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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/18/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent/new claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 3-7, 11, 13 is/are withdrawn.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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England et al. (US 20110207308 A1) [hereinafter England] in view of Huseinovic et al. (US 20150380285 A1) [hereinafter Huseinovic] and Hwang et al. (KR101173571B1) [hereinafter Hwang].
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 e.g. [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]), the heating stage configured to heat the wafer after implantation to a second temperature (see [0033-34]); and
a second load lock (see e.g. 212),
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.
However, the use of multiple load locks and chambers at different pressures was known at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Huseinovic teaches using higher pressures in heating chambers to provide faster thermal ramp up speeds (see Huseinovic, [0052]). 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 Huseinovic in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve operation of the system including providing different chambers including those to provide faster thermal ramp up, in the manner taught by Huseinovic. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure (e.g. higher or atmospheric pressure), wherein the processing chamber is configured to be maintained at a second pressure lower than the first pressure (e.g. vacuum pressures).
The combined teaching of England and Huseinovic may fail to explicitly disclose the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure by the first vacuum pump.
However, the use of load locks controlled by the same vacuum pump was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hwang teaches a system for evacuating two load locks using the same vacuum pump (see Hwang, fig 1: 60) and controllable valves (see 51, 52), such that the second load lock is configured to be maintained at the same pressure as the first load lock (see 31, 32; e.g. during vacuum or atmospheric settings) by the first vacuum pump (see 60, translation p3, e.g. lines 5-12). 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 Hwang in the system of the prior art to enable the reduce the number of pumps required to operate the load locks, as taught by Hwang. It is also noted that 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.
The combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, and Hwang 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).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, and Hwang teaches the heating stage (e.g. England, combined warm up station/pre-chiller, e.g. 208, [0033]) and the implantation platen (see 206) are in a continuous vacuum space (see fig 2: 202), wherein a first vacuum level surrounding the implantation platen and a second vacuum level surrounding the heating stage are the same (see 202).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, and Hwang 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]), the heating stage configured to heat the wafer after implantation to a second temperature greater than the first temperature (see [0033-34]), wherein the heating stage is disposed in a same vacuum environment as the implantation platen (see fig 2, e.g. 208, [0033]; or see 212 when loading wafer);
an incoming load lock (e.g. 210);
an outgoing load lock (e.g. 212);
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]):
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 second vacuum level and the third vacuum level is lower than the first vacuum level
However, the use of multiple load locks and chambers at different pressures was known at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Huseinovic teaches using higher pressures in heating chambers to provide faster thermal ramp up speeds (see Huseinovic, [0052]). 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 Huseinovic in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve operation of the system including providing different chambers including those to provide faster thermal ramp up, in the manner taught by Huseinovic. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses the second load lock configured to be maintained at the first pressure (e.g. higher or atmospheric pressure), wherein the processing chamber is configured to be maintained at a second pressure lower than the first pressure (e.g. vacuum pressures).
The combined teaching of England and Huseinovic 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.
However, the use of load locks controlled by the same vacuum pump was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hwang teaches a system for evacuating two load locks using the same vacuum pump (see Hwang, fig 1: 60) and controllable valves (see 51, 52), comprising a second vacuum pump (see 60) configured to maintain a second vacuum level of the incoming load lock and a third vacuum level of the outgoing load lock (see 51, 52). 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 Hwang in the system of the prior art to enable the reduce the number of pumps required to operate the load locks, as taught by Hwang. It is also noted that 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.
The combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, and Hwang 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, Huseinovic, and Hwang 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, Huseinovic, and Hwang teaches the first temperature is a cryogenic temperature (see England, [0037]).
Claim(s) 8, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England, Huseinovic, and Hwang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20070037001A).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of England and Huseinovic 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 21, the combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, and Hwang teaches a second vacuum pump configured to maintain the a first subchamber of the processing chamber at the second pressure (required for operation of system, see e.g. Huseinovic, fig 1: 128), and wherein the implantation platen is disposed in the first subchamber (see fig 1; England, fig 2: 206).
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the second vacuum pump is a different type of vacuum pump than the first vacuum pump. However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Lee for similar reasons as claim 8 above. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses the second vacuum pump (see e.g. cryopump, Lee, fig 1: 18, etc) is a different type of vacuum pump than the first vacuum pump (see e.g. lapping pump, 50).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, Hwang, and Lee teaches the processing chamber comprises a third vacuum pump (required for operation of system, see e.g. another cryopump in Lee) configured to maintain a second subchamber (see for heating stage, England, [0033]) of the processing chamber at the second pressure (see Huseinovic, [0052]), 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) 16-20, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England et al. (US 20110207308 A1) [hereinafter England] in view of Ho et al. (US 20150221515 A1) [hereinafter Ho] and Hwang et al. (KR101173571B1) [hereinafter Hwang].
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]);
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]); and
a heating stage (see e.g. [0033-34]) configured to heat the wafer to a second temperature in a range of 00C and 500C after the ion implantation process (see fig 4, e.g. [0052]);
an incoming load lock (e.g. 210) and an outgoing load lock (e.g. 212);
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.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum environment is a higher level of vacuum than the second vacuum environment. However, it is noted that 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 (note discussion of high vacuum in processing chamber, England, [0047], which is recognized in the art to be 1E-3 Torr or less, which is over 2 levels of magnitude from 760 Torr at 1 Atm, thus the pressures will reach the claimed range during evacuation). It is also noted that 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.
The combined teaching of England and Ho may fail to explicitly disclose 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, the use of load locks controlled by the same vacuum pump was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hwang teaches a system for evacuating two load locks using the same vacuum pump (see Hwang, fig 1: 60) and controllable valves (see 51, 52), comprising a vacuum pump (see 60) configured to maintain a third vacuum level of the incoming load lock and the second vacuum level of the outgoing load lock (see 51, 52). 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 Hwang in the system of the prior art to enable the reduce the number of pumps required to operate the load locks, as taught by Hwang. It is also noted that 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.
The combined teaching of England, Ho, and Hwang 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 Ho 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 Ho 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 Ho 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 Ho 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 24, the combined teaching of England, Ho, and Hwang 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, Ho, and Hwang teaches the second vacuum environment is a same level of vacuum as the third vacuum environment (e.g. loadlocks at same vacuum during vacuum or atmospheric settings). 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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over England, Huseinovic, Hwang, and Lee, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kudo et al. (US 20170040197 A1) [hereinafter Kudo].
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of England, Huseinovic, Hwang, and Lee teaches the second vacuum pump is a cryo vacuum pump (see Lee, fig 1, abstract). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the first vacuum pump is a turbo vacuum pump (note Lee refers to e.g. 50, as a “lapping pump” but it is unclear if this is a mistranslation of a technical term by Google, such as roughing pump). Nevertheless, the use of turbo molecular pumps was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Kudo teaches it was well known to use turbo molecular pumps as roughing pumps to achieve intermediate vacuum levels, while cryopumps were used to achieve high vacuum levels (see Kudo, [0058,60]). 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 use of turbomolecular pumps from Kudo in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of system, including integrating the known effective turbomolecular pumps to achieve intermediate vacuum levels, as taught by Kudo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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