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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8, 10, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 sets forth in part “wherein the pre-heat ring further comprises: a top surface; an outer bottom surface disposed parallel to the top surface”. However, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, already sets forth “a top-surface of the pre-heat ring”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 6 is referring to the same top surface or some other top surface. If some other top surface, it is unclear to which of the top surfaces the outer bottom surface is disposed parallel to. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting the limitation above to mean “wherein the pre-heat ring further comprises:
Regarding claims 7-8:
Claims 7-8 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 6.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites “wherein the tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm”. It is unclear what dimension of the tapered wall the values refer (e.g. width, height, length, etc). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “wherein the length of the tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm”.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites “the an inner bottom surface”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the inner bottom surface of claim 9 or some other inner bottom surface. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the [[an]] inner bottom surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520).
Regarding claim 1:
Comita teaches a process chamber (210) for film deposition [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-42] comprising: a process chamber (deposition chamber, 212) having a chamber volume (interior of 212) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-42]; a substrate support (220) disposed in the chamber volume (interior of 210), the substrate support (220) having a radially outward surface (outer edge of 220) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62]; and a pre-heat ring (pre-heat ring, 228) surrounding the substrate support (220) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Comita does not specifically disclose the pre-heat ring comprising: a tapered wall facing the radially outward surface, the tapered wall narrows towards a top surface of the pre-heat ring and towards the substrate support.
Yudovsky teaches a pre-heat ring (shadow ring, 258) comprising: a tapered wall (inner wall of 264) facing the radially outward surface (outer surface of 202), the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) narrows towards a top surface of the pre-heat ring and towards the substrate support (see fig 2A) [fig 2A & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pre-heat ring of Comita to comprise a tapered wall substantially parallel to the radially outward surface, as in Yudovsky, to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057].
Regarding claim 2:
Comita teaches the radially outward surface of the substrate support (outer edge of 220) is substantially flat (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Modified Comita teaches the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) is substantially flat (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky – fig 2A & 0048]; and wherein the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) is substantially parallel to the radially outward surface (outer surface of 202) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Regarding claim 5:
Comita teaches the top surface (top surface of 228) is substantially flat (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Regarding claim 6:
Comita teaches the pre-heat ring (228) further comprises: an outer bottom surface disposed parallel to the top surface (see fig 2) [fig 2]; an outer wall extending between the top surface and the outer bottom surface (see fig 2) [fig 2]; an inner wall, the inner wall disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall and extending from the outer bottom surface toward the top surface, at least a portion of the top surface extending radially inward of the inner wall (see fig 2) [fig 2]; and an inner bottom surface, the inner bottom surface disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface and extending radially inward from the inner wall (see fig 2) [fig 2].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Comita teaches the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) extends between the top surface and the inner bottom surface of the pre-heat ring (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
The limitations of claims 1-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Comita teaches the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) extends at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to plane of the inner bottom surface (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Modified Comita does not specifically teach the tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose a “tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and the radially outward surface of the substrate support [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 9-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) and Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
Regarding claim 9:
Comita teaches a pre-heat ring (pre-heat ring, 228) for a substrate processing chamber (210) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-62], the pre-heat ring (228) comprising: an annular body of the pre-heat ring (body of 228) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62], the annular body (body of 228) comprising: a top surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an outer bottom surface disposed parallel to the top surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an outer wall extending between the top surface and the outer bottom surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an inner wall, the inner wall disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall and extending from the outer bottom surface toward the top surface, at least a portion of the top surface extends radially inward of the inner wall (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an inner bottom surface, the inner bottom surface disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface and extending radially inward from the inner wall (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; and a facing wall, the facing wall extending between to the top surface and the inner bottom surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
715
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comita does not specifically disclose the facing wall being a tapered wall, the tapered wall at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to inner bottom surface.
Yudovsky teaches a tapered wall (inner wall of 264), the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to inner bottom surface (see fig 2A) [fig 2A & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facing wall of the pre-heat ring of Comita to comprise a tapered wall, as in Yudovsky, to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057].
Comita modified by Yudovsky does not specifically disclose the tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose a “tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and a radially outward surface of the substrate support [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10:
Comita modified by Yudovsky does not specifically disclose the length of the tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose “the length of a tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and a radially outward surface of the substrate support [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 11:
Comita teaches the top surface is substantially flat (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3].
Regarding claim 12:
The limitations “wherein the top surface has a length of about 30 mm to about 70 mm” amount to a mere change in size of a component. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the desired size for the top surface to scale for different size chambers and/or substrates. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 13:
The written description of modified Comita (Yudovsky) does not specifically disclose “the tapered wall is angled at about 20 degrees to about 70 degrees”. However, although proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977) [MPEP 2125 (II)]. Figure 2A of Yudovsky appears to fall within the claimed range or, at the very least, is close to falling within the claimed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946) [MPEP 2144.05]. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of 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). After KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a variable [MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)]. In the instant case, the only difference between the tapered wall of modified Comita (Yudovsky) and that of the claims is the claimed range of the angle. Because modified Comita (Yudovsky) depicts an upward angle, one skilled in that art would recognize that there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e. the upward angle must be between 0° and 90°). As such, absent criticality of the claimed rage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pick any upward angle between 0° and 90°. Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Applicant has NOT demonstrated any criticality to establish that the claimed range of the angle would perform differently than a prior art device having an upward angle outside of the claimed range (see Yudovsky – fig 2A).
Regarding claims 16-17:
Modified Comita teaches a thermal mass between a plane aligned with the inner bottom surface and the top surface is greater than a thermal mass between the plane aligned with the inner bottom surface and the outer bottom surface (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048]; and a thermal mass between a plane aligned with the inner wall and the outer wall is less than a thermal mass between the plane aligned with the inner wall and an intersection of the top surface and the tapered wall (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Regarding claims 18-19:
The limitations “wherein the annular body has an outer diameter of about 200 mm to about 500 mm” and “wherein the annular body has an inner diameter of about 90 mm to about 400 mm” amount to a mere change in size of a component. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the desired dimensions for the annular body to scale for different size chambers and/or substrates. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Comita teaches a length of the top surface is longer than a combined length of the inner bottom surface and the outer bottom surface (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Alternatively, claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) and Chiang et al (US 6,800,173) as applied to claims 9-12 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Cheng et al (US 5,304,248).
The limitations of claims 9-12 and 16-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Comita does not specifically disclose the tapered wall is angled at about 20 degrees to about 70 degrees.
Cheng teaches a tapered wall (inner edge 54) is angled at about 20 degrees to about 70 degrees (15 degrees to about 60 degrees) [fig 2 & col 6, lines 4-13]. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tapered wall of modified Comita with the angle of Cheng because such an angle makes it possible to correct any possible misalignment between the pre-heat ring and a substrate support [Cheng - col 6, lines 4-13].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) and Chiang et al (US 6,800,173) as applied to claims 9-13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Ranish et al (US 2013/0256962).
The limitations of claims 9-13 and 16-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 14-15:
Modified Comita does not specifically disclose the annular body is constructed from graphite; and the annular body is constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite.
Ranish teaches an annular body is constructed from graphite (SiC coated graphite [0023]; and the annular body is constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite (SiC coated graphite [0023].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pre-heat ring of modified Comita to be constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite, as in Ranish, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beinglass et al (US 5,576,059) and Lei et al (US 6,494,955) teach a pre-heat ring comprising a tapered wall [fig 2 and 1, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896