substrate seat extending circumferentially about concavity 60, and wherein the ledge portion 68 of the upper surface defines a negative ledge angle radially outward of the substrate seat, the ledge portion sloping downward toward the lower surface of the disc body radially outward of the substrate seat. (Figure 6)
Regarding claim 18, Hawkins et al teaches that the ledge portion 68 of the upper surface 54 defines a substrate seat extending circumferentially about concavity, and wherein the ledge portion of the upper surface defines a positive ledge angle radially outward of the substrate seat, the ledge portion sloping upwards and away from the lower surface of the disc body radially outward of the substrate seat. (Figure 6)
Regarding claim 19, Hawkins et al teaches an injection flange connected to the chamber body; a first precursor source 34 fluidly coupled to the upper chamber 14 of the chamber body by pipe 36 the injection flange and therethrough to the lower chamber by the divider aperture 20, the first precursor source including a silicon-containing precursor (TSC); and an etchant source 46 fluidly coupled to the lower chamber 18 of the chamber body by the injection flange and therethrough to the upper chamber by the plurality of perforations 88 extending through the thickness of the disc body, the etchant source including hydrochloric acid (HCl). (Figures 7 and 8)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references could be used to:
reject the claims under 102 or 103: US 20220352006 A1;
teach lift pin apertures and/or elongated slot: EP 4009358 A1, or US 20190127851 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights