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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the first arm and the second arm do not block an underside of the semiconductor wafer while the first set of spider forks is used to support the semiconductor wafer”. As currently written, it is unclear as to what the scope of “block an underside” entails. For instance, it could refer to a partial area of the bottom surface of the wafer, a bottom corner of the wafer, the entire bottom surface of the wafer, etc. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation to refer to wherein the first arm and second arm do not overlap with the semiconductor wafer in plan view while the first set of spider forks is used to support the semiconductor wafer, in line with Fig. 6B of the instant specification.
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.
Claims 1-10, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 20160172165 A1), in view of Lee (US 20100059478 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a semiconductor processing system (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043] multi-station processing tool) comprising:
a chamber (Jeon, Figs. 1 and 2, [0039], chamber 102);
a controller (Jeon, Fig. 1, [0039], controller 110);
a first showerhead having a plurality of orifices disposed across a bottom surface thereof (Jeon, Fig. 1, [0040], showerhead 150 through which gases are distributed);
a first gas manifold connected with the first showerhead (Jeon, Fig. 1, gas supply manifold 112);
a first pedestal disposed in the chamber positioned beneath the first showerhead (Jeon, Fig. 1, [0039]-[0040], pedestal 140 is located beneath showerhead 150); and
a first set of spider forks (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], spider forks 226 located in a first process station), the first set of spider forks including a first arm and a second arm (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], spider forks 226 include a first and second arm);
wherein the controller (Jeon, Fig. 1, [0039], controller 110 which controls systems such as the carrier ring lift and rotate control, Fig. 2, [0067]) is configured to:
cause the first set of spider forks to be positioned in a first location while supporting a semiconductor wafer, wherein when the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location and supports the semiconductor wafer, the semiconductor wafer is positioned underneath the first showerhead and above the first pedestal (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], spider forks 226 support wafer 101 on carrier 200 within each processing station, while being located between the showerhead 150 and pedestal 140), a first gap exists between the semiconductor wafer and the bottom surface of the first showerhead, and a second gap exists between the semiconductor wafer and the upper surface of the first pedestal (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], spider forks 226 support wafer 101 on carrier 200 within each processing station, while being located with gaps between the showerhead 150 and pedestal 140).
While Jeon teaches a first showerhead located above a pedestal and a first positional location wherein the spider forks hold a carrier and wafer disposed with gaps between the showerhead and pedestal, Jeon fails to teach wherein the pedestal is a shower-pedestal having a plurality of orifices disposed across an upper surface thereof,
a second gas manifold connected with the first shower-pedestal, and
while the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location, the first gas manifold to flow one or more first process gases into the showerhead for distribution via the orifices of the first showerhead and to simultaneously cause the second gas manifold to flow one or more second process gases into the first shower-pedestal for distribution via the orifices of the first shower-pedestal.
However, Lee teaches wherein the pedestal is a shower-pedestal having a plurality of orifices disposed across an upper surface thereof (Lee, Fig. 1, [0129]-[0131], second electrode 40 having discharge nozzles 42 is located below first electrode 30),
a second gas manifold connected with the first shower-pedestal (Lee, Fig. 1, [0129]-[0131], gas is supplied from outside chamber 1 to discharge nozzles 42 via nozzle 41), and
while the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location, the first gas manifold to flow one or more first process gases into the showerhead for distribution via the orifices of the first showerhead and to simultaneously cause the second gas manifold to flow one or more second process gases into the first shower-pedestal for distribution via the orifices of the first shower-pedestal (Lee, Fig. 14, [0202]-[0213], substrate supporter 280 is disposed distance d from first electrode 230, distance D from second electrode 240, where then non-reactive gas is introduced through first electrode 230 via discharge nozzles 233 and reactive gas is introduced through second electrode 240 via discharge nozzles 242).
Lee is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon teaches a rotation and engagement mechanism configured to a) rotate the first set of spider forks about a rotational axis of the rotation and engagement mechanism (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], rotation mechanism 220 rotates the spider forks 226 about the central axis) and b) move the first set of spider forks along the rotational axis and from first location to one or more second locations (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], rotation mechanism 220 rotates the spider forks 226 about the central axis to one or more stations).
To clarify the record, the limitation “comprising a rotation and engagement mechanism configured to…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Jeon teaches sets of spider forks centrally attached to a mechanism that can rotate and is controlled by a controller, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon teaches wherein: the first showerhead and the first pedestal are associated with a first station within the chamber,
the second showerhead and the second -pedestal are associated with a second station within the chamber (Jeon, Figs. 1 and 2, [0040]-[0046], showerhead 150 and pedestal 140 in each station of processing chamber 102, where there are four stations),
the controller is configured to control the rotation and engagement mechanism to cause the first set of spider forks to rotate about the rotational axis such the first set of spider forks rotates from the first station to the second station (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], rotation mechanism 220 rotates the spider forks 226 about the central axis to one or more stations, where controller 110 controls systems such as the carrier ring lift and rotate control, [0067]).
While Jeon teaches showerheads located above pedestals, Jeon fails to teach wherein the pedestals are a shower-pedestal.
However, Lee teaches a shower-pedestal located beneath a showerhead (Lee, Fig. 1, [0129]-[0131], second electrode 40 having discharge nozzles 42 is located below first electrode 30).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the controller is configured to …“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Jeon teaches sets of spider forks centrally attached to a mechanism that can rotate in an area where multiple processing stations are present, and is controlled by a controller, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon teaches a third showerhead, a third pedestal, a fourth showerhead, and a fourth pedestal, wherein: the third showerhead and the third pedestal are associated with a third station within the chamber,
the fourth showerhead and the fourth pedestal are associated with a fourth station within the chamber (Jeon, Figs. 1 and 2, [0040]-[0046], showerhead 150 and pedestal 140 in each station of processing chamber 102, where there are four stations), and
the first station, the second station, the third station, and the fourth station are arranged in a circular array centered on the rotational axis (Jeon, Figs. 1 and 2, [0040]-[0046], processing stations are arranged in a circular array where the rotation mechanism 220 is at the center of the rotational axis).
While Jeon teaches showerheads located above pedestals, Jeon fails to teach wherein the pedestals are a shower-pedestal.
However, Lee teaches a shower-pedestal located beneath a showerhead (Lee, Fig. 1, [0129]-[0131], second electrode 40 having discharge nozzles 42 is located below first electrode 30).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon teaches a second set of spider forks, a third set of spider forks, and a fourth set of spider forks, wherein the first set of spider forks, the second set of spider forks, the third set of spider forks, and the fourth set of spider forks are arranged in a circular array centered on the rotational axis (Jeon, Figs. 2 and 3, [0040]-[0046], each of the four processing stations in chamber 102 has a set of spider forks 226, where the spider forks are arranged in a circular array, attached to the rotation mechanism 220 which is at the center of the rotational axis).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon teaches wherein the first set of spider forks is configured to support the semiconductor wafer by supporting a carrier ring that supports the semiconductor wafer (Jeon, Figs. 2 and 3, [0040]-[0046], wafer 101 is located on carrier ring 200 which is supported by the spider fork 226).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first set of spider forks is configured to…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Jeon teaches sets of spider forks which can be located positionally across a circular axis of rotation and also vertically, and a carrier ring with an inset ledge that is positionally movable. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon teaches the carrier ring (Jeon, Figs. 2 and 3, [0040]-[0046], wafer 101 is located on carrier ring 200 which is supported by the spider fork 226).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon teaches the semiconductor wafer (Jeon, Figs. 2 and 3, [0040]-[0046], wafer 101 is located on carrier ring 200 which is supported by the spider fork 226).
The Examiner construes ‘the semiconductor wafer’ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon teaches wherein the first arm and the second arm each have a curved portion configured to contact the carrier ring and a straight portion connecting the curved portion with a rotation and engagement mechanism that supports the first arm and the second arm (Jeon, Fig. 4A, [0047]-[0048], spider fork 226 has respective first and second arms 126, where the curved portions contact carrier ring 200 and the straight portions connect the curved portions and rotation mechanism 220).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon teaches wherein the first set of spider forks is configured to be movable into a second location in which the first arm and the second arm of the first set of spider forks is positioned around the first pedestal (Jeon, Fig. 4A, [0043]-[0047], rotation mechanism 220 rotates the spider forks 226 about the central axis to one or more stations, where the spider fork arms 126 can sit around pedestal 126).
While Jeon teaches showerheads located above pedestals, Jeon fails to teach wherein the pedestals are a shower-pedestal.
However, Lee teaches a shower-pedestal located beneath a showerhead (Lee, Fig. 1, [0129]-[0131], second electrode 40 having discharge nozzles 42 is located below first electrode 30).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first set of spider forks is configured to…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Jeon teaches sets of spider forks centrally attached to a mechanism that can rotate in an area where multiple processing stations are present, in addition to moving vertically, and is controlled by a controller, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 15, Jeon fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 5mm or less.
However, Lee teaches wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 5mm or less (Lee, Fig. 14, [0214], the gap d is set to not exceed 0.7 mm such that plasma from below the substrate holder cannot reach the frontside of the wafer, and also the first gas cannot be converted to plasma).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the distance of the first gap between the wafer carrier and showerhead of Jeon to be the values as taught by Lee because doing so would ensure prevention of unwanted processing of the frontside of the wafer while the backside is being processed (Lee, [0214]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 16, Jeon fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 3mm or less.
However, Lee teaches wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 3mm or less (Lee, Fig. 14, [0214], the gap d is set to not exceed 0.7 mm such that plasma from below the substrate holder cannot reach the frontside of the wafer, and also the first gas cannot be converted to plasma).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the distance of the first gap between the wafer carrier and showerhead of Jeon to be the values as taught by Lee because doing so would ensure prevention of unwanted processing of the frontside of the wafer while the backside is being processed (Lee, [0214]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 17, Jeon fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 2mm or less.
However, Lee teaches wherein the controller is configured to select the first location such that the first gap is 2mm or less (Lee, Fig. 14, [0214], the gap d is set to not exceed 0.7 mm such that plasma from below the substrate holder cannot reach the frontside of the wafer, and also the first gas cannot be converted to plasma).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the distance of the first gap between the wafer carrier and showerhead of Jeon to be the values as taught by Lee because doing so would ensure prevention of unwanted processing of the frontside of the wafer while the backside is being processed (Lee, [0214]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon teaches wherein the first arm and the second arm do not block an underside of the semiconductor wafer while the first set of spider forks is used to support the semiconductor wafer (Jeon, Fig. 4A, [0047]-[0048], carrier ring 200 supports the wafer, and the spider fork arms 226 support the carrier ring 200, where the arms do not overlap with the bottom of the wafer).
Regarding claim 20, Jeon teaches a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide power to the first pedestal to generate a plasma (Jeon, Fig. 1, [0039], pedestal 140 is coupled to RF power supply 104).
Jeon fails to teach a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide power to the first shower-pedestal to generate a plasma for depositing a film on a back-side of the semiconductor wafer when the semiconductor wafer is supported by the first set of spider forks while the first set of spider forks is in the first location.
However, Lee teaches a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide power to the first shower-pedestal to generate a plasma on a back-side of the semiconductor wafer when the semiconductor wafer is supported by the first set of spider forks while the first set of spider forks is in the first location (Lee, Fig. 14, [0200]-[0213], generator 270 is coupled to second electrode 240 to generate a plasma beneath substrate supporter 280 from the second reactive process gas).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer without affecting the frontside of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004], [0017]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to …“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Lee teaches an RF power supply coupled to a lower shower pedestal electrode where the lower shower pedestal is connected to a gas supply source, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 20160172165 A1) in view of Lee (US 20100059478 A1), as applied in claims 1-10, 15-18, and 20, and further in view of Kim (US 20150340225 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-10, 15-18, and 20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Jeon fails to teach wherein the one or more first process gases is or are non-reactive purge gases and the one or more second process gases provide a first deposition chemistry.
However, Lee teaches wherein the one or more first process gases is or are non-reactive purge gases and one or more second process gases (Lee, provide a first deposition chemistry [0027], first gas may be a nonreactive gas, second gas may be a reactive gas).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, in addition to supplying inert gas from the showerhead, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer without affecting the frontside of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004], [0017]).
Modified Jeon fails to teach wherein the one or more second process gases provides a deposition chemistry.
However, Kim teaches wherein the one or more second process gases provides a deposition chemistry (Kim, [0006], film deposited on back side of the substrate is a dielectric film including, but not limited to, silicon oxide and silicon nitride).
Kim is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated process gases for a deposition chemistry as taught by Kim into the gas manifold of modified Jeon as doing so would provide a deposition mechanism to reduce wafer stress and presence of particles (Kim, [0004]-[0005]) in addition to an etching mechanism (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jeon fails to teach wherein the one or more second process gases that provide the first deposition chemistry includes a silane and ammonia.
However, Kim teaches wherein the one or more second process gases that provide the first deposition chemistry includes a silane and ammonia (Kim, [0036]-[0038], silane and ammonia are used as reactant for the material deposited on the backside of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated process gases for a deposition chemistry as taught by Kim into the gas manifold of modified Jeon as doing so would provide a deposition mechanism to reduce wafer stress and presence of particles (Kim, [0004]-[0005]) in addition to an etching mechanism (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jeon fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to control the second gas manifold to provide one or more third process gases to provide a second deposition chemistry, wherein the one or more third process gases are at least partially different from the one or more second process gases.
However, Kim teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the second gas manifold to provide one or more third process gases to provide a second deposition chemistry, wherein the one or more third process gases are at least partially different from the one or more second process gases (Kim, [0036]-[0038], silane and nitrous oxide are used as reactant for the material deposited on the backside of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated process gases for a deposition chemistry as taught by Kim into the gas manifold of modified Jeon as doing so would provide a deposition mechanism to reduce wafer stress and presence of particles (Kim, [0004]-[0005]) in addition to an etching mechanism (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jeon fails to teach wherein the one or more third process gases include silane and nitrous oxide.
However, Kim teaches wherein the one or more third process gases include silane and nitrous oxide (Kim, [0036]-[0038], silane and nitrous oxide are used as reactant for the material deposited on the backside of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated process gases for a deposition chemistry as taught by Kim into the gas manifold of modified Jeon as doing so would provide a deposition mechanism to reduce wafer stress and presence of particles (Kim, [0004]-[0005]) in addition to an etching mechanism (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 20160172165 A1) in view of Lee (US 20100059478 A1), as applied in claims 1-10, 15-18, and 20, and further in view of Denpoh (US 20130228284 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-10, 15-18, and 20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jeon fails to teach a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide power to the first showerhead to generate a plasma for depositing a film on a back-side of the semiconductor wafer when the semiconductor wafer is supported by the first set of spider forks while the first set of spider forks is in the first location.
However, Denpoh teaches a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide power to the first showerhead to generate a plasma for depositing a film on a back-side of the semiconductor wafer when the semiconductor wafer is supported by the first set of spider forks while the first set of spider forks is in the first location (Denpoh, Fig. 1, [0039]-[0041], second RF generator 186 is connected to lower electrode 120, and first RF generator 146 is coupled to upper electrode 105).
Denpoh is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the RF generator connected to the upper electrode as taught by Denpoh into the apparatus of modified Jeon as doing so would allow plasma generation and ion energy to be decoupled, permitting separate control of the ion energy via the bias generator (Denpoh, [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “a radio frequency (RF) power supply configured to …“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Denpoh teaches an RF power supply coupled to an upper electrode where the upper electrode is connected to a gas supply source, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,851,457 (“the ‘457 patent”) in view of Jeon (US 20160172165 A1) and Lee (US 20100059478 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 21 of the ‘457 patent claims a chamber, a controller, a showerhead, a first gas manifold providing a first gas to the showerhead in response from the controller, a shower-pedestal oriented opposite to the showerhead, a second gas manifold providing a second gas to the shower-pedestal in response from the controller, and spider forks supporting a wafer in a spaced apart relationship from the shower-pedestal and from the showerhead.
Claim 21 of the ‘457 patent does explicitly not recite wherein the controller causes the first set of spider forks to be positioned in the first position wherein the wafer is spaced apart from the shower-pedestal and showerhead, and also does not recite wherein the controller causes while the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location, the first gas manifold to flow one or more first process gases into the showerhead for distribution via the orifices of the first showerhead and to simultaneously cause the second gas manifold to flow one or more second process gases into the first shower-pedestal for distribution via the orifices of the first shower-pedestal.
However, Jeon teaches wherein the controller causes the first set of spider forks to be positioned in the first position wherein the wafer is spaced apart from the shower-pedestal and showerhead (Jeon, Fig. 2, [0043], spider forks 226 support wafer 101 on carrier 200 within each processing station, while being located between the showerhead 150 and pedestal 140).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the controller in the manner taught by Jeon to position the spider forks as doing so would allow automatic control of the transfer via commands (Jeon, [0039]).
Modified ‘457 patent fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller causes while the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location, the first gas manifold to flow one or more first process gases into the showerhead for distribution via the orifices of the first showerhead and to simultaneously cause the second gas manifold to flow one or more second process gases into the first shower-pedestal for distribution via the orifices of the first shower-pedestal.
However, Lee teaches while the first set of spider forks is positioned in the first location, the first gas manifold to flow one or more first process gases into the showerhead for distribution via the orifices of the first showerhead and to simultaneously cause the second gas manifold to flow one or more second process gases into the first shower-pedestal for distribution via the orifices of the first shower-pedestal (Lee, Fig. 14, [0202]-[0213], substrate supporter 280 is disposed distance d from first electrode 230, distance D from second electrode 240, where then non-reactive gas is introduced through first electrode 230 via discharge nozzles 233 and reactive gas is introduced through second electrode 240 via discharge nozzles 242).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the pedestal of Jeon with the second electrode as taught by Lee, maintaining the gap spacing between the substrate supporter and second electrode, as doing so would enable further plasma backside processing of the wafer (Lee, [0001]-[0004]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,851,457 (“the ‘457 patent”) in view of Jeon (US 20160172165 A1) and Lee (US 20100059478 A1).
Regarding claim 15, claim 21 of the ‘457 patent claims wherein the controller is configured to support a substrate at a spaced apart relationship from the showerhead at a separation that is less than 5mm form the showerhead.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,851,457 (“the ‘457 patent”) in view of Jeon (US 20160172165 A1) and Lee (US 20100059478 A1).
Regarding claim 19, claim 21 of the ‘457 patent claims a radio frequency power supply for providing power to the showerhead to generate a plasma from the second gas for depositing a film on the backside of a substrate while the substrate is located in the spaced apart relationship form the shower-pedestal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Karim (US 20170141002 A1) teaches spider forks, RF connected to upper showerhead.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights