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 .
Drawings
The drawings require corrections as the element numbers used in the drawings do not correspond to the structures illustrated:
Fig. 2A
appears to illustrate CF ring 116 not element 112
appears to illustrate vacuum pump 158 not element 178
Fig. 2B
appears to illustrate CF ring 116 not element 100
Claim Interpretation
The term controller is recited in claims 8-14.The term controller is well known in the art and encompasses any possible known controller and can be switches, circuitry, a program controller, or computer. The specification refers to a controller as element 124 in the original specification in [0024]. For the purposes of examination the examiner has interpreted “controller” as a program controller.
The term high vacuum pump is recited in claims 1-20. In claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-19, 19, and 20 the term is “high vacuum” is interpreted as less than 10-3 Torr see [0024] of the originally filed specification Claims 4, 11, and 18 recited that the vacuum pressure is 1 x 10-8 millibar. Furthermore, the original specification [0038] recites that an example of a high-vacuum pump is a turbomolecular pump.
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 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 2007/0267143) in view of Holland et al (US 2007/0079758).
Regarding claims 1, 3: The prior art of Carlson teaches a processing chamber see Fig. 1, comprising: a substrate support (susceptor 120) disposed within a processing volume; and a carrier and feed ring (see the combination of 178 and 113 made a ring around the processing volume) disposed around the processing volume, the carrier and feed ring comprising: a ring body; a radical source coupled to at least one ring gas port (gas inlet passage 178) on a first side of the ring body; and a pump ( see pump system is recited in [0033]) in fluid communication with a ring vacuum port (gas exhaust passage 113) disposed on a second side of the ring body.
PNG
media_image1.png
813
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Carlson fails to teach that the pump is high vacuum.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches wide range pressure control using a turbo pump. Turbomolecular pumps also known as turbo pumps are known high vacuum pumps.
See Fig. 3 of Holland et al teaches a process chamber 310 is exhausted by a turbomolecular pump 330. According to Holland et al turbomolecular pumps are known high vacuum pumps known to achieve high vacuum with high gas flow. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a turbomolecular pump to exhaust the chamber of Carlson to achieve high vacuum as suggested by Holland et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach
Regarding claim 2: The processing chamber of claim 1, further comprising a control valve and
wherein the high-vacuum pump is coupled to the ring vacuum port through the control valve.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches control valve 320. See [0042] of Holland et al which teaches that that the throttle valve 320 is provided between the turbo pump 330 and the process chamber 310. Note the throttle valve used by Holland is an art recognized pressure control valve with an integrated controller. The motivation to provide a control valve as suggested by Holland et al into the apparatus of Carlson is for enhance pressure and flow control of the exhaust of the process gases. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a control valve as suggested by Holland et al.
Regarding claim 7: The processing chamber of claim 1, further comprising a carrier gas source configured to flow a carrier gas over a surface of a substrate disposed within the processing volume. See [0027] of Carlson where it is recited that the gas inlet passage 178 flows a process gas across the wafer. See [0015] of Carlson where gases are introduced into the reaction chamber. Note the type of gases is a matter of intended gas as the structure of the gas distribution system is inherently capable of supplying a carrier gas.. Note also in [0128] that an inert gas 121 (also a known art recognized carrier gas) is provided into the lower portion of the chamber.
Regarding claim 8: The prior art of Carlson teaches a system for processing a substrate, comprising: a processing chamber comprising a processing volume and a substrate support disposed within the processing volume, the substrate support configured to support a substrate during processing; a carrier and feed ring disposed within the processing volume of the processing chamber; a radical source coupled to a first side of the carrier and feed ring; a high-vacuum pump coupled to a second side of the carrier and feed ring; and a controller coupled to the processing chamber. See the rejection of claim 1 above. See a processor is recited in [0049]. The prior art of Carlson fails to teach the controller is coupled to the process chamber.
See Holland et al Fig. 3 where several controllers are illustrated as being couple to the process chamber See control 345, system controller 350. According to [0049] of Holland et al the overall controller 360 comprises a tool controller 315, valve controller 325, system controller 350, and valve controller 345. The motivation to couple the chamber of Carlson with a controller is that it enhances process control leading to more consistent desirable process results. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to couple the chamber of Carlson with a controller as suggested by Holland et al.
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach
Regarding claim 9: The system of claim 8, further comprising a control valve and wherein the high-vacuum pump is coupled to the carrier and feed ring through the control valve.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches control valve 320. See [0042] of Holland et al which teaches that that the throttle valve 320 is provided between the turbo pump 330 and the process chamber 310. Note the throttle valve used by Holland is an art recognized pressure control valve with an integrated controller. The motivation to provide a control valve as suggested by Holland et al into the apparatus of Carlson is for enhance pressure and flow control of the exhaust of the process gases. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a control valve as suggested by Holland et al.
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach
Regarding claim 10: The system of claim 8, wherein the high-vacuum pump is a turbomolecular pump.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches wide range pressure control using a turbo pump. Turbomolecular pumps also known as turbo pumps are known high vacuum pumps.
See Fig. 3 of Holland et al teaches a process chamber 310 is exhausted by a turbomolecular pump 330. According to Holland et al turbomolecular pumps are known high vacuum pumps known to achieve high vacuum with high gas flow. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a turbomolecular pump to exhaust the chamber of Carlson to achieve high vacuum as suggested by Holland et al.
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach:
Regarding claim 14: The system of claim 8, further comprising a carrier gas source configured to flow a carrier gas over a surface of a substrate disposed within the processing volume.
See [0027] of Carlson where it is recited that the gas inlet passage 178 flows a process gas across the wafer. See [0015] of Carlson where gases are introduced into the reaction chamber. Note the type of gases is a matter of intended gas as the structure of the gas distribution system is inherently capable of supplying a carrier gas.. Note also in [0128] that an inert gas 121 (also a known art recognized carrier gas) is provided into the lower portion of the chamber.
Regarding claim 15: Recall from the rejection of claim 1 above that the carrier and feed ring of Carlson (see the combination of 178 and 113 made a ring around the processing volume) disposed around the processing volume, the carrier and feed ring comprising: a ring body; a radical source coupled to at least one ring gas port (gas inlet passage 178) on a first side of the ring body; and a pump ( see pump system is recited in [0033]) in fluid communication with a ring vacuum port (gas exhaust passage 113) disposed on a second side of the ring body.
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach
Regarding claim 16: The carrier and feed ring of claim 15, further comprising a control valve and wherein the high-vacuum pump is coupled to the ring vacuum port through the control valve.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches control valve 320. See [0042] of Holland et al which teaches that that the throttle valve 320 is provided between the turbo pump 330 and the process chamber 310. Note the throttle valve used by Holland is an art recognized pressure control valve with an integrated controller. The motivation to provide a control valve as suggested by Holland et al into the apparatus of Carlson is for enhance pressure and flow control of the exhaust of the process gases. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a control valve as suggested by Holland et al.
The prior art of Carlson also fails to teach
Regarding claim 17: The carrier and feed ring of claim 15, wherein the high-vacuum pump is a turbomolecular pump.
The prior art of Holland et al teaches wide range pressure control using a turbo pump. Turbomolecular pumps also known as turbo pumps are known high vacuum pumps.
See Fig. 3 of Holland et al teaches a process chamber 310 is exhausted by a turbomolecular pump 330. According to Holland et al turbomolecular pumps are known high vacuum pumps known to achieve high vacuum with high gas flow. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a turbomolecular pump to exhaust the chamber of Carlson to achieve high vacuum as suggested by Holland et al.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 2007/0267143) in view of Holland et al (US 2007/0079758) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 in further view of von Kanel et al (US 2011/0017127).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 4: The processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the high-vacuum pump is configured to extend a vacuum pressure of the processing volume to 1 × 10-8 millibar.
Regarding claim 11: The system of claim 8, wherein the high-vacuum pump is configured to extend a vacuum pressure of the processing volume to 1 × 10-8 millibar.
Regarding claim 18: The carrier and feed ring of claim 15, wherein the high-vacuum pump is configured to extend a vacuum pressure of a processing volume of a processing chamber to 1 × 10-8 millibar.
The prior art of von Kanel et al teaches an apparatus and method for producing epitaxial layers.
See [0045] where a vacuum chamber 2 connected to a vacuum pump 18 which is suggested as a turbomolecular pump where the pressure are below 10-6 mbar, preferable pressure below 10 -8 mbar. The motivation to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al with the turbomolecular pump that extends pressure a vacuum pressure of a processing volume of a processing chamber to 1 × 10-8 millibar as suggested by von Kanel et al is that chamber would be pumped by a high capacity pump able to ensure an optimally high vacuum. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that that turbomolecular pump will extend vacuum pressure of a processing volume of a processing chamber to 1 × 10-8 millibar as suggested by von Kanel et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
470
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of von Kanel et al
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 2007/0267143) in view of Holland et al (US 2007/0079758) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 in further view of Kachian et al (US 2017/0040159).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al fails to teach a thermal gas cracker , specifically the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al fail to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the radical source is a thermal gas cracker configured to flow atomic radicals.
Regarding claim 12: The system of claim 8, wherein the radical source is a thermal gas cracker configured to flow atomic radicals.
Regarding claim 19: The carrier and feed ring of claim 15, wherein the radical source is a thermal gas cracker configured to flow atomic radicals.
The prior art of Kachian et al teaches a self-limiting and saturating CVD of a Si bilayer and ALD. See [0049] and Fig. 6 where atomic hydrogen is produced via a thermal gas cracker which acts to split hydrogen into atomic hydrogen by employing a hot iridium tube. The motivation to use a thermal gas cracker as suggested by Kachian et al is that it is an art recognized radical source and can be used as alternative to or in addition to the gas source creating radicals used in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a thermal gas cracker as suggested by Kachian et al is that it is an art recognized radical source and can be used as alternative to or in addition to the gas source creating radicals used in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Carlson and Holland et al.
Regarding claim 6: The processing chamber of claim 5, wherein the atomic radicals include hydrogen, chlorine, or a combination thereof. See [0046] of Carlson et al where hydrogen and Cl are recited as the atomical radicals (HCl dissociates into reactive H and Cl).
Regarding claim 13: The system of claim 12, wherein the atomic radicals include hydrogen, chlorine, or a combination thereof. See [0046] of Carlson et al where hydrogen and Cl are recited as the atomical radicals (HCl dissociates into reactive H and Cl).
Regarding claim 20: The carrier and feed ring of claim 19, wherein the atomic radicals include hydrogen, chlorine, or a combination thereof. See [0046] of Carlson et al where hydrogen and Cl are recited as the atomical radicals (HCl dissociates into reactive H and Cl).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dube et al (US 2018/0230624 ) teaches an apparatus for forming an epitaxial layer on a semiconductor device where a vacuum system includes a vacuum pump 218 coupled to a vacuum port 221 disposed in the chamber body 212. The chamber 200 uses a controller 2020 see [0038]. The vacuum system uses a vacuum pump 218.
Wu et al (US 2022/0156604) teaches an apparatus using atomic hydrogen radicals using base ring 312, vacuum, pump 357, and a controller 368 see Figs. 3-6.
Sowwan et al (US 2024/0363374) teaches a system and method for selective etching of amorphous silicon over epitaxial silicon at low substrate temperature with a controller 144. See [0057] where a ring shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights