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 .
Status
The amendment filed 07/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 19 are pending. In the amendment file 07/21/2026, claims 1, 6, 10*-11, 17, and 19 were amended, claims 18 and 20 were canceled, and no new claims were added. *It is noted that claim 10 has been given a status identifier of “original”. Claim 10 was amended to change “below” to “above”. While the above identified incorrect status appears to be a bona fide mistake, applicant is kindly reminded that ALL claim status identifiers should correctly reflect the claim status.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 and claim 6 contain controller language. Within these claims the controller is interpreted as being configured (e.g. via programing as indicated by the “responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory memory) to provide the flow of the specific gas listed because the specific gas sources have also been claimed as part of the apparatus and to control the flow such that the halogen-containing gas is flowed through the lower chamber while the silicon containing gas is flowed through the upper chamber after positioning a substrate within the upper chamber and for claim 6 to flow halogen-containing gas through the first inlet into the upper chamber in a flow control independent of the flow of halogen-containing gas to the second inlet. Reference to “to deposit a layer on the upper surface of the substrate” and “to etch a deposited film on at least one wall bounding the lower chamber of the reactor” are interpreted as being directed to the intended results during normal operation and not as specific functions the controller is programed to monitor and ensure are occurring. The instant specification provides no indication that the system contains sensors to monitor or otherwise ensure that deposition is occurring or sensors to monitor or otherwise ensure that etching of material on the chamber wall is occurring. Further there is no indication the controller is connected to any such sensors or otherwise programmed with a feedback program to ensure operation is proceeding as intended or otherwise indicate that an abnormality has occurred. Deposition on the substrate or chamber walls is a chemical reaction that is not a result of any controller operation beyond supplying the specific gas to the chamber and etching of the deposits is also a chemical reaction that is not a result of any controller operation beyond supplying the etching gas to the chamber. For all of these reasons the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is that the references to “to deposit a layer of the upper surface of the substrate” and “to etch a deposited film on at least one wall bounding the lower chamber of the reactor” are interpreted as being directed to the intended results during normal operation and not as specific functions the controller is programed to monitor and ensure are occurring. If applicant believes there is support for feedback control and/or abnormality detection such that a narrower interpretation should apply, applicant is kindly requested to demonstrate support and consider amending the claims to include the detection sensors.
Claim 2 and 19 contain further controller language of “the instructions further cause the controller to etch the upper surface of the substrate with the halogen-containing gas to control thickness of a layer deposited onto a periphery of the upper surface of the substrate”, for the same reasons explained above regarding claim 1 and 18 “to control thickness of a layer deposited onto a periphery of the upper surface of the substrate” is interpreted as being directed to the intended results during normal operation and not as specific functions the controller is programed to monitor and ensure are occurring because there is no indication of thickness monitoring and feedback control. Additionally regarding, “the instructions further cause the controller to etch the upper surface of the substrate with the halogen-containing gas”, in view of the instant specification [0050], [0063-0064], and [0077] inter alia, the claim is interpreted inclusive of the halogen-containing gas flowed to the lower chamber flows around the edge of the substrate and thereby etches material at the periphery of the substrate because this interpretation is consistent with the instant specification ([0050], [0063-0064], and [0077] inter alia). The instant specification contains separate reference to supplying halogen-containing gas to the upper chamber as a carrier gas (see [0072-0073]) and does not tie this flow of control of such flow to specifically controlling, modifying, or otherwise altering the thickness at the periphery of the substrate. For all of these reasons, a controller configured to cause the flow to the lower chamber combined with an apparatus that allows for flow of the gas around the edge of the substrate will be interpreted as meeting the claim limitations of claim 2 and 19. If applicant believe there is a specific programming or configuration difference to the recited program, applicant is kindly requested to clarify this and ensure any specific programming or configuration differences are fully disclosed and enabled by the instant specification as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
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) 1-4, 6-9, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (prev. presented US 2012/0174859), in view of Hawkins (prev. presented US 2013/0109192).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig 1 and [0002]), comprising: a reactor (1 Fig 1, 4) having an upper chamber (2a Fig 1, 4 [0040]) and a lower chamber (2b Fig 1,4 [0040]), the reactor configured to support therein a substrate (W Fig 1, 4 [0039]) with an upper surface and an opposite lower surface (Fig 1, 4 also note a wafer as disclosed as the substrate in [0039] has an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface); a silicon-containing gas source connected to the upper chamber of the reactor and configured to provide a silicon-containing gas to the reactor [0042]; and a controller (25 Fig 2) operatively connected to the semiconductor processing system [0045] and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory memory [0045] (program and storage unit) to: position the substrate within the upper chamber of the reactor [0054]; flow the silicon-containing gas through the upper chamber of the reactor to deposit a layer on the upper surface of the substrate [0055]. Sakamoto teaches a gas source connected to the lower chamber of the reactor and configured to provide the gas to the reactor (14 Fig 4 and [0061]). Sakamoto further teaches the flow rate of the gas to the lower chamber is controlled by the control unit (control parameters) [0016-0017] and is controlled to be supplied to the lower chamber while flowing the silicon-containing gas through the upper chamber of the reactor [0058]. Sakamoto fails to teach the gas connected to the lower chamber is a halogen-containing gas source and therefore fails to teach the controller includes instructions to flow the halogen-containing gas through the lower chamber to etch a deposited film on at least one wall bounding the lower chamber of the reactor while flowing the silicon-containing gas through the upper chamber of the reactor. In the same field of endeavor of a semiconductor processing system [0014], (Fig 1), Hawkins teaches a halogen-containing gas source (46 Fig 1 [0026] hydrogen chloride is a halogen-containing gas) connected to the second inlet in the lower chamber of the reactor (Fig 1 and [0026]) and configured to provide a halogen-containing gas to the reactor [0026]. Hawkings further teaches that the halogen-containing gas is flowed through the lower chamber to etch a deposited film on at least one wall bounding the lower chamber of the reactor while flowing the silicon-containing gas through the upper chamber of the reactor [0038] (note that the deposition step includes flowing silicon-containing gas as referenced in [0026]). Regarding specifically to etch a deposited film on at least one wall bounding the lower chamber of the reactor, while the claim interpretation remains as above, it is further noted that Hawkins teaches the flow of the halogen-containing gas (HCl) will remove unwanted deposits [0038], and Sakamoto teaches the same gas HCl will removed deposits on the susceptor [0043], which may be considered a wall of the lower chamber, and also teaches it may be used to etch deposits on a wall surface of the chamber [0078]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakamoto to include having a halogen-containing gas source connected to the lower chamber and the controller to include instructions to flow the halogen-containing gas to the lower chamber while flowing the silicon-containing gas to the upper chamber because Sakamoto already teaches flowing gas to the lower chamber during upper chamber deposition and because Hawkins teaches using a halogen containing gas allows for in situ removal of deposits on the bottom or backside of the substrate to maintain a constant and consistent wafer backside [0038] to avoid thickness irregularities [0038], [0005]. Note that the controller of Sakamoto already includes instructions for flowing the lower gas to the lower chamber during the step of flowing silicon-containing gas to the upper chamber and therefore the program does not require any additional programming when the gas source is changed or the halogen-containing gas is added to the gas source. Further, Hawkins renders obvious flowing the halogen-containing gas while flowing the silicon-containing gas and therefore renders obvious modifying the controller of Sakamoto to include being responsive to instructions stored on a non-transitory memory to flow halogen-containing gas while flowing the silicon-containing gas.
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hawkins as applied teaches that the halogen-containing gas flows around the edge of the substrate [0032], [0074], [0026] and therefore, as explained above in the claim interpretation section, this results in etching the upper surface of the substrate with the halogen-containing gas to control thickness of a layer deposited onto a periphery of the upper surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hawkins as applied in the combination teaches the halogen-containing source gas is HCl and is connected to the lower chamber. Sakamoto teaches HCl may be used as a chamber cleaning gas and introduced to the upper chamber via the upper port (12 Fig 1) [0043]. Therefore the combination renders obvious having the halogen-containing gas (HCl) connected to the upper and lower chambers.
