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 –
(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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al., US 2020/0102119 (corresponding to US 12,373,531).
In re Claim 1, Jung discloses a processing chamber 100 (Fig. 1) applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: one or more sidewalls SW (Fig. A); a window 160 at least partially defining an internal volume IV; a substrate support 110 disposed in the internal volume IV; one or more heat sources (inside the substrate support 110, [0019]) operable to heat the internal volume IV; a plate 104 disposed in the internal volume IV and between the window 160 and the substrate support 110, the plate 104 at least partially separating the internal volume IV into: a first volume 1V between the plate 104 and the substrate support 110, and a second volume 2V between the plate 104 and the window 160; and an energy source (150, 120) operable to supply a plasma between the plate 104 and the window 160 (Figs. 1-7 and A; [0017 – 0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Jung’s Fig. 1 annotated to shoe the details cited
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinoda et al., US 2025/0270148.
In re Claim 1, Shinoda discloses a processing chamber (Fig. 2) applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: one or more sidewalls 10; a window 32 at least partially defining an internal volume (21, 52, and a room wherein 55 located); a substrate support 14 disposed in the internal volume (21, 52); one or more heat sources 56 operable to heat the internal volume (21, 52); a plate 51 disposed in the internal volume (21, 52, and the room wherein 55 located) and between the window 32 and the substrate support 14, the plate 51 at least partially separating the internal volume (21, 52) into: a first volume 21 between the plate 51 and the substrate support 14, and a second volume 52 between the plate 51 and the window 32; and an energy source (15, 16, 47, 43, 55) operable to supply a plasma 50 between the plate 51 and the window 32 (Figs. 1- 5; [0020 – 0095]).
In re Claim 2, Shinoda discloses the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the energy source (15, 16, 47, 43, 55) is operable to emit ultraviolet (UV) light 55 having a wavelength 172 nm that is within claimed range a range of 100 nm to 355 nm therefore anticipated the range (See MPEP 2131.03.I).
In re Claim 3, Shinoda discloses the processing chamber of claim 2, wherein the wavelength 172 nm ([0044]) is within a range of 150 nm to 250 nm.
In re Claim 4, Shinoda discloses the processing chamber of claim 3, wherein the wavelength is within a range of 169 nm to 175 nm ([0044]).
In re Claim 5, Shinoda discloses the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the plate 51 (being made of silica ([0095]) includes a transparent material, and the plate 51 has a transmissivity of at least 80% for light having a wavelength that is 150 nm or higher.
In re Claim 7, Shinoda discloses the processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the energy source (15, 16, 47, 43, 55, 48) comprises: a flow housing 45 disposed outside of the internal volume IV; and one or more radio frequency coils 48 wound at least partially about the flow housing 45 (Fig. 1).
In re Claim 9, Shinoda discloses a processing chamber applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: one or more sidewalls 10; a window 32 at least partially defining an internal volume (21, 52, and a volume wherein 55 located); a substrate support 14 disposed in the internal volume (21, 52, and the room wherein 55 located); a plate disposed in the internal volume (21, 52, and the room wherein 55 located) and between the window 32 and the substrate support 14; and an energy source 50 disposed between the plate 51 and the window 32, the energy source (15, 16, 47, 43, 55) operable to emit ultraviolet (UV) light (Figs. 1- 5; [0020 – 0095]) having a wavelength 172 nm ([0044]) that is within a range of 100 nm to 355 nm therefore anticipates the range (See MPEP 2131.03.I).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda as applied to claim 1 above.
In re Claim 6, Shinoda discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that the energy source comprises one or more mercury lamps disposed in the second volume 52, and the one or more mercury lamps are operable to generate the plasma within respective one or more bulbs of the one or more mercury lamps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute UV sources 55 (Fig.2 ) with mercury lamps since it was known in the art that mercury lamps are well-known and routinely use in processing chambers. (MPEP2144.I.)
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al, US 2016/0233100 (corresponding to US 9,754,791), in view of Carlson et al., US 2022/0162756
In re Claim 16, Godet discloses a method of substrate processing, comprising: heating a substrate 338 positioned on a substrate support 334; supplying a plasma 340 in an internal volume 309 of a processing chamber 300, the supplying comprising applying a voltage 390 across a gas; flowing one or more process gases 9[0032]) over the substrate 338; and depositing one or more layers on the substrate 338 (Figs 1- 8 ; [0027 -0081]).
Godet does not specifically indicate a step of heating a substrate positioned on a substrate support.
Carlson teaches a method of substrate processing with heating a substrate (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine teachings of Godet and Carlson, and to use the specified for heating to obtain satisfactory processing results, good production yield and robust device performance as taught by Carlson ([0003]).
In re Claim 20, Godet taken with Carlson discloses all limitations of Claim 20 except for that the substrate 338 is heated to a target temperature below 500 degrees Celsius. It is known in the art that the temperature is a result effective variable – because energy consumption depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to heat the substrate to a target temperature below 500 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-15, and 17-20 are 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.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 8: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 8 as: “the energy source comprises an array of electrodes disposed in the second volume, the array of electrodes at least partially defining flow openings between the electrodes”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 10: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 10 as: “the energy source comprises an array of electrodes and a plurality of cavities, and the array of electrodes are operable to generate voltage across the plurality of cavities”, in combination with limitations of Claim 9 on which it depends.
In re Claim 11: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 11 as: “the energy source comprises a plasma lamp aligned with an azimuthal section of the substrate support”, in combination with limitations of Claim 9 on which it depends.
In re Claim 12: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 12 as: “the energy source comprises a plurality of plasma lamps aligned respectively with a plurality of sections of the substrate support”, in combination with limitations of Claim 9 on which it depends.
In re Claim 17: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 17 as: “the plasma in the internal volume is fluidly isolated from the one or more process gases by a plate, the plasma emits ultraviolet (UV) light toward one or more of the substrate”, in combination with limitations of Claim 16 on which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893