DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (2001/0004478) in view of Cui (2016/0097119).
Zhao teaches a semiconductor processing chamber comprising:
- a chamber body with a sidewall, bottom and lid, see Fig. 8 and related text, with lid (gas feed cover plate, 46 per Fig. 1 [0008], body/sidewall and bottom 72,
- a support ting on the side wall, see 66,
- an RF isolator on the support ring, see ceramic isolator 152, which is understood as an “isolator” to prevent direct contact and electrical shorting,
- a showerhead on the isolator, see showerhead 40 with apertures 42, with a front and rear surface as depicted, the showerhead flange, see portion that extends from showerhead face overtop of the isolator, and
- an RF feed in contact with the showerhead, see 94 (per Fig. 1), but the teachings do not include the claimed gas funnel and cap, teaching the noted inlet 44.
Cui teaches a processing chamber with a gas introduction inlet comprising a funnel, see Fig. 1A and related text, wherein the entire chamber includes sidewalls (104) a bottom (106) and a lid, the lid including an inlet 134. The inlet is aligned with the gas funnel 300 to feed gas into the process region. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the funnel gas inlet of Cui to the apparatus of Zhao as it would allow for a higher degree of gas mixing where desired [0064] (as relative to the straight inlet of Zhao). In combination, the further elements of Cui based on combining the elements include that the outer portion of the front surface of the gas funnel contacts the back surface area of the showerhead in order to produce the desired flow with the concave-shaped front surface and further includes a cap insert 192 including at least one channel 193. In regard to the cap housing, Cui teaches such a housing 200 also with cap 400. Cui does not teach that the cap housing is ceramic, however, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material is obvious without a showing of criticality. Zhao generally teaches ceramic for various chamber parts, see [0069, 89-90] and therefore such materials are commonly known in such systems.
The teachