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 § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20, the term “about” is considered a relative term and, therefore, indefinite, as it could have various and different meanings.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natu (US-2021/0100141).
Regarding claim 1, Natu (US-2021/0100141) discloses a component (end effector 100) for contacting a substrate (“configured to support a substrate 101”) [Natu; paragraph 0037] comprising:
a ceramic, metallic, or non-metallic component (body 102) for contacting a substrate (Figs. 1 and 2); a layer of coating material (coating 200) on at least a portion of a substrate (100) contacting surface of the component (100) (Fig. 2);
wherein the component (100) for contacting a substrate comprises a component Vickers hardness value (inherently has a Vickers hardness value, wherein a Vickers hardness is the measure of material resistance to deformation), and
the layer of coating material (coating 200) comprises a coating layer Vickers hardness value (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081], but fails to disclose wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value.
However, Natu states that the body can be made of quartz, which is known to have a Vickers hardness of between 1103-1260 (NPL1), where 10% less would be 993-1134. Since Natu teaches a quartz body, known to have a Vickers hardness of about 1200, and a coating having a Vickers hardness of “about 1000 kg/mm2, then Natu appears to disclose the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05.I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range per MPEP 2144.04.III.A, but the specification appears silent as to why this proportion is critical. Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. Furthermore, the claim allows for “the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than…the component Vickers hardness value,” which seems contradictory to the statements that it would be desired to decrease relative hardness. Therefore, there seems to be no criticality to “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value.”
Regarding claim 2, Natu discloses the component of claim 1, wherein the component for contacting a substrate comprises a lift pin, a transfer blade, a transfer arm, a vacuum chuck substrate support, an electrostatic chuck, an aligner, a load-lock contact, a substrate rotation module, or a combination thereof (“In electronic device manufacturing, substrates (e.g., silicon-containing wafers, silicon-containing plates) may be moved about manufacturing facilities and within manufacturing equipment tools by robots. The robots can include robot arms having one or more end effectors coupled thereto that may contact and support the substrates during such transportation.”) [Natu; paragraph 0003] (“Certain embodiments are discussed herein with reference to an end effector that is coated with an electrically-dissipative coating. However, it should be understood that the electrically-dissipative coating described in embodiments herein may also be used to coat other components of processing chambers, transfer chambers, factory interface chambers, load locks, load ports, slit valves, and so on. Accordingly, the electrically-dissipative coatings described herein may coat any component of an electronic device processing tool or system. Some examples of such components include a substrate support assembly, an electrostatic chuck, a gas delivery plate, a lid, a nozzle, a liner, a ring (e.g., a process kit ring or single ring), a base, a showerhead, gas lines, a liner kit, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a chamber lid, and so on.”) [Natu; paragraph 0036].
Regarding claim 5, Natu discloses the component of claim 1, wherein the layer of coating material is an oxygen-containing material, a nitrogen-containing material, a fluorine-containing material, a metal-and-oxygen-containing material, a metal-and-fluorine-containing material, a metal-and-nitrogen-containing material, a metal-oxygen-and-fluorine-containing material, a metal-oxygen-and-nitrogen-containing material, or a metal-oxygen-fluorine-and-nitrogen-containing material, or a combination thereof (“the coating 200 is a multilayer coating, and at least one layer in the multilayer coating may comprise at least one of aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, Y.sub.3Al.sub.5O.sub.12, a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, a compound comprising Y.sub.4Al.sub.2O.sub.9 and a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, HfO.sub.2, HfAlO.sub.x, HfZrO.sub.x, HfYO.sub.x, Hf doped Y.sub.2O.sub.3, zinc oxide, tantalum oxide, titanium oxide, erbium oxide, gadolinium oxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, neodymium oxide, promethium oxide, samarium oxide, europium oxide, terbium oxide, dysprosium oxide, holmium oxide, thulium oxide, ytterbium oxide, or lutetium oxide”) [Natu; paragraph 0051].
Regarding claim 6, Natu discloses the component of claim 5, wherein the layer of coating material comprises aluminum, yttria, aluminum fluoride (AlF3), aluminum oxyfluoride (AlOxFy), aluminum nitride (AlN), calcium fluoride (CaF2), calcium oxyfluoride (CaOxFy), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOxFy), zirconium fluoride (ZrF4), zirconium oxyfluoride (ZrOxFy), scandium fluoride (ScF3), or scandium oxyfluoride (ScOxFy), or a combination thereof (“the coating 200 is a multilayer coating, and at least one layer in the multilayer coating may comprise at least one of aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, Y.sub.3Al.sub.5O.sub.12, a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, a compound comprising Y.sub.4Al.sub.2O.sub.9 and a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, HfO.sub.2, HfAlO.sub.x, HfZrO.sub.x, HfYO.sub.x, Hf doped Y.sub.2O.sub.3, zinc oxide, tantalum oxide, titanium oxide, erbium oxide, gadolinium oxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, neodymium oxide, promethium oxide, samarium oxide, europium oxide, terbium oxide, dysprosium oxide, holmium oxide, thulium oxide, ytterbium oxide, or lutetium oxide”) [Natu; paragraph 0051].
Regarding claim 7, Natu discloses the component of claim 1, wherein Vickers hardness of the layer of coating material is less than or about 1200 HV (where HV is measured in kgf/mm2) (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081].
Regarding claim 8, Natu discloses the component of claim 7, wherein Vickers hardness of the layer of coating material is less than or about 650 HV (where HV is measured in kgf/mm2) (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081].
Regarding claim 9, Natu discloses the component of claim 1, wherein the layer of coating material has a thickness from about 10 nm to about 10 micrometers (“[t]he coating may have a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 900 nm”) [Natu; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 10, Natu discloses the component of claim 1, wherein the layer of coating material is applied utilizing chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and atomic layer deposition (ALD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), ion beam (IB) deposition, electron beam (EB) deposition, or electron beam ion-assisted deposition (EB-IAD), thermal spray, or combinations thereof (“the instant disclosure may be directed to a method comprising depositing a coating onto a surface of a chamber component using an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process, a metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD), or a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process”) [Natu; paragraph 0005].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natu (US-2021/0100141) in view of Gunaji (US-2021/0388495).
Regarding claim 3, Natu discloses the component of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the component for contacting a substrate comprises a lift pin.
However, Gunaji (US-2021/0388495) teaches a component for contacting a substrate comprises a lift pin (lift pins 261) (“A rod 230 may be included through a passage 224 formed in the bottom wall 216 of the processing region 220B and may be utilized to position substrate lift pins 261 disposed through the body of pedestal 228. The substrate lift pins 261 may selectively space the substrate 229 from the pedestal to facilitate exchange of the substrate 229 with a robot utilized for transferring the substrate 229 into and out of the processing region 220B through a substrate transfer port 260.”) [Gunaji; paragraph 0029]. Natu teaches the coating is used for end effector bodies, particularly ones that contact the substrate (“The robot arm may comprise an end effector body, a replaceable contact pad, and a coating. The replaceable contact pad may be disposed on the end effector body. The replaceable contact pad may comprise a contact pad head having a contact surface configured to contact a substrate, and a shaft coupled to the contact pad head and received in an aperture formed in the body of the end effector and extending into a recess. The coating may be deposited on a surface of the end effector body and on the contact surface of the contact pad head. The coating may comprise an electrically-dissipative material. The electrically dissipative material may provide a dissipative path from the coating to the ground.”) [Natu; paragraph 0009], wherein a lift pin like the one shown by Gunaji [Gunaji; paragraph 0029] would be considered such a contact member, it would’ve been obvious to coat a lift pin in order to provide an electrically dissipative surface for contacting the substrate with the lift pins of Gunaji (as made obvious by Gunaji which shows a support plate and one or more lift pins, which are devices used to contact the substrate and, therefore, would benefit from the coating of Natu which states that the coating is used for handling of substrates).
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natu (US-2021/0100141) in view of Gunaji (US-2021/0388495) and Chou (US-2018/0337078).
Regarding claim 4, Natu discloses the component of claim 3.
As to wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 50% less than the component Vickers hardness value, Natu teaches varying the Vickers hardness (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081]. As taught by Chou (US-2018/0337078), an increase of hardness of one object means it more likely damages the objects it contacts, and a decrease in hardness means it is more likely the object itself is damaged (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the Vickers hardness value to align with the hardness of the substrate being, up to and including “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value” in order to align the hardness of the coating with the hardness of the substrate to be contacted, as taught by Chou (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036], wherein the materials used to make the chamber components are fixed (as is their hardness).
Additionally, Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. This seems to be what Chou is teaching, that increasing hardness may cause damage and, therefore, there is a desire to create a lower hardness with respect to the substrate. For these reasons, the claimed range seems to be a mere optimization of hardness that prevents damage to the substrate, which is taught by Chou.
Regarding claim 11, Natu discloses a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
a chamber body (“The substrate processing system may comprise a chamber”) [Natu; paragraph 0009] comprising sidewalls and a base;
a substrate support (“The substrate processing system may comprise a chamber, a robot disposed in the chamber, and a robot arm connected to the robot. The robot arm may comprise an end effector body, a replaceable contact pad, and a coating. The replaceable contact pad may be disposed on the end effector body. The replaceable contact pad may comprise a contact pad head having a contact surface configured to contact a substrate”) [Natu; paragraph 0009] extending through the base of the chamber body, wherein the substrate support comprises:
a layer of coating material on at least a portion of a substrate contacting surface of the support plate, the one or more lift pins, or a combination thereof,
wherein the support plate, the one or more lift pins, or a combination thereof comprises a component Vickers hardness value, and the layer of coating material comprises a coating layer Vickers hardness value,
wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value.
Natu fails to disclose the chamber body comprising sidewalls and a base; the substrate support extending through the base of the chamber body; and wherein the substrate support comprises: a support plate comprising one or more lift pins; and a shaft coupled with the support plate.
However, Gunaji (US-2021/0388495) discloses a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
a chamber body (chamber body 310) comprising sidewalls (sides as seen in Fig. 3) and a base (base 340);
a substrate support (support platen 320 and pedestal 315) extending through the base of the chamber body (310) (“A pedestal or substrate support 315 may extend through the base 340 of the chamber as previously discussed”) [Gunaji; paragraph 0033], wherein the substrate support comprises:
a support plate (platen 320) comprising one or more lift pins (lift pins 261) (“A rod 230 may be included through a passage 224 formed in the bottom wall 216 of the processing region 220B and may be utilized to position substrate lift pins 261 disposed through the body of pedestal 228. The substrate lift pins 261 may selectively space the substrate 229 from the pedestal to facilitate exchange of the substrate 229 with a robot utilized for transferring the substrate 229 into and out of the processing region 220B through a substrate transfer port 260.”) [Gunaji; paragraph 0029]; and
a shaft (315) coupled with the support plate (320) (Fig. 3).
Since Natu teaches that the coatings can be applied to chamber components in semiconductor manufacturing [Natu; paragraphs 0023-0024] and since Gunaji teaches such a processing chamber [Gunaji; paragraphs 0002 and 0004], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a layer of the coating material of Natuo on at least a portion of a substrate contacting surface of the support plate, the one or more lift pins, or a combination thereof of Gunaji, wherein the support plate, the one or more lift pins, or a combination thereof comprises a component Vickers hardness value, and the layer of coating material comprises a coating layer Vickers hardness value (both inherently have a Vickers hardness value, wherein a Vickers hardness is the measure of material resistance to deformation) in order to foster an electrically-dissipative surface [Natu; paragraphs 0022-0024].
As to wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value, Natu teaches varying the Vickers hardness (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081]. As taught by Chou (US-2018/0337078), an increase of hardness of one object means it more likely damages the objects it contacts, and a decrease in hardness means it is more likely the object itself is damaged (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the Vickers hardness value to align with the hardness of the substrate being, up to and including “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value” in order to align the hardness of the coating with the hardness of the substrate to be contacted, as taught by Chou (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036], wherein the materials used to make the chamber components are fixed (as is their hardness).
Additionally, Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. This seems to be what Chou is teaching, that increasing hardness may cause damage and, therefore, there is a desire to create a lower hardness with respect to the substrate. For these reasons, the claimed range seems to be a mere optimization of hardness that prevents damage to the substrate, which is taught by Chou.
Regarding claim 12, Natu discloses the system of claim 11.
Natu does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 50% less than the component Vickers hardness value, Natu teaches varying the Vickers hardness (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081]. However, as taught by Chou (US-2018/0337078), an increase of hardness of one object means it more likely damages the objects it contacts, and a decrease in hardness means it is more likely the object itself is damaged (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the Vickers hardness value to align with the hardness of the substrate being, up to and including “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value” in order to align the hardness of the coating with the hardness of the substrate to be contacted, as taught by Chou (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036], wherein the materials used to make the chamber components are fixed (as is their hardness).
Additionally, Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. This seems to be what Chou is teaching, that increasing hardness may cause damage and, therefore, there is a desire to create a lower hardness with respect to the substrate. For these reasons, the claimed range seems to be a mere optimization of hardness that prevents damage to the substrate, which is taught by Chou.
Regarding claim 13, Natu discloses the component of claim 11, wherein the layer of coating material is an oxygen-containing material, a nitrogen-containing material, a fluorine-containing material, a metal-and-oxygen-containing material, a metal-and-fluorine-containing material, a metal-and-nitrogen-containing material, a metal-oxygen-and-fluorine-containing material, a metal-oxygen-and-nitrogen-containing material, or a metal-oxygen-fluorine-and-nitrogen-containing material, or a combination thereof (“the coating 200 is a multilayer coating, and at least one layer in the multilayer coating may comprise at least one of aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, Y.sub.3Al.sub.5O.sub.12, a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, a compound comprising Y.sub.4Al.sub.2O.sub.9 and a solid solution of Y.sub.2O.sub.3—ZrO.sub.2, HfO.sub.2, HfAlO.sub.x, HfZrO.sub.x, HfYO.sub.x, Hf doped Y.sub.2O.sub.3, zinc oxide, tantalum oxide, titanium oxide, erbium oxide, gadolinium oxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, neodymium oxide, promethium oxide, samarium oxide, europium oxide, terbium oxide, dysprosium oxide, holmium oxide, thulium oxide, ytterbium oxide, or lutetium oxide”) [Natu; paragraph 0051].
Regarding claim 14, Natu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein Vickers hardness of the layer of coating material is less than or about 650 HV (where HV is measured in kgf/mm2) (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081].
Regarding claim 15, Natu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the layer of coating material has a thickness from about 10 nm to about 10 micrometers (“[t]he coating may have a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 900 nm”) [Natu; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 16, Natu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the layer (of coating material) comprises a multilayer stack, a nano-laminate stack, or a micro-laminate stack (“In an embodiment where coating 200 comprises a 100 nm thick alumina and titania nanolaminate coating on silicon”) [Natu; paragraph 0076] (“where coating 200 comprises an alumina and titania nanolaminate coating”) [Natu; paragraph 0080] (“where coating 200 comprises a 100 nm thick alumina and titania nanolaminate coating on silicon”) [Natu; paragraph 0076].
Regarding claim 17, Natu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the layer of coating material uniformly coats (Figure 2 of Natu) (“The coating may be uniform, conformal, and porosity free. The coating may have a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 900 nm and an electrical surface/sheet resistance ranging from about 1×10.sup.5 ohm/sq to about 1×10.sup.11 ohm/sq.”) [emphasis added] [Natu; paragraph 0004] the support plate, the one or more lift pins, or a combination thereof (as made obvious by Gunaji which shows a support plate and one or more lift pins, which are devices used to contact the substrate and, therefore, would benefit from the coating of Natu which states that the coating is used for handling of substrates).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natu (US-2021/0100141) in view of and Malik (US-2020/0185260), and as evidenced by Appendix I Table of hardness values (hereinafter NPL1).
Regarding claim 18, Natu discloses a substrate processing system comprising:
a transfer region housing (chamber) defining a transfer region (“Embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to coated semiconductor process tools (such as an apparatus for transferring objects in a processing system)”) [Natu; paragraph 0002] (“The substrate processing system may comprise a chamber, a robot disposed in the chamber, and a robot arm connected to the robot. The robot arm may comprise an end effector body, a replaceable contact pad, and a coating. The replaceable contact pad may be disposed on the end effector body. The replaceable contact pad may comprise a contact pad head having a contact surface configured to contact a substrate, and a shaft coupled to the contact pad head and received in an aperture formed in the body of the end effector and extending into a recess.”) [Natu; paragraph 0009]; (20200185260) [0035] (transfer port 126) (lift pins 174)
a transfer apparatus comprising one or more transfer arms (“robot arm”), one or more transfer blades (end effector body 102), or a combination thereof that engages a surface of the substrate [Natu; paragraph 0009]; and
a layer of coating material on at least a portion of a substrate contacting surface of a component (102) comprising the one or more lift pins, the one or more substrate supports, one or more transfer arms, one or more transfer blades (102), or a combination thereof (Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the component comprises a component Vickers hardness value (inherently has a Vickers hardness value, wherein a Vickers hardness is the measure of material resistance to deformation), and the layer of coating material (coating 200) comprises a coating layer Vickers hardness value (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081], but fails to disclose wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value. Natu also fails to disclose wherein a sidewall of the transfer region housing defines a sealable access for providing and receiving substrates; one or more substrate supports disposed within the transfer region comprising one or more lift pins.
As to the Vickers hardness value of the coating layer being greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value, Natu states that the body can be made of quartz, which is known to have a Vickers hardness of about 1200 (NPL1), where 10% less would be 1080. Since Natu teaches a quartz body, known to have a Vickers hardness of about 1200, and a coating having a Vickers hardness of “about 1000 kg/mm2, then Natu appears to disclose the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05.I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range per MPEP 2144.04.III.A, but the specification appears silent as to why this proportion is critical. Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. Furthermore, the claim allows for “the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than…the component Vickers hardness value,” which seems contradictory to the statements that it would be desired to decrease relative hardness. Therefore, there seems to be no criticality to “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value.”
As to wherein a sidewall of the transfer region housing defines a sealable access for providing and receiving substrates; one or more substrate supports disposed within the transfer region comprising one or more lift pins, Malik (US-2020/0185260) teaches a sidewall of a transfer region housing (chamber 102) defines a sealable access (slit valve opening 112) for providing and receiving substrates (“A slit valve opening 112 is formed through one of the sidewalls 106 of the outer chamber 102 to allow entry and egress of the substrate 168”) [Malik; paragraph 0020]; one or more substrate supports (lift pins 174) disposed within the transfer region comprising one or more lift pins (lift pins 174) (Fig. 1). Since Malik is pertinent to devices disclose by Natu, and Natu is silent as to the chamber, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a processing system such as Natu for the processing system disclose by Malik, which includes a transfer region.
Regarding claim 19, Natu discloses the processing system of claim 18, wherein the component (102) comprises the one or more lift pins, the one or more transfer arms (robot arm), the one or more transfer blades (102), or a combination thereof (Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natu (US-2021/0100141) in view of (hereinafter NPL1) and Malik (US-2020/0185260) and further in view of Chou (US-2018/0337078).
Regarding claim 20, Natu discloses the processing system of claim 18.
Natu does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 50% less than the component Vickers hardness value, Natu teaches varying the Vickers hardness (“Coating 200 may have a Vickers hardness ranging from about 500 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 1000 kg/mm.sup.2, from about 600 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 900 kg/mm.sup.2, or from about 700 kg/mm.sup.2 to about 800 kg/mm.sup.2.”) [Natu; paragraph 0081]. However, as taught by Chou (US-2018/0337078), an increase of hardness of one object means it more likely damages the objects it contacts, and a decrease in hardness means it is more likely the object itself is damaged (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the Vickers hardness value to align with the hardness of the substrate being, up to and including “wherein the coating layer Vickers hardness value is greater than or about 10% less than the component Vickers hardness value” in order to align the hardness of the coating with the hardness of the substrate to be contacted, as taught by Chou (“By including the features described above, substrate handling device 100 is configured to contact a substrate using a contact material having a hardness aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted. Because of this hardness alignment, scratching or other damage to either the substrate or the substrate handling device is reduced compared to approaches in which the hardness is not aligned with the hardness of the substrate material being contacted.”) [Chou; paragraph 0036], wherein the materials used to make the chamber components are fixed (as is their hardness).
Additionally, Applicant states that “damage” may occur due to a high degree of hardness [Application Publication; paragraph 0002] and that a lower hardness can reduce scratching and damage [Application Publication; paragraph 0002], but this implies a desired hardness of the coating that touches the substrate rather than a proportion between the coating and the component for contacting a substrate. This seems to be what Chou is teaching, that increasing hardness may cause damage and, therefore, there is a desire to create a lower hardness with respect to the substrate. For these reasons, the claimed range seems to be a mere optimization of hardness that prevents damage to the substrate, which is taught by Chou.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20190062905 and US-20220139753 [0074] are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723