DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for a change of the emissivity of the base material with the coating material, does not reasonably provide enablement for a modulation of the emissivity based on the conditions (i.e. the process performed within the chamber). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
A. breadth of the claims: the claims include a diffuser plate with a base and a coating that “modulates” the emissivity of the plate, the term modulation could be considered a change of the emissivity based on the formation of the coating or it could refer to an actively changing emissivity. See particularly claim 4 for such interpretation wherein the first layer is configured to match the emissivity of a deposited on the wafer – as the apparatus is usable for a myriad of different on-wafer processes the claims as written include embodiments wherein the emissivity of the first layer actively responds to a layer deposited on the substrate;
B. nature of the invention: the invention is drawn to coatings on a plate to effect different attributes such as an emissivity different than that of an original plate substrate,
C. state of the prior art and D. level of one of ordinary skill in the art is knowledgeable of coatings that are applied to diffuser plates for the purpose of controlling properties, but it wouldn’t be generally known for the layer to be adaptive to the material being deposited in the apparatus. Adaptive coatings are formed in some applications, but not pervasive in the semiconductor art, but these typically have a mode in order to adapt properties, such as by mechanical application, see Gorodetsky (2021/0063612) for example
F. the amount of direction provided by the inventor and G. working examples: the specification is generally unclear what is intended by the modulation. There are no specific examples of the adaptive coatings so the specification does not enable the entire scope of the claims, which include that the coating adapts to the emissivity of different layers deposited within the chamber. The specification from [0070-75] includes controlling the emissivity of the first layer and [0075] wherein it is selected to match the material being deposited, but provides no guidance to the first layer actively modulating the emissivity in response to a material being deposited.
The totality of the evidence supports that the claim includes embodiments wherein the first layer emissivity modulates to that of a layer deposited on a substrate, but the specification does not include teachings specifically as such. It appears that the scope that is supported is of a first layer deposited on a substrate diffusion plate wherein the first layer results in an emissivity that is higher than that of the base plate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 23 and 26 recite the limitation "the second layer" in claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-18, 21, 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanawa (2011/0052833).
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:
a. see [0005] wherein an aluminum substrate has a anodized coating in order to increase emissivity.
b. the teachings include a substrate coated with any combination of materials including alumina and yttria [0048-49], both increase emissivity.
In regard for the plate being for use in a cyclic deposition chamber, the use of the plate for a particular purpose and the use of the chamber further for a particular purpose is intended use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The teachings in any case include use for vapor deposition and further include cycles [0045], but the limitations are met by the capability of the diffuser plate to be used in the same.
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.
In regard to the first layer being configured to “modulate” the emissivity, the teachings of Hanawa include that the coatings increase the emissivity of the surface.
Wherein any combination of materials is applied to meet the claim limitations, the claims are anticipated.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the coating results in an emissivity of 0.8-0.85 [0048]
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 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 claim 10, the teachings as above include yttria as noted – since this is one selection of one material taught for the same purpose the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15, 24 and 26, the teachings of Hanawa 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. As per MPEP 2113, “even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” And the patentability does not depend on the method of production – as such the structure as per above meets the limitations. 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 claim 14, 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.
Regarding claim 18, the coating results in an emissivity of 0.8-0.85 [0048] – this is well within and therefore anticipates the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the teachings as noted above include any one or more layers of material, in the event that it is determined that a “combination” of materials as taught by Hanawa does not anticipate the claimed two layers, the alternative rejection is made. Wherein the teachings include combinations of the materials, i.e. alumina and yttria, it would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply both of the materials as coatings to the diffuser plate substrate as various such materials are taught as useful singly or in combination. 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.
In regard to the first layer being configured to “modulate” the emissivity, the teachings of Hanawa include that the coatings increase the emissivity of the surface.
Claim 3, 4, 7-10, 12-15, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 26, the claims are addressed in the same manner as above and will not be repeated.
Claims 5, 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa in view of Fenwick (2017/0323772).
The teachings of Hanawa are described above, not teaching the inclusion of TiO and TiN in the first material. 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).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanawa 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712