DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/393,086, attorney docket 44023614US01, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Applied Materials, Inc. was filed on 12/21/2023.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that examining both groups presents no undue burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because examiner determined that the inventions are distinct and will require searches in different databases and different subclasses. Each subclass may contain thousands of patents and may take several hours to review and examiner is given a limited time to prosecute each case. See MPEP §808.02. Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search. Here examiner has determined that the classification and field of search will not be the same.
The requirement is affirmed as proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-17 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (U.S. 2022/0068659).
As for claim 1,
Jeong teaches in figurer 8, a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising:
a chamber body (110) comprising an inject section (above 240) and an exhaust section (181);
a plasma source assembly (190, 210, PLR), the chamber body and the plasma source assembly at least partially defining a processing volume, the plasma source assembly comprising:
a sidewall (vertical potion beside 210 and to the upper side of the chamber);
a gas injection insert (232) disposed within the sidewall, the sidewall and the gas injection insert defining a plasma source interior volume, the gas injection insert and the sidewall at least partially defining one or more gas injection channels (shown in figure 8) therebetween; and
a plasma generator (190/210)disposed around the sidewall;
a substrate support (170) disposed in the processing volume; and
one or more heat sources (h4, h3)configured to heat the processing volume.
As for claim 2,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the one or more heat sources comprise a plurality of heat sources arranged in a plurality of levels and disposed below the substrate support. H3 is below the chamber, H4 is partially below the chamber).
As for claim 3,
Jeong teaches the p processing chamber of claim 2, wherein the plurality of levels comprise:
a first level of one or more first heat sources; and
a second level of one or more second heat sources oriented at an angle relative to the first level. (H4 is above and perpendicular to H3).
As for claim 5,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the one or more gas injection channels extend annularly between the sidewall and the gas injection insert. (shown in figure 2c).
As for claim 7,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, and Jeong teaches a conductive plate (240) disposed between the substrate support and the gas injection insert, wherein the conductive plate comprises a plurality of flow openings.
As for claim 9,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the plasma generator comprises an induction coil. ([0097]).
As for claim 10,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the one or more heat sources comprise a plurality of heat sources arranged in a plurality of zones. (shown on sides and support).
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong.
As for claim 6,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 1, but does not teach that the one or more heat sources comprise a resistive heater disposed in the substrate support. H3 is resistive.
However, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use a resistive heating element. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem of heating an object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, and selected a resistive heater to meet the design needs of the device
As for claim 11,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 10, but does not teach that the plurality of heat sources are oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the substrate support.
However, multiple layers of heaters is considered a duplication of useful parts that would allow greater capacitor or greater localized control of temperature. It has been held that mere duplication or arrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bermis Co., 193 USPQ8. In re Harza establishes "a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).Here, the applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results for the additional heaters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the invention was made to add the additional heaters.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Hawrylchak et al. (U.S. 2019/0066998).
As for claim 13,
Jeong teaches in figure 8, a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising:
a chamber body (110) comprising an inject section (above 240) and an exhaust section (181);
one or more heat sources (h3, h4);
a first conductive plate (240) , wherein the first conductive plate at least partially defines a processing volume;
a second conductive plate (140), wherein the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate at least partially define a remote processing volume; and
a substrate support (170) disposed in the processing volume, the one or more heat sources disposed between the lid and the substrate support. In the combination, the heaters h3 are between 170 and the region of the lid.
Jeong does not teach a lid comprising an opening,
However, Hawrylchak teaches in figure 2A a lid (214) comprising an opening (224),
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use a lid on the chamber because it enables cleaning and maintenance on the interior parts. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 14
Jeong in view of Hawrylchak makes obvious the processing chamber of claim 13, and in the combination, Jeong teaches that the processing chamber is configured to generate a plasma in the remote processing volume. Jeong [0029].
As for claim 15,
Jeong in view of Hawrylchak makes obvious the processing chamber of claim 13, wherein the processing chamber is configured to generate a plasma in the processing volume.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Hawrylchak and in further view of Collins et al (U.S. 6,054,013.)
As for claim 17,
Jeong in view of Hawrylchak makes obvious the processing chamber of claim 13, but does not teach a a pumping ring, wherein the pumping ring is radially symmetric around the substrate support.
However, Collins teaches magnetic rings 2130, 2135 which are for pump protection, so are considered pumping rings
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the pumping rings of Collins in the chamber of Jeong to protect the pump from plasma. (Collins [co34 ln 40+]) One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 12 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 4,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 3, but the prior art does not teach or make obvious a first reflector disposed inwardly of the first level of one or more first heat sources and a second reflector disposed inwardly of the second level of one or more second heat sources.
As for claim 8,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 7, but the prior art does not teach or make obvious an electrode extending into the conductive plate on a side aligned with the exhaust section of the processing chamber.
As for claim 12,
Jeong teaches the processing chamber of claim 10, but the prior art does not teach or make obvious the plurality of heat sources are oriented at an oblique angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the substrate support.
As for claim 16,
Jeong in view of Hawrylchak makes obvious the processing chamber of claim 13, but the combination does not teach that that the processing chamber includes a pumping ring disposed below the substrate support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights