DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149) in view of Tadokoro (2022/0252992).
Regarding clam 11, Hammond teaches a chamber lid comprising:
- a dielectric material having a disk shape, integrating a lid portion and gas delivery nozzle into a single structure – see Figs. 1 and 5 and [0023] wherein the depiction includes a nozzle 196 within lid 120,
- in regard to the lid comprising a plurality of gas flow paths that each traverse a region of the chamber lid from one surface to another surface – see wherein the nozzle has an input on the top portion and outlets on the bottom portion (196c/r) to distribute gases to different parts of the chamber. In regard to etch gases, the art teaches the application of etch gases [0006] but intended use was also previously addressed.
The teachings do not include an aperture in the chamber lid with a monitoring device therein. Tadokoro, however, teaches that it is useful to plate a temperature monitor in a process chamber, and the sensor is operably provided at the center of the lid [0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the temperature sensor (i.e. monitoring device) of Tadokoro in the apparatus of Hammond as Tadokoro teaches that it is useful to include such a device and would be operably place in an opening in the chamber lid (as per related Fig. 6, the sensor is shown in an opening).
Regarding claim 12, as described by Hammond, an antenna is coupled to the lid and it would be understood that the dielectric material allows the plasma to transfer though the lid into the chamber [0023].
Regarding claims 13, 14, 2 and 3, the nozzle is a cylindrical protrusion in the region with at least two outputs on the sidewall of the cylinder as depicted.
Regarding claims 17 and 7, the lid comprises ceramic [0026-29].
Regarding claim 9, Hammond does not exemplify wherein the number of outlets is greater than the number of inlets – but such a modification is a routine rearrangement of parts. As per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. to rearrange parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case it would be obvious to rearrange the flow paths to include for example multiple outlets from an inlet.
Regarding claim 1, the semiconductor system of Hammond further comprises:
- a chamber body with walls, see 122/130,
- a substate support, see 150,
- a plasma source, see 112/170/118, and
- a chamber lid as described above, with the monitoring device per Tadokoro.
Claims 15, 16, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149) and Tadokoro in view of Rozenson (2015/0371826).
The teachings of Hammond are described above, including a cylindrical portion in the lid to distribute gases, but, while teachings multiple outer group of gas paths (196r) does not explicitly teach multiple inner gas paths (196c).
Rozenson teaches an equivalent (etch) system including a dielectric plate that comprises the lid and a nozzle to supply gases into a chamber, see Fig. 1 and particularly [0034-37]. Rozenson teaches that the nozzle that is integrated into the chamber lid comprises multiple inner and outer gas flow paths, see nozzle 114 with outer paths 118 and inner paths 116, further per Fig. 7, there are multiple such outlets. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the nozzle of Rozenson and/or modify the nozzle of Hammond as per the teachings of Rozenson as an alternative manner of dispersing the gases in the chamber. In combining the teachings, the nozzle of Hammond meets the require-ment of the inner and outer “groups” of gas paths as claimed – wherein the groups are respectively configured to distribute gases to the central region and the edge.
It is further noted that Hammond in any case teaches “at least one port 196c” and therefore is not limiting and in any case/further as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 16, 5 and 6, as per Rozenson the outer gas paths are angled. In regard to the radius of the output location of the gas path, the prior art teaches that the radius is greater than the radius of the input location (as per claims 16 and 5). However, to form the outlets such that the radius is less than the input location would have been a small change in the shape and/or dimension of the part. As per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. the selection/change of size and/or shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to alter the angle of the outlet portion of the outer group of nozzles would have been obvious based on the change of the size (radius) or shape of the outlet and in either case would have still resulted in a spread of the gases as taught by the prior art.
Claims 18 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149) and Tadokoro in view of Kim (KR2012/0079962).
The teachings of Hammond are described above, the teachings include the chamber lid, but do not include the plurality of concentric rings as claimed. Kim, however, teaches an analogous apparatus including a gas nozzle incorporated into a chamber, lid, see Fig. 3 particularly. The lid includes multiple injection units which comprise multiple (concentric) rings of injection holes, see 210 and 220 and p7 halfway – p8 halfway. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the concentric rings of injection holes as taught by Kim in the apparatus of Hammond as a method of further distributing gas from the lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
Claim 19 is 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 reasons for allowance previously indicated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Office agrees that Hammond does not teach the claimed sensor in the claimed location, but that element is taught by Tadokoro.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights