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 .
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838) in view of White (US 5,582,866).
Bansal et al teaches a chamber kit for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the chamber kit comprising: a liner (inner liner 166, outer liner 168) comprising: an inner face; a first ledge (lower clamping member 120) disposed along the inner face; and a second ledge (upper clamping member 118) disposed along the inner face, the second ledge spaced from the first ledge along the inner face; a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) sized and shaped to be disposed within the liner on the first ledge; and a second plate (UV transparent lid 114) sized and shaped to be disposed within the liner on the second ledge 118 (Fig 1; [0026]-[0042]).
In regards to “at least one supply opening extending through the liner from the inner face to outermost surface of the liner,” Bansal et al teaches an inner liner 166 and an outer liner 168; a plurality of apertures 172 formed through the inner liner connecting the exhaust plenum 170 and the vacuum pump 174 in fluid communication with the exhaust plenum 170 and Fig 1 depicts the exhaust pump 174 outside of the chamber ([0042]). Bansal et al teaches the opening (172) is connected to the vacuum pump, which clearly suggests an opening on the outermost surface of the liner to connect the vacuum pump to the exhaust plenum, however Bansal et al does not explicitly teach the opening in the outermost surface.
In a substrate processing apparatus, White teaches a chamber with an exhaust passage 128 connected to a plenum chamber 126 and a vacuum pump via an exhaust channel 130 (col 3, ln 5 to col 4, ln 67; Fig 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bansal et al by providing an opening/exhaust channel from the inner liner surface to the outermost surface of the liner, as taught by White, to connect inner liner and the exhaust plenum to the vacuum pump which is outside the chamber.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) with a plurality of flow openings 164 (Fig 1; [0049]).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches the second plate 114 comprises a solid body having a solid cross section across an outer dimension of the second plate (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) with a plurality of flow openings 164 extending through the plate (Fig 1; [0049]).
Referring to claims 5 and 14, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches the second plate 114 comprises an outer diameter larger than an outer diameter of the first plate 116 (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Bansal et al and White does not explicitly teach the second ledge is disposed at a first distance from the first ledge and the first ledge is disposed at a second distance from a lower face of the liner; and the second distance is less than the first distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Bansal et al and White to have the second ledge is disposed at a first distance from the first ledge and the first ledge is disposed at a second distance from a lower face of the liner; and the second distance is less than the first distance because changing shapes and size is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 10-11, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches a transparent UV quartz first plate 116 and second plate 114 ([0051]-[0054]).
Referring to claim 12, see remarks above regarding claim 1. Also, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches a chamber body 102, and a substrate support 108 disposed in the inner volume 106 (Fig 1; [0027]-[0030]).
Referring to claim 16, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches a first volume is between the first plate and the second plate, and the first volume is in fluid communication with the process volume through the plurality of flow openings (Fig 1 .
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Bansal et al and White teaches the second plate is disposed between the first volume and a second volume to fluidly isolate the first volume from the second volume (Fig 1 teaches a second volume 130 above the window 114, and first volume below the window 114).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838) in view of White (US 5,582,866), as applied to claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hawrylchak et al (US 2019/0067006).
The combination of Bansal et al and White teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except the liner further comprises a first supply opening 162 disposed outwardly of the first ledge. Bansal et al teaches supply opening disposed at least partially between the first ledge and the second ledge (Fig 1; [0045] teaches processing gas flows through the plurality of spoke apertures 162 between plates 114 and 116).
In a processing chamber apparatus, Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening 261 disposed the gas distributor plate 230 and the substrate support 232 (Fig 2A; [0037]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Bansal et al and White by providing a first supply opening disposed outwardly of the first ledge between the showerhead plate and the substrate support, as taught by Hawrylchak et al, to supply a different processing gas to the substrate (Hawrylchak [0045]).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Bansal et al, White and Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening between the first plate and second plate (Bansal Fig 1; [0045] teaches processing gas flows through the plurality of spoke apertures 162 between plates 114 and 116).
Referring to claim 9, the the combination of Bansal et al, White and Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening aligned with the first exhaust outlet (Hawrylchak [0079]-[0082], Fig 6 shows inlet 660 aligned with outlet 670). Also, the the combination of Bansal et al, White and Hawrylchak et al teaches outlet with perpendicular exhaust conduits 674; therefore, having the second supply opening perpendicular to the first exhaust outlet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because placement and direction of the exhaust conduits is mere design choice, and any design which is capable of exhausting the gases would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 13, see remarks above regarding claim 7. The the combination of Bansal et al, White and Hawrylchak et al teaches a plurality of gas inlets disposed at different locations in the processing chamber to supply different processing gas to different areas of the chamber.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838), as applied to claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Joo et al (US 2020/0216957).
Bansal et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, except a first flow opening of the plurality of flow openings is larger than a second flow opening of the plurality of flow openings.
In a showerhead apparatus, Joo et al teaches the showerhead 410 of the apparatus 400 is divided into different zones, and the sizes (e.g., widths or diameters) of the holes or channels 416 in the showerhead 410 are varied from one zone to another; and the holes 416 in the first zone of the showerhead 410 may have a smaller hole size than the holes 416 in the second zone of the showerhead 410, allowing an even distribution of the second processing gas 414 flowing from the showerhead 410 over the substrate 404 (Fig 1-7; [0041]), which clearly suggests a first flow opening of the plurality of flow openings is larger than a second flow opening of the plurality of flow openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bansal et al by having a showerhead with different sized holes, as taught by Joo et al, to provide a desired gas distribution over the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights