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 1-10, 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa in in view of Fenwick (2017/0323772).
Hanawa teaches a gas diffuser plate comprising:
- a substrate diffuser plate having an emissivity [0048-49] and
- a coating forming on the diffuser plate wherein the coating has an emissivity higher than the substrate: see [0005] wherein an aluminum substrate has a anodized coating in order to increase emissivity, and further the teachings include a substrate coated with materials including alumina and yttria [0048-49], both increase emissivity, but the teachings do not include a first layer comprising titanium, nitrogen and oxygen.
The teachings of Hanawa are described above, not teaching the inclusion of titanium, nitrogen and oxygen in the first layer. Fenwick, however, teaches that alumina, TiO and TiN are useful materials for semiconductor components, see chamber parts including diffuser plates [0020] from materials coated such as alumina, TiO and TiN [0032] coated or bonded to an aluminum base.
It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include TiO and TiN in the composition coating the distribution plate of Hanawa as the teachings include that such coatings are usefully provided on an aluminum base. The teachings of Hanawa include that coatings are useful for various reasons include emissivity and corrosion improvement [0005] and it would be further obvious to include the materials taught by Fenwick for similar reasons particularly wherein Fenwick teaches that such materials are useful when exposed to cleaning environments (and the layers would further assist particularly in fluorine environments). In regard to the gas diffuser plate emissivity higher than the substrate, initially the Office holds that the claim is comprising and not limited from including a combination of coatings, therefore at least the alumina coating would provide an increased emissivity. However, further, applicants provide evidence that a mixture of TiN and TiO would likewise provide a higher emissivity. It is further noted that the emissivity difference between TiN/TiO and the substrate need not be recognized by the prior art, there is a distinct motivation to include the coatings and the claimed characteristic is inherent in the materials, see MPEP 2112. II.
In regard specifically to the requirement that the first layer comprises titanium, nitrogen and oxygen, a combination of TiO and TiN as taught meets the claim requirements. The intended use of a cyclic deposition chamber is intended use, previously addressed and not repeated.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the teachings as noted above include any one or more layers of material, wherein the teachings include combinations of the materials (exemplifying alumina and yttria as noted). In regard to improving the emissivity and corrosion resistance, the teachings of Hanawa as noted above include that the layers taught in the application perform both functions.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, as supported by the evidence of instant application, the emissivity of the materials is necessarily within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the gas diffuser plate taught above has an emissivity higher than the base material. The limitation related to the modulation of the coating to match the material deposited – this is met wherein a coating is deposited on the substrate has the same emissivity to match the first layer. The apparatus is capable of the same use and therefore the limitation is met. (The claim is being interpreted as including wherein modulation is based on change of emissivity from the original diffuser plate substrate.)
Regarding claims 5 and 19, per above, Fenwick teaches TiO and TiN.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the ratio of elements is determined when the coatings are formed, and therefore necessarily impacts the emissivity of the layers.
Regarding claims 7-9, 21 and 22, these limitations are again an intended use, but in any case the coatings are compatible with chemistries use in cleaning processes [0048]. The limitation is met wherein even a purge process can be considered a “cleaning process” in any case the ‘cleaning’ process is further undefined (in claims 7, 8 and 21). Further to claim 9, the claim is again considered intended use, but in any case Hanawa teaches the suitability of the coatings with chlorine-containing cleaning gases [0068]. Wherein the claimed gases are not specifically name, the selection of ClF3 is generally in the general range of chlorine based gases; also “resistant to the corrosion” is not specifically limited and therefore considered taught by Hanawa’s teaching of compatible with cleaning processes. Further to claims 21 and 22, the second layer is taught as per Hanawa noted above.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, the teachings above include alumina and/or yttria.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15, 24 and 26, the teachings of the art include the formation of a first and second layer as claimed – the requirements related to the process of forming do not hold weight in the product (apparatus) claim. MPEP 2113 is cited as previously. Further to claims 15 and 26, the second layer of Hanawa is in any case on the first layer and therefore “placed” on the first layer.
Regarding claims 14 and 25, as defined by increasing the emissivity as presented, the first layer/material reduces radiation emission. However, the presence of a wafer is intended use particularly wherein only the diffuser plate is claimed.
Regarding claim 16, all elements of the claim are met as above, including:
- a substrate diffuser plate having an emissivity and
- a coating forming on the diffuser plate wherein the coating has an emissivity higher than a substrate – the chamber and the substrate are not required, so the requirement for a particular surface relative to the substrate is not limiting, but in any case as per Fig. 3 of Hanawa, it is the surface facing the wafer;
- in regard to the difference in the emissivity as claimed, again, the use of the plate for a deposition process on a wafer is intended use – the limitation is understood as met wherein the diffuser plate is capable of the same use and the plate of Hanawa is capable of the same use, as shown in Fig. 3 and the related text. Further, the teachings include the use in a CVD chamber [0011] and therefore the claimed structure is capable of the same use when a deposited material is within the claimed range.
The coating of Ti, O and N is addressed per Fenwick above.
Claims 1-10, 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa in in view of Fenwick and Tsuji (2005/0156063).
The teachings of Hanawa and Fenwick are described above, while the Office initially holds that the teachings sufficiently teach the claimed invention, the teachings of Tsuji are applied to support that such coatings are useful on shower plates wherein Fenwick does not explicitly exemplify the application.
Tsuji teaches that coatings such as titanium nitride are useful on shower plate surfaces of semiconductor process equipment [0040]. So, further to the combination of Hanawa and Fenwick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the TiN (and TiO) layers of Fenwick to the shower plate of Hanawa as Fenwick teaches that such coatings are useful in components of semiconductor processing chambers and Tsuji further supports that TiN is useful on a shower plate.
Claims 2-10 and 12-26 are further rejected in the same manner as above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa and Fenwick (and alternatively Tsuji) in view of Kato (2021/0395880).
The teachings of Hanawa are described above, teaching various layers on a diffuser plate as noted, but the teachings do not include a transparent layer. Kato, however, teaches that a transparent layer is useful on a showerhead as a portion of a heater used to heat the showerhead (diffuser plate) [0065-68]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heater plate of Kato, including the transparent layer, as a further coating on the diffuser plate of Hanawa as Hanawa teaches the noted coating on the plate and Kato further teaches that a transparent film with an embedded heater is useful for heating a showerhead (i.e. diffuser plate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0611/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, applicants have overcome the 112 rejections by amendment.
Applicants argue that the prior art does not teach a first layer comprising Ti, N and O, the Office disagrees. Applicants initially argue that Fenwick does not teach a first layer comprising the 3 elements – but any combination of sub-layers adequately meets the claim language of the first layer, therefore a composite of TiN and TiO meets the claim requirement. Applicants further argue that Fenwick does not specifically teach such elements for a diffuser plate – however, this is not limiting. The broader teachings of Fenwick include the layers for chamber components – the failure to exemplify TiN and/or TiO for a diffuser is not a teaching away.
Further, the teachings of Tsuji are applied in the alternative, and support that at least TiN would have been applied to a diffuser plate…as such, any such combination of materials such as taught by Fenwick would be considered operable. Further, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a material for an intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality – there is no criticality supported within the scope of the claim.
Applicants also argue that Fenwick does not teach the application of the coatings in fluorine and cleaning environments as argued, however [0032] described that TiO and TiN coatings improve resistant to plasma environments with fluorine chemistry.
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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights