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 .
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 –
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranish et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0256962 A1)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
Regarding claim 19, Ranish et al. teach a process kit for processing a substrate comprising: one or more liners (Fig. 1 -111) forming a substantially annular structure; and a gas flow ring (Fig. 1 – 122) positioned on an upper surface of the one or more liners (Fig. 1 – 111), the gas flow ring comprising: a ring-shaped body; a top surface; a bottom surface; a first overlapping portion extending from a first inner sidewall of the ring-shaped
body (Figs. 2A-D); and a second overlapping portion extending from a second inner sidewall
of the ring-shaped body (Fig. 2C), wherein the first overlapping portion is spaced apart from and overlies the second overlapping portion to form a gas flow channel that extends from
the bottom surface to the top surface of the gas flow ring (Figs. 2A-D)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding 20, Ranish et al. teach wherein there is no line of sight extending through
the gas flow channel. (Figs. 2A-D)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 1-8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0256962 A1) in view of Shah et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0075430 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Ranish et al. teach a process chamber comprising:
a chamber body (Fig. 1 - 110) enclosing an interior volume (Fig. 1 - 131, 133); a substrate support (Fig. 1 - 124) disposed in the interior volume (Fig. 1 - 131, 133), the interior volume including a lower interior volume (Fig. 1 - 131) below the substrate support (Fig. 1 - 124) and an upper interior volume (Fig. 1 - 133) above the substrate support (Fig. 1 - 124); and a gas flow ring (Fig. 1 - 122, 127) disposed around an outer edge of the substrate support 124), the gas flow ring (Fig. 1 - 122,127) comprising: a ring-shaped body (Fig. 1 - 122, 127); a top surface; a bottom surface (Fig. 1); a first overlapping portion extending from a first inner sidewall of the ring-shaped body (Fig. 1 - 122, Fig. 2A); and a second overlapping portion extending from a second inner sidewall of the ring shaped body (Fig. 2A-D), wherein the first overlapping portion is spaced apart from and overlies the second overlapping portion to form a gas flow channel that extends from the bottom surface to the top surface of the gas flow ring (Fig. 2A-D), .
The difference between Ranish et al. and claim 1 is that a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume (Claim 1), Shah et al. teach a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0027 – the purge gas inlet (250) may provide a flow of an inert gas, such as hydrogen, from a purge gas source (252) into the lower portion (254).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a leading edge of the first overlapping
portion is horizontally spaced apart from the second inner sidewall by a distance from
about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm.
Regarding claim 2, Ranish et al. teach wherein a leading edge of the first overlapping
portion is horizontally spaced apart from the second inner sidewall by a distance from
about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm. (See Fig. 2A)
PNG
media_image1.png
400
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first overlapping portion is
vertically spaced apart from the second overlapping portion by a distance from about
0.5 mm to about 4 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Ranish et al. teach wherein the first overlapping portion is
vertically spaced apart from the second overlapping portion by a distance from about
0.5 mm to about 4 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas flow ring is spaced apart from
an outer edge of the substrate support by a gap.
Regarding claim 4, Shah et al. teach wherein the gas flow ring is spaced apart from
an outer edge of the substrate support by a gap. (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029 – the pre-heat ring (300) is positioned to separate from the substrate support (302) by a predetermined gap “B”.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a size of the gap at a first location
around the outer edge of the substrate support is from about 10% to about 50%
relative to a size of the gap at a second location around the outer edge of the substrate
support.
Regarding claim 5, Shah et al. teach wherein a size of the gap at a first location
around the outer edge of the substrate support is from about 10% to about 50% relative to a size of the gap at a second location around the outer edge of the substrate support. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0029, 0030)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first overlapping portion or the second overlapping portion includes a first protrusion extending into the gas flow channel towards the other overlapping portion.
Regarding claim 6, Ranish et al. teach wherein the first overlapping portion or the second overlapping portion includes a first protrusion extending into the gas flow channel towards the other overlapping portion. (Paragraphs 0023-0024; Figs. 2C-2D)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first overlapping portion includes a first protrusion extending into the gas flow channel towards the second overlapping portion, and
the second overlapping portion includes a second protrusion extending into the
gas flow channel towards the first overlapping portion.
Regarding claim 7, Ranish et al. teach wherein the first overlapping portion includes a first protrusion extending into the gas flow channel towards the second overlapping portion, and
the second overlapping portion includes a second protrusion extending into the
gas flow channel towards the first overlapping portion. (Paragraphs 0023-0024; Figs. 2C-2D)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein at least of portion of the gas flow ring
overlies a portion of a top surface of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 8, Ranish et al. teach wherein at least of portion of the gas flow ring
overlies a portion of a top surface of the substrate support. (Paragraph 0024; Fig. 2A)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Ranish et al. teach a process chamber comprising: a chamber body (Fig. 1 – 110) enclosing an interior volume (Fig. 1 – 133, 131); a substrate support (Fig. 1 – 124) disposed in the interior volume (Fig. 1 -133, 131), the interior volume (Fig. 1 – 133, 131) including a lower interior volume (Fig. 1 – 131) below the substrate support (Fig. 1 – 124) and an upper interior volume (Fig. 1 -133) above the substrate support (Fig. 1 – 124); and a gas flow ring (Fig. 1 - 122,127) disposed around an outer edge of the substrate support, the gas flow ring comprising: a ring-shaped body (Fig. 1 - 122,127) ; a top surface; a bottom surface; and a gas flow channel extending from the bottom surface to the top surface of the gas flow ring, wherein there is no line of sight extending through the gas flow channel (Figs. 2A-D).
a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume.
The difference between Ranish et al. and claim 1 is that a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume is not discussed (Claim 10).
Regarding a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume (Claim 10), Shah et al. teach a first purge gas line configured to provide a first flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0027 – the purge gas inlet (250) may provide a flow of an inert gas, such as hydrogen, from a purge gas source (252) into the lower portion (254).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a width of the gas flow channel at
the top surface of gas flow ring is from about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Ranish et al. teach wherein a width of the gas flow channel at
the top surface of gas flow ring is from about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm. (See Fig. 2A annotated above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas flow ring includes a first
overlapping portion and a second overlapping portion, the first overlapping portion is
spaced apart from the second overlapping portion to form the gas flow channel, and
the first overlapping portion is vertically spaced apart from the second overlapping
portion by a distance from about 0.5 mm to about 4 mm.
Regarding claim 12, Ranish et al. teach wherein the gas flow ring includes a first
overlapping portion and a second overlapping portion, the first overlapping portion is
spaced apart from the second overlapping portion to form the gas flow channel, and
the first overlapping portion is vertically spaced apart from the second overlapping
portion by a distance from about 0.5 mm to about 4 mm. (See Fig. 2A annotated above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas flow ring is spaced apart
from an outer edge of the substrate support by a gap.
Regarding claim 13, Shah et al. teach wherein the gas flow ring is spaced apart from
an outer edge of the substrate support by a gap. (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029 – the pre-heat ring (300) is positioned to separate from the substrate support (302) by a predetermined gap “B”.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a size of the gap is substantially
constant around the outer edge of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 14, Shah et al. teach wherein a size of the gap is substantially constant around the outer edge of the substrate support. (Paragraph 0029, 0030)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a size of the gap at a first location
around the outer edge of the substrate support is from about 10% to about 50% relative to a size of the gap at a second location around the outer edge of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 15, Shah et al. teach wherein a size of the gap at a first location
around the outer edge of the substrate support is from about 10% to about 50% relative to a size of the gap at a second location around the outer edge of the substrate support. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0029, 0030)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an exhaust inlet, wherein
the second location is closer to the exhaust inlet than the first location is to the exhaust
inlet.
Regarding claim 16, Shah et al. teach an exhaust inlet 242 wherein
the second location is closer to the exhaust inlet than the first location is to the exhaust
inlet. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein at least of portion of the gas flow
ring overlies a portion of a top surface of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 17, Ranish et al. teach wherein at least of portion of the gas flow
ring overlies a portion of a top surface of the substrate support. (Fig. 1, 2A)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shah et al. is that it allows for providing a gas flow to cover the wafer. (Paragraph 0026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ranish et al. by utilizing the features of Shah et al. because it allows for providing a gas flow to cover the wafer.
Claim(s) 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish et al. in view of Shah et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 10-17 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,851,299).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 9, 18:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a second purge gas line
configured to provide a second flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume, wherein
the first purge gas line is configured to provide the first flow of purge gas to an
outer location in the lower interior volume, and the second purge gas line is configured to provide the second flow of purge gas to a central location in the lower interior volume underlying a central portion of the substrate support, wherein the outer location is closer to an outer edge of the substrate support than the outer location is to a center of the substrate support.
Regarding claims 9, 18:
Shah et al. discussed above teach a first purge gas line configured to provide the first flow of purge gas to an outer location in the lower interior volume. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0027 – the purge gas inlet (250) may provide a flow of an inert gas, such as hydrogen, from a purge gas source (252) into the lower portion (254).)
Cheng et al. teach a second purge gas line configured to provide a second flow of purge gas to the lower interior volume. The second purge gas line is configured to provide the second flow of purge gas to a central location in the lower interior volume underlying a central portion of the substrate support. (Fig. 2 – 16)
The combination of Shah et al. and Cheng et al. suggest wherein the outer location is closer to an outer edge of the substrate support than the outer location is to a center of the substrate support.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Cheng et al. is that it allows for purging of the chamber. (Column 3 lines 66-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Cheng et al. because it allows for purging the chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, Jame Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 11, 2026