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sakamoto has taught flowing an inert gas through the lower chamber (H2 gas) [0061]. Further Hawkins teaches an inert gas source (H2 gas) connected to the lower chamber (46 Fig 1) to flow with the halogen-containing gas [0026]. The inert gas H2 is a purge gas. Therefore the combination as applied to claim 1 renders obvious a purge gas source connected to the lower chamber of the reactor to flow a purge gas flow through the lower chamber of the reactor with the flow of halogen-containing gas through the lower chamber of the reactor.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 above. Sakamoto as part of teaching the chamber does teach a divider (protrusion from wall 5 Fig 1, 4 that is close to the vertical arrows) that separates the upper (2a) and lower (2b) chambers (Fig 1, 4). Sakamoto also teaches a first inlet (12 Fig 1, 4) disposed in the upper chamber of the reactor (Fig 1, 4) and connected to the silicon containing gas source [0042]; a second inlet (14 Fig 4) disposed in the lower chamber of the reactor (Fig 1, 4) (note the combination has rendered obvious this being connected to the halogen-containing gas source). Hawkins as applied in the combination teaches the halogen-containing source gas is HCl and is connected to the lower chamber. Sakamoto teaches HCl may be used as a chamber cleaning gas and introduced to the upper chamber via the upper port (12 Fig 1) [0043]. Therefore the combination renders obvious having the halogen-containing gas (HCl) connected to the upper and lower chambers. Sakamoto further teaches the process includes flowing the halogen containing gas through the first inlet (12) and into the upper chamber [0043] during a cleaning step [0043]. The controller of Sakamoto is configured to perform this step as part of the control of the apparatus. Further, the flow through the first inlet (upper) during cleaning and the flow through the second (lower) inlet during substrate processing are independent of each other because they occur in different steps.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Sakamoto teaches the first inlet (12) is spaced apart vertically from the second inlet (14) (Fig 1,4).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto teaches the divider is disposed vertically between the first inlet and the second inlet (protrusion from sidewall 5 Fig 1, 4 is vertically between 12 and 14 Fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto teaches the reactor comprises a sidewall (sidewall 5 Fig 1, 4), the divider extends inward from the sidewall (Fig 1,4) , the first inlet is disposed through the sidewall (inlet 12 Fig 1,4) and above the divider (Fig 1,4), and the second inlet is disposed through the sidewall (14 Fig 4) and below the divider (Fig 1,4).
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto teaches a substrate holder (10 Fig 1,4) supported within an interior of the reactor (Fig 1, 4) and configured to support therein the substrate (W Fig 1, 4), wherein the divider defines a divider aperture therethrough (Fig 1,4, opening in the divider in which the substrate support 10 is positioned), the divider aperture providing fluid communication between the upper chamber and the lower chamber (see vertical flow arrows Fig 4).
Regarding claim 13, Sakamoto teaches the substrate holder (10 Fig 1, 4) is configured to be positioned within the divider aperture during operation of the semiconductor processing system (Fig 1, 4).
Regarding claim 14, Sakamoto teaches a substrate holder drive (7 and 11 Fig 1, 4) operably coupled to the substrate holder (Fig 1,4) , wherein the substrate holder drive is configured to displace the substrate between a first position and a second position along a rotation axis for loading the substrate into the reactor ([0040] taught as lift arms 11 rails the elevating pins). If applicant argues that structure 11 is not part of the substrate holder drive, it is noted that Hawkins teaches substrate holder drive (30 Fig 1) includes an elevating function [0025], [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate holder drive of Sakamoto include the substrate holder drive of Hawkins having the elevating function because Hawkins teaches that this allows for vertical positioning of the susceptor [0025].
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 14 above. Sakamoto as applied in the combination teaches the substrate holder drive is configured to rotate the substrate holder about the rotation axis [0040].
Regarding claim 16, Sakamoto teaches an operational configuration (Fig 1, 4), wherein in the operational configuration: the substrate holder is disposed within the divider aperture (Fig 1, 4); an outer edge of the substrate holder is spaced apart laterally from an inner edge of the divider aperture defining a gap therebetween (Fig 1, 4), and the upper chamber is in fluid communication with the lower chamber through the gap (Fig 1, 4 see flow arrows in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 16 above. Sakamoto teaches lift pins (9 Fig 4) extending through the substrate holder (10 Fig 4) which inherently require a holder aperture extending through the substrate holder (for the lift pin to move through) but fails to teach the aperture is configured to fluidly couple the lower chamber of the reactor with the lower surface of the substrate. Hawkins teaches the substrate holder further comprises a holder aperture (74 Fig 3-6 [0029], 88 Fig 7-9 [0037]) extending therethrough [0029], [0027], and in the operational configuration, the aperture is configured to fluidly couple the lower chamber of the reactor with the lower surface of the substrate [0029], [0027]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate holder of Sakamoto to include a holder aperture extending through the substrate holder such that the aperture is configured to fluidly couple the lower chamber of the reactor with the lower surface of the substrate because Hawkins teaches this allows for removing material from the backside of the substrate to maintain the bottom surface of the substrate free from deposits [0005], [0029], [0027], and [0035].
Regarding claim 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Hawkins as applied teaches that the halogen-containing gas flows around the edge of the substrate [0032], [0074], [0026] and therefore, as explained above in the claim interpretation section, this results in etching the upper surface of the substrate with the halogen-containing gas to control thickness of a layer deposited onto a periphery of the upper surface of the substrate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Hawkins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khandan (prev. presented US 2002/0039803).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hawkins as applied in the combination teaches the halogen-containing source gas is HCl and is connected to the lower chamber. Sakamoto teaches HCl may be used as a chamber cleaning gas and introduced to the upper chamber via the upper port (12 Fig 1) [0043]. Therefore the combination renders obvious having the halogen-containing gas (HCl) connected to the upper and lower chambers. Sakamoto fails to teach mass flow controllers (MFC) for connecting the halogen-containing gas to each of the upper and lower chambers. Hawkins teaches flow control devices [0023] but fails to specifically teach mass flow controllers. In the same field of endeavor of a deposition system (Fig 3) with gas flow to the upper and lower portions of the processing chamber (Fig 3), Khandan teaches the controller interfaces with mass flow controllers (MFC) on the gas supply lines (see MFC 160, 162, 168 Fig 3) [0027] to provide controlled flow of gas to the chamber [0006] because this allows precise control of the flow of gas and the concentration of gas in the chamber [0007]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakamoto and the combination of Sakamoto in view of Hawkins to include the mass flow controllers on the halogen-containing gas supply line to the upper and to the lower chambers because Khandan teaches this allows for automated and precise control of the gas flow and concentration [0006-0007] to a deposition chamber (Fig 3).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Hawkins as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kuppurao (prev. presented US 2007/0170148).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Sakamoto fails to teach a third inlet disposed through the sidewall and above the divider. The combination as applied to claim 9 renders obvious flowing two gases to the space above the divider (see Sakamoto teaching H2 and trichlorosilane as the upper chamber gas). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the upper chamber gas inlet to allow for each gas to be introduced individually because this represents a mere duplication of parts. Further, in the same field of endeavor of a deposition system (Fig 1 and [0008]), Kuppurao teaches that the gas inlet for two gases may be combined to have one inlet (Fig 2a, 2c, see combination of lines 30a, 30b) or may have two inlets (Fig 2b lines 30a, 30b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakamoto and the combination of Sakamoto in view of Hawkins to have a third inlet disposed in through the sidewall above the divider because Kuppurao teaches two inlets are an obvious alternative to a singular inlet for two gas introduction.
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto teaches flowing a dopant gas through the upper chamber (diborane B2H6 gas) [0042]. Therefore the combination as applied to claim 10 renders obvious a dopant gas source connected to the upper chamber of the reactor via the third inlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p7) that modifying Sakamoto to include a halogen containing gas renders Sakamoto’s system/method unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. It is respectfully noted that Sakamoto’s system/method is for deposition to the upper surface of the substrate. Sakamoto uses purge/inert gas to avoid deposition occurring below the substrate, but applicant’s argument suggests the purpose of Sakamoto’s chamber is to avoid any reaction. Examiner notes that applying the etching gas below the substrate does not render the apparatus unable to deposit on the upper surface particularly in view of the teaching of Hawkins that the chemical is applied during deposition (see Hawkins [0038]) specifically to avoid deposition on the backside of the wafer. Therefore the argument that the modification renders Sakamoto unusable for its intended purpose is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that there is no reason to modify Sakamoto because Sakamoto already uses purge gas to avoid deposits. Examiner notes that both gases are taught for the same purpose of avoiding deposition on the lower portion of the chamber. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Further, examiner notes that while Applicant argues that Sakamoto already sufficiently achieves the same result, it is noted that if deposition gas still leaks into the space below the substrate, the inclusion of the etching gas results in superior performance by etching away any deposits that result. Therefore, Examiner does not agree with applicant’s argument that there is no need for further improvement. Further, the ability to etch away deposits may result in lower gas flow being needed with results in lower cost of operation for both gas supply and pumping. It is also noted that Sakamoto teaches using hydrogen gas as the gas flow to prevent deposits and Hawkins teaches using a halogen gas with hydrogen gas (Hawkins Fig 1) and therefore Hawkins is teaching the combination of the gases to be flowed to the lower chamber.
The arguments regarding independent claim 6 and dependent claims (reply p9-10) rely on the arguments directed to the combination of Sakamoto in view of Hawkins which has been addressed above. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2004/0144323 teaches gas flow above and below the substrate (Fig 1). US 2002/0086530 teaches it is known to use inert gas with an etching gas of HCl to prevent deposition [0040].
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights