DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/26 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 13 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-25 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England et al. (US 20110207308 A1) [hereinafter England] in view of Takehara et al. (US 20070017445 A1) [hereinafter Takehara].
Regarding claim 1, England teaches an apparatus comprising:
a first load lock (see e.g. fig 2: 210) comprising a first vacuum pump attached to the first load lock (some kind of pump required for operation of system, see [0031]), the first vacuum pump being configured to maintain the first load lock at a first pressure (see [0031]);
a processing chamber (see fig 2: e.g. 200) comprising:
a cooling stage (see e.g. pre-chiller, 208), the cooling stage configured to cool a wafer to a first temperature prior to ion implantation, the first temperature corresponding to a cryogenic temperature (see e.g. [0037]),
an implantation platen (see e.g. wafer platen, 206), the implantation platen configured to retain the wafer during an ion implantation process (e.g. [0031]), and
a heating stage (see e.g. [0033-34], inside of the load lock, [0034]), the heating stage configured to heat the wafer after implantation to a second temperature (see warm up temperature, [0033-34]); and
a second load lock (see e.g. 212) configured to receive (hold) the wafer after heating to the second temperature (see discussion of post-implantation warm up, [0033]), the second load lock configured to be maintained at the second temperature while the wafer is in the second load lock (see [0033]),
England may fail to explicitly disclose the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure, wherein the processing chamber is configured to be maintained at a second pressure lower than the first pressure; the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure by the first vacuum pump.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the first pressure may be read as atmospheric pressure (see England, e.g. [0033]). However, even if the claim is read to refer to a pressure below atmospheric pressure, the use of sequential load locks was known in the art. For example, Takehara teaches using a multi stage vacuum for load lock system, which enables the ability to reduce costs by separating the loadlock and loading chambers at a rough vacuum using a cheaper shared pump (see e.g. fig 4b: 408a, 408b, 406; see also generally figs 5-9) from the high vacuum of the process chambers using a more expensive pump (see [0082]), and also enables effective interfacing with different types of processing systems (e.g. [0158,72]), said system comprising wherein the second load lock is configured to be maintained at the first pressure (see intermediate vacuum, [0082]), wherein the processing chamber is configured to be maintained at a second pressure lower than the first pressure (highly vacuum, see [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takehara in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce costs associated with providing the desired level of vacuum using fewer expensive vacuum pumps, and/or more effectively interface with different process chambers, including providing the multistage vacuum system as taught by Takehara. Therefore, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure by the first vacuum pump (upstream part maintained at atmospheric pressure in England would be maintained at low level vacuum in the combined teaching).
The combined teaching of England and Takehara may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum pump is disposed between the first load lock and the second load lock.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the first vacuum pump, including a pump between the load locks, for example to fit in a given room and/or improve operator ergonomics and/or as a matter of routine design choice. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It is noted that the “configured to” operational parameters specify an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting (compare with recitation of a computer “configured to”, which would be limiting) since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the heating stage (e.g. England, combined warm up station/loadlock, e.g. 212, [0033]) and the implantation platen (see 206) are in a continuous vacuum space (when loadlock is opened), wherein a first vacuum level surrounding the implantation platen and a second vacuum level surrounding the heating stage are the same (when loadlock open).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second temperature is within 100C of a temperature of the second load lock (same temperature as the load lock, see England, fig 2: 212, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 10, England teaches a processing tool comprising:
an ion implantation chamber (see fig 2: 200) comprising:
a cooling stage (see e.g. pre-chiller, 208), the cooling stage configured to cool a wafer to a first temperature prior to ion implantation (see e.g. [0037]),
an implantation platen (see e.g. wafer platen, 206), the implantation platen configured to retain the wafer during an ion implantation process (e.g. [0031]); and
a heating stage (see e.g. [0033-34], inside of the load lock, [0034]), the heating stage configured to heat the wafer after implantation to a second temperature greater than the first temperature (see warm up temperature, [0033-34]), wherein the heating stage is disposed in a same vacuum environment as the implantation platen (when loadlock open);
an incoming load lock (e.g. 210);
an outgoing load lock (e.g. 212) configured to receive the wafer after heating to the second temperature (see discussion of post-implantation warm up, [0033]), wherein the outgoing load lock is further configured to be maintained at the second temperature while the wafer is in the second load lock (see [0033]);
a first vacuum pump (required for operation of system) configured to maintain a first vacuum level of the heating stage and the implantation platen (required for operation of system, see [0031]) while cooling the wafer to the first temperature, during the ion implantation process (see [0034]), and while heating the wafer after implantation to the second temperature (see warming up in processing chamber or load lock, which implicitly utilizes the same vacuum conditions, [0034]);
a robot (see e.g. 216) configured to move the wafer from the heating stage to the outgoing load lock after heating the wafer to the second temperature (see [0033]).
England may fail to explicitly disclose a second vacuum pump configured to maintain a second vacuum level of the incoming load lock and a third vacuum level of the outgoing load lock, wherein the second vacuum level and the third vacuum level are lower than the first vacuum level.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the second and third vacuum levels may be read as atmospheric pressure (see England, e.g. [0033]). However, even if the claim is read to refer to pressures below atmospheric pressure, the use of sequential load locks was known in the art. For example, Takehara teaches using a multi stage vacuum for load lock system, which enables the ability to reduce costs by separating the loadlock and loading chambers at a rough vacuum using a cheaper shared pump (see e.g. fig 4b: 408a, 408b, 406; see also generally figs 5-9) from the high vacuum of the process chambers using a more expensive pump (see [0082]), and also enables effective interfacing with different types of processing systems (e.g. [0158,72]), said system comprising a second vacuum pump configured to maintain a second vacuum level of the incoming load lock and a third vacuum level of the outgoing load lock (see intermediate vacuum, [0082]), wherein the second vacuum level and the third vacuum level are lower than the first vacuum level (highly vacuum, see [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takehara in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce costs associated with providing the desired level of vacuum using fewer expensive vacuum pumps, and/or more effectively interface with different process chambers, including providing the multistage vacuum system as taught by Takehara.
The combined teaching of England and Takehara may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum pump is disposed between the incoming load lock and the outgoing load lock.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the first vacuum pump, including a pump between the load locks, for example to fit in a given room and/or improve operator ergonomics and/or as a matter of routine design choice. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second vacuum level of the incoming load lock and the third vacuum level of the outgoing load lock are disposed at a same vacuum level (e.g. when gate valves open after wafer loaded from 210 but before wafer moved to 212, see England, fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the first temperature is a cryogenic temperature (see England, [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, England teaches an apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber (see fig 2: e.g. 200 or 202) comprising:
a cooling stage (see e.g. pre-chiller, 208) configured to cool a wafer to a first temperature in a range of -1000C and -300C (see [0048]) while the processing chamber is in a first vacuum environment (see in vacuum, [0034]);
an implantation platen (see e.g. wafer platen, 206) configured to hold the wafer during an ion implantation process performed after cooling the wafer to the first temperature (e.g. [0031]), wherein the ion implantation is performed while the processing chamber is in the first vacuum environment (in vacuum); and
a heating stage (see e.g. [0033-34], inside of the load lock, [0034]) configured to heat the wafer to a second temperature in a range of 00C and 500C while the processing chamber is in the first vacuum environment after the ion implantation process (see warming up in processing chamber or load lock, which implicitly utilizes the same vacuum conditions, [0034]);
an incoming load lock (e.g. 210) and an outgoing load lock (e.g. 212) wherein the outgoing load lock is configured to receive the wafer after heating the wafer to the second temperature (see discussion of post-implantation warm up, [0033]), wherein the outgoing load lock is further configured to be maintained at the second temperature while the wafer is in the outgoing load lock (see [0033]);
a
a vacuum pump (required for operation of system)
a robot (see e.g. 216) configured to move the wafer from the heating stage to the outgoing load lock after heating the wafer to the second temperature (see [0033]).
England may fail to explicitly disclose the valve being a slit valve.
However, the use of slit valves were well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ho teaches slit valves and robot system as part of a known effective wafer transport mechanism (see Ho, [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Ho in the system of the prior art, including applying the use of the known effective slit valves and systems using slit valves, as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
England may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum environment is a higher level of vacuum than the second vacuum environment; and the vacuum pump configured to maintain a third vacuum level of the incoming load lock and the second vacuum level of the outgoing load lock.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the second and third vacuum levels may be read as atmospheric pressure (see England, e.g. [0033]). However, even if the claim is read to refer to a pressure below atmospheric pressure, the use of sequential load locks was known in the art. For example, Takehara teaches using a multi stage vacuum for load lock system, which enables the ability to reduce costs by separating the loadlock and loading chambers at a rough vacuum using a cheaper shared pump (see e.g. fig 4b: 408a, 408b, 406; see also generally figs 5-9) from the high vacuum of the process chambers using a more expensive pump (see [0082]), and also enables effective interfacing with different types of processing systems (e.g. [0158,72]), said system comprising wherein the first vacuum environment (highly vacuum, see [0082]) is a higher level of vacuum than the second vacuum environment (see intermediate vacuum, [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takehara in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce costs associated with providing the desired level of vacuum using fewer expensive vacuum pumps, and/or more effectively interface with different process chambers, including providing the multistage vacuum system as taught by Takehara. Therefore, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the vacuum pump configured to maintain a third vacuum level of the incoming load lock and the second vacuum level of the outgoing load lock (see Takehara, [0082], upstream part maintained at atmospheric pressure in England would be maintained at low level vacuum in the combined teaching).
The combined teaching of England and Takehara may fail to explicitly disclose the vacuum pump is disposed between the incoming load lock and the outgoing load lock.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the position of the vacuum pump, including a pump between the load locks, for example to fit in a given room and/or improve operator ergonomics and/or as a matter of routine design choice. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the heating stage comprises electric heating coils (e.g. resistive devices, see England, [0033]) configured to heat the wafer to the second temperature (see [0033]). Note it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use coils as resistive heating elements, and alternately selection of at least a part coil shape for an uncoiled element would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art to fit a resistive element into a wafer support. It is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the heating stage comprises: a platform (required for operation of system, see wafer support, England, [0033]) configured to hold the wafer while heating the wafer to the second temperature; and heating loops configured to circulate a heated liquid through the platform while heating the wafer to the second temperature (see England, [0033]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the heating liquid conduits being coils, but it was well known in the art to form liquid heat transfer conduits in at least partly coil shapes, and additionally it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the shape of the liquid conduit in the wafer holder system to provide sufficient heat to all parts of the wafer holding surface and/or direct liquid wherever it is required throughout the system, including a conduit shape that is at least partly a loop shape. It is noted that it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the heating the implantation platen (see England, 206) is disposed in a first subchamber of the processing chamber (see around 206), wherein the heating stage (see [0033-34], at 208, or elsewhere in 202) is disposed in a second subchamber of the processing chamber (see same). It is unclear if the combined teaching discloses wherein no slit valve separates the second subchamber from the first subchamber. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of other types of valves (e.g. gate valves), and/or provide the subchambers in fluid communication with each other (see e.g. discussion of different options in [0033-35]).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second temperature is within 100C of a temperature of the outgoing load lock (same temperature as the load lock, see England, fig 2: 212, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches a second vacuum pump configured to maintain a first subchamber (e.g. England, region around 202; alternately see Takehara, fig 6a: corresponding to 418, treating shuttle part corresponding to 426 as part of the processing chamber, and noting obviousness of duplicating processing stations) of the processing chamber at the second pressure (see e.g. Takehara, cryopump, [0082]), wherein the second vacuum pump is a different type of vacuum pump than the first vacuum pump (see [0082]), and wherein the implantation platen is disposed in the first subchamber (see England, fig 2: 206).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second vacuum pump is a cryo vacuum pump (see Takehara, [0082]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum pump is a turbo vacuum pump, but Takehara teaches different pumps may be utilized to obtain different vacuum levels, including turbo pumps (see [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective turbo pump to enable the ability to provide the lower intermediate vacuum level, in the manner taught by Takehara.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the heating stage comprises: an overhead electric heater (see e.g. England, [0033]), a heated platform (see [0033]), or a combination thereof configured to heat the wafer after implantation to the second temperature.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of England and Takehara teaches the second vacuum environment is a same level of vacuum as the third vacuum environment (e.g. loadlocks at same vacuum during operation at intermediate or higher vacuum level). It is noted 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 8, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England and Takehara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20070037001A).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of England and Takehara may fail to explicitly disclose two or more cryo pumps for providing a first vacuum level of the processing chamber at a level that is between 100 and 1000 times greater than a second vacuum level of the second load lock, wherein the first vacuum level and the second vacuum level are measured in Torr. However, the use of cryo pumps and the claimed vacuum range was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Lee teaches using a plurality of cryopumps to enable the ability to provide continuous regeneration of the pumps (see Lee, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of two or more cryopumps to provide the intended operation of providing the chamber vacuum levels, in order to enable the ability to provide continuous regeneration, as taught by Lee. It is unclear if the combined teaching discloses a first vacuum level between 100 and 1000 times greater than a second vacuum level of the second load lock. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed ratio of vacuum levels is met during e.g. evacuation of the load lock and/or initial evacuation of the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of England and Takehara may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Lee, for similar reasons as claim 8 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of England, Takehara, and Lee teaches the processing chamber comprises a third vacuum pump (see e.g. another cryopump in Lee) configured to maintain a second subchamber (reading as subregion including the loadlock, England, 212) of the processing chamber (redefined as including 212, 210, and optionally 202) at the second pressure (when loadlock open), wherein the third vacuum pump is a same type of vacuum pump as the second vacuum pump (see cryopump), and wherein the heating stage is disposed in the second subchamber (see England, [0033]).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20170247790 A1) [hereinafter Chen].
Regarding claim 1, Chan teaches an apparatus comprising:
a first load lock (see e.g. fig 1: 14a) comprising a first vacuum pump (required for operation of system, see [0020]) attached to the first load lock, the first vacuum pump being configured to maintain the first load lock at a first pressure (vacuum pressure, see [0020]);
a processing chamber (see 22, 16, 26) comprising:
a cooling stage (see 22), the cooling stage configured to cool a wafer to a first temperature prior to ion implantation (see [0020]), the first temperature corresponding to a cryogenic temperature (see [0013]),
an implantation platen (see 20, [0020]), the implantation platen configured to retain the wafer during an ion implantation process (see [0020]), and
a heating stage (see 26), the heating stage configured to heat the wafer after implantation to a second temperature (see [0021]); and
a second load lock (see 14b) configured to receive (hold) the wafer after heating to the second temperature (see [0021]),
Chan may fail to explicitly disclose the second load lock configured to be maintained at the second temperature while the wafer is in the second load lock; the second load lock being further maintained at the first pressure by the first vacuum pump, wherein the first vacuum pump is disposed between the first load lock and the second load lock; and wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure.
However, it is noted that these “configured to” operational parameters specify an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting (compare with recitation of a computer “configured to”, which would be limiting) since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights