DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (6/2/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) are pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya Saitou (US 20150047567) in view of Mohammed et al (US 20130081702) supplemented by the teaching of Ding et al (US 7461549).
Tatsuya Saitou disclose an apparatus (Fig 1), comprising:
a process chamber (Fig 1);
an electrostatic chuck in the process chamber (Para 30);
a sealing ring in the process chamber and laterally surrounding the electrostatic chuck (ring 22);
and a chamber confinement assembly (Fig 2, 313).
Regarding “the configuration to shift position of the sealing ring vertically to a first position to establish an inner chamber in the process chamber during a flow verification process, and to shift position of the sealing ring to a second position to flow gas into the process chamber during processing of a wafer”, it is noted that the process position is disclosed to be the one when the chuck with sealing ring (22) leaves a gap with the upper sealing plate 31 (Fig 1). The sealing ring is not explicitly disclose contacting the sealing plate for first position of flow verification process.
Mohammed et al disclose the need for in situ flow verification or calibration of flow controller and disclose that such a method of flow verification relies on measuring rate of rise of pressure (Para 33, 36) through a verification device (Fig 1, 119) attached to the process chamber of fixed constant volume (104).
Ding et al describe mass flow verification more explicitly through (Fig 1) and disclose the procedure to measure temperature and rise of pressure (Fig 2) when flow occurs in sealed volume after downstream valve is closed (Col 2 lines 3-19).
Therefore, using the apparatus of Tatsuya Saitou to in situ verify flow monitor by sealing the volume above the chuck would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 2 flow verification is disclosed by Mohammed et al as supplemented by the teaching of Ding et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 10 inner chamber volume appears to be in the claimed range. It is however noted that optimization of processing volume for process need would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application.
It was established that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not
patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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).
Regarding claim 8, additional limitation of process gas flow is disclosed in (Fig 1, 601, 602).
Regarding claim 9 flow verification is disclosed above.
Regarding claims 11 and 12 vertical movement of ring 22 allows verification as discussed above.
Claims 4, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya Saitou (US 20150047567) in view of Mohammed et al (US 20130081702), Ding et al (US 7461549) and Nobuaki Takahashi (US 5520743).
Regarding these claims Tatsuya Saitou discloses chamber confinement using upward movement of the sealing ring but no downward movement of upper sealing plate.
Nobuaki Takahashi discloses a confinement space formed from both upward (91) and down ward movement (92) of plates as in (Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application to create confinement space using both upward and down ward movement using actuators as an alternative approach to get the same effect.
Regarding claim 15 as in claim 8 additional limitation of process gas flow is disclosed in (Tatsuya Saitou Fig 1, 601, 602).
Regarding claim 19 regarding dimeter of ring 22 is greater than the chuck. Having it small would be obvious as being a little larger.
It was established that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not
patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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).
Regarding claim 20 temperature measurement was disclosed in Ding et al (Fig 1, 114 and Fig 3, 316).
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya Saitou (US 20150047567) in view of Mohammed et al (US 20130081702), Ding et al (US 7461549) and Itatani et al (US 20190198390).
Regarding these claims (5 and 13) Tatsuya Saitou discloses film forming but no plasma formation using RF power.
Itatani et al disclose an apparatus similar to Tatsuya Saitou and disclose RF power (46) for film formation (Para 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application to apply RF power to upper plate in order to use plasma CVD or ALD for fil formation as well known in the prior art.
Claim 6 is rejected with claim 1 as discussed above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya Saitou (US 20150047567) in view of Mohammed et al (US 20130081702), Ding et al (US 7461549) and Itatani et al (US 20190198390) and Koshimizu (US 5290383).
Regarding claims 7 and 14 plasma process using reactant gases does not disclose plasma sensing and monitoring using spectral emission.
Koshimizu discloses a plasma process monitoring using spectrometer (Fig 1, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application to have used a spectrometer to detect reactant gases in the plasma to control the plasma process.
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya Saitou (US 20150047567) in view of Mohammed et al (US 20130081702), Ding et al (US 7461549), Nobuaki Takahashi (US 5520743) and Koshimizu (US 5290383).
Regarding claims 18 as above plasma process using reactant gases does not disclose plasma sensing and monitoring using spectral emission.
Koshimizu discloses a plasma process monitoring using spectrometer (Fig 1, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application to have used a spectrometer to detect reactant gases in the plasma to control the plasma process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 recites horizontal base in contact with lower actuator and vertical extension connected to it and sealing ring. This limitation is not disclosed or fairly suggested in the prior art as discussed above. Claim 17 depends upon claim 16
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mariusch Gregor et al (US 20090266139) disclose MFC flow verification using rate of rise of pressure in a process chamber (Abstract and Fig 1).
Cruse et al (US 8707754) similarly disclose MFC flow verification using rate of rise of pressure in a plasma process chamber (Col 6 lines 1-15 and Fig 1 and Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights