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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to a processing chamber, classified in C30B 25/08.
II. Claims 18, drawn to a method of cleaning, classified in C23C 16/02.
III. Claims 19-21, drawn to a side nozzle, classified in C23C 16/45563.
IV. Claims 22-23, drawn to a susceptor, classified in H05B 6/105.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without a lid liner separator.
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a nozzle part comprising a dispenser outlet, the extension body being disposed between the coupling part and the nozzle part and comprising a larger diameter than a coupling part and a nozzle part. The subcombination has separate utility such as a side nozzle in an amorphous vapor deposition apparatus without a plasma source.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I and IV are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a susceptor comprising a heater puck, wherein the heater puck comprises a plurality of graphite cores enclosed by a first protection layer, a plurality of resistive heating elements disposed on a surface of the first protection layer, and a second protection layer enclosing the plurality of resistive heating elements. The subcombination has separate utility such as a susceptor in an amorphous vapor deposition apparatus without a plasma source.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can practice by another and materially different apparatus, such as a side nozzle without an extension body having a larger diameter than a coupling part and a nozzle part, such as single unitary nozzle body.
Inventions II and IV are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can practice by another and materially different apparatus, such as a susceptor without a plurality of graphite cores, such a susceptor without a heater puck.
Inventions III and IV are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions a side nozzle for supplying gas is a separate and distinct element from a susceptor for supporting and heating a substrate.
During a telephone conversation with Keith Tobada on 09/10/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434) and Savas et al (US 2019/0062947).
Lubomirsky et al teaches a processing chamber for an epitaxy deposition comprising: a dome lid 216 coupled with a lid liner via a lid liner separator; a plasma source disposed on top of the dome lid and operable to energize a process gas ([0053]-[0054] teaches a remote plasma generating system comprising RF coils coiled around the dome to create inductively coupled plasma in a chamber); a gas ring 414 disposed under the dome lid ([0049]-[0084] and Figs 2A, 2B, 3E, 4A teach an annular gas ring comprising side nozzles 253/360/410 radially distributed around the chamber disposed under the dome); a susceptor 204/286 disposed below the gas ring and operable to heat a substrate ([0042]-[0066] and Fig 2A, 2D teaches a substrate pedestal 204/286 coupled to a temperature control system 106 with heating/cooling system to control the substrate temperature); and a side wall disposed under the gas ring ([0061]; Fig 2B teaches the deposition chamber has sidewalls).
Lubomirsky et al teaches a dome lid 216; a sidewall and a gas ring. Lubomirsky et al does not explicitly teach a dome lid coupled with a lid liner via a lid liner separator; a side wall disposed under the gas ring and coupled with a wall liner via a wall liner separator; and a gas ring disposed under the dome lid and coupled with a gas ring liner via a gas ring liner separator.
In a plasma processing chamber, Zhao et al teaches a liner is disposed in the reaction chamber and includes a liner body being arranged around an inner side wall of the reaction chamber and is grounded; a first separator being arranged to surround a periphery of a base disposed in the reaction chamber, a lower end of the first separator being grounded through the base; a dielectric ring being arranged between an inner peripheral wall of the first separator and an outer peripheral wall of the base; and a second separator being arranged to be around a lower end of the liner body and an outer peripheral wall of the first separator, wherein the liner can prevent the system from generating resonance, thereby enhancing the process stability (abstract; [0034]). Zhao et al teaches some embodiments where the second separator is integrally connected to the liner body; or the second separator is connected to the first separator as a single piece ([0010]-[0022]);
In a plasma processing chamber, Savas et al teaches protective surface layers of materials that are inert to the reactive species from the plasma line the inner walls; and surface material layers may take the form of physical liners, or coatings thereupon, that may be disposed near inner surfaces of the vessel, or as coatings on the inner vessel wall; and the protective surface materials help prevent contaminants from being released and diffusing through the gas to the surface of the semiconductor wafer ([0020]-[0023]). Savas et al teaches a protective liner 42 is needed for all wall areas of a vessel ([0085]). Savas et al also teaches a slotted protective liner (Fig 9A; [0036], [0080]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lubomirsky et al by providing a dome lid coupled with a lid liner via a lid liner separator; a side wall disposed under the gas ring and coupled with a wall liner via a wall liner separator; and a gas ring disposed under the dome lid and coupled with a gas ring liner via a gas ring liner separator because liners and separators enhance the process stability, as taught by Zhao et al, and a protective liner 42 is needed for all wall areas of a vessel, as taught by Savas et al; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the liner and separator for all elements of the vessel which would include the dome lid, the gas ring and the sidewall, to provide a protective surface to prevent contamination.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches a side nozzle 410 coupled with the gas ring 414 and the gas ring liner, wherein the side nozzle comprises a cylindrical shape with a gas channel disposed along a central axis of the side nozzle (See Lubomirsky Fig 4B; [0079]-[0081]).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches the side nozzle 410 comprise: a dispenser outlet disposed at one end of the side nozzle and configured to provide the process gas into the processing chamber; and an orifice disposed at another end of the side nozzle and configured to receive the process gas from the gas ring, the orifice being surrounded by a protrusion extending from a surface of the side nozzle. (See Lubomirsky Fig 4B, 4C; [0079]-[0085] which teach the inlet for the nozzle in Fig 4C and the outlet of the nozzle in Fig 4B).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches a gas conduit disposed outside the dome lid and configured to provide the process gas to the processing chamber, the gas conduit comprising a gas conduit liner and a plasma chamber.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches a gas baffle (perforated plate 252; baffle 210) disposed under the dome lid and coupled with the gas conduit (top inlet 254; conduit 214) (See Lubomirsky Fig 2B, 3A; [0049]-[0060]).
Referring to claim 15-16, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches an upper induction coils 40 above the lid and a lower induction coils 34 around the nozzle to generate a magnetic field to transform a gas into a plasma; and a controller 50 may control RF supply 36 and/or RF supply 42, allowing controller 50 to activate/deactivate the generation of plasma within plasma volume 32. (Savas Figs 1-7; [0070]-[0085]), which clearly suggests a first plasma source disposed around walls above the gas ring of the dome lid and a second plasma source disposed around walls below the gas ring of the dome lid; and the first and second plasma sources are capable of independently energizing the process gas inside the processing chamber.
Referring to claim 17, this limitation merely recites an intended use of the claimed apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches a heater with a temperature zone of 300°C (Lubomirsky [0061]); therefore, would be capable of heating to below 500°C.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434) and Savas et al (US 2019/0062947), as applied to claims 1, 5-8, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Baluja (US 2019/0309419).
The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the lid liner separator comprises a plurality of segments disposed along a lower end of the dome lid and configured to allow a purge gas to flow through.
In a gas distribution apparatus, Baluja teaches an annular lid assembly 108 comprising three recesses 190a-c; the lid assembly 108 includes a first annular member 192, a second annular member 194, a third annular member 196, and a fourth annular member 198. Baluja teaches the annular members 192, 194, 196, and 198 are detachable disks that clamp or fasten the window 134, the upper blocker plate 142, and the lower blocker plate 152 and a first plurality of apertures 148 is formed through the upper blocker plate 142 and a second plurality of apertures 158 is formed through the lower blocker plate 152. Baluja teaches the apertures 148, 158, in conjunction with the distribution portions 154, 144, facilitate fluid communication between the first plenum 171, the second plenum 173, and the third plenum 175; and a purge gas source 185 is coupled to the interior volume 110 through a purge port 186 disposed through the lid assembly 108, between the window 134 and the upper blocker plate 142, and adjacent to the first plenum 171, wherein the purge port 186 flows a gas, such as an inert gas, from the purge gas source 185 into the interior volume 110, and the purge gas facilitates removal of process gases from the processing chamber 100 (Fig 1A, 1B, 2 and 3; [0015]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al by providing a lid liner separator (blocker plate) comprises a plurality of segments (apertures) disposed along a lower end of the dome lid and configured to allow a purge gas to flow through, as taught by Baluja, to allow a purge gas to flow through the lid assembly to facilitate removal of process gases from the processing chamber.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434) and Savas et al (US 2019/0062947), as applied to claim 1, 5-8, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Stacey et al (US 2004/0237891).
The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, except the gas ring liner further comprising a plurality of tabs configured to couple with corresponding depressions disposed on the gas ring.
In a liner for a deposition chamber, Stacey et al teaches three mounting tabs 306 are formed in the lid liner 300, and a liner recess 402 is shaped to receive the lid liner 300 and the lid liner recess 402 is shaped to accommodate the mounting tabs 306 of the lid liner 300, and the threaded holes 352 are formed in the lid plate 400 to receive the fasteners 312 through the mounting tabs 306 of the lid liner 300, wherein the lid plate 400 and the lid liner 300 are fastened to the chamber body 114. ([0025]-[0035]; Fig 1, Fig 4A, and 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al by providing gas ring liner comprising a plurality of tabs configured to couple with corresponding depressions disposed on the gas ring, because tabs and corresponding recesses are conventionally known in the art, as evidenced by Stacey et al, of mounting liners to a chamber.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al and Stacey et al teaches tabs on the liner and the separator on the liner; therefore, the separator would be supported on the tabs of the liner.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434) and Savas et al (US 2019/0062947), as applied to claim 1, 5-8, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 2015/0345017).
The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, except the gas baffle comprises a coupling part coupled with the gas conduit liner, an extension part extending from the coupling part toward the susceptor, a disk body coupled with the extension part and comprising a plurality of first gas outlets that are parallel with an axis of the gas baffle, and a bottom part extending from the disk body and comprising a beveled surface that comprises a plurality of second gas outlets.
In a plasma chamber, Chang et al teaches dome 221 may include a top nozzle 250, which may be utilized to introduce gases into the process chamber 200 and the top nozzle 250 is coupled to a baffle 203 disposed within the process chamber 200 at a gas inlet 211 is directed towards a backside of the baffle 203, and the gas baffle comprises a coupling part, an extension part extending from the coupling part toward the susceptor (substrate support 202), a disk body coupled with the extension part and comprising a plurality of first gas outlets that are parallel with an axis of the gas baffle, and a bottom part extending from the disk body and comprising a beveled surface that comprises a plurality of second gas outlets (Fig 2; [0032]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al by providing a gas baffle comprises a coupling part coupled with the gas conduit liner, an extension part extending from the coupling part toward the susceptor, a disk body coupled with the extension part and comprising a plurality of first gas outlets that are parallel with an axis of the gas baffle, and a bottom part extending from the disk body and comprising a beveled surface that comprises a plurality of second gas outlets, as taught by Chang et al, to provide a baffle having a shape for directing process gases as desired within the process chamber (Chang [0038]).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al, Savas et al and Chang et al teaches gas conduit connected to purge gases (argon, helium, nitrogen, or hydrogen) (Lubomirsky [0047], [0060]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434) and Savas et al (US 2019/0062947), as applied to claim 1, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Ebata et al (US 2006/0008676).
The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, except the susceptor further comprises a heater puck supported by a base body, the heater puck comprising a plurality of graphite cores.
In a wafer carrier apparatus, Ebata et al teaches wafer carrier comprises a graphite core 1 (base body); a pyrolytic boron nitride (BN) layer 2 disposed on the graphite core; a pyrolytic graphite (PG) layer is machined into a desired configuration, forming chuck electrode(s) 3 (graphite cores) at the top surface and heater electrode (4) at the bottom surface of the article; a pyrolytic boron nitride (PBN) coating 6 is disposed upon the body of the article such that it substantially covers the body of the wafer carrier, and the PBN coating 6 resists oxidation, provides electrical insulation, chemical and mechanical protection and minimizes the opportunity for carbon contamination of the wafers, and the PBN has very high thermal conductivity in the a-b direction, thereby minimizing any thermal non-uniformity on the top of the heater; and a protective coating AlN 7 is then disposed upon the PBN coating 6 to provide protection in a plasma atmosphere (Fig 1; [0040]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al by providing a susceptor comprising a heater puck supported by a base body, the heater puck comprising a plurality of graphite cores, as taught by Ebata et al, to provide a wafer carrier with uniform heating that is resistant to corrosion. It is also noted that a plurality of graphite cores and graphite electrodes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because duplicate of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al, Savas et al and Ebata et al teaches a PBN coating layer which clearly suggests a first protection layer. (Ebata Fig 1; [0040]-[0050]).
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al, Savas et al and Ebata et al teaches graphite electrodes 3 with a protective coating 6 on protective coating 5 (Ebata Fig 1; [0040]-[0050]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) in view of Zhao et al (US 2021/0193434), Savas et al (US 2019/0062947) and Ebata et al (US 2006/0008676, as applied to claim 1, 7, 8, 11-13 above, and further in view of Aruga et al (US 5,688,331).
The combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, except the susceptor further comprises a sleeve coaxially disposed along a leg of the susceptor and configured to form a purge conduit between the sleeve and the leg.
In a susceptor apparatus, Aruga et al teaches the susceptor comprising a susceptor block (wafer support plate) 39 and a support stand (cylindrical member) 25 with a bottom plate 29; a gas feeding tube 53 is connected to the bottom plate 29 of cylindrical member 25; feeding inert gas (purge gas) into the cylindrical member 25, wherein inert gas inside the cylindrical member 25 displaces any corrosive gas from inside the cylindrical member 25 and prevents corrosion (Fig 2; col 4, ln 1-67, col 5, ln 1-67). Aruga et al also teaches a susceptor hub (leg) 83 of the susceptor plate 39 positioned within the cylindrical member 25 (sleeve) and a purge gas inlet 53 (Fig 2; col 4, ln 1-67, col 5, ln 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Lubomirsky et al, Zhao et al and Savas et al by providing a sleeve coaxially disposed along a leg of the susceptor and configured to form a purge conduit between the sleeve and the leg, as taught by Aruga et al, to provide purge gas to prevent corrosion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0290610 teaches an upper dome 152, upper liner 154, and a lower liner 156 (Fig 1-9; [0070]-[0085]).
US 2021/0305041 teaches one or more isolators 110a, 110b, may contact the first electrode 108 and separate the first electrode 108 electrically and thermally from a gas distributor 112 and from the chamber body 102 ([0025]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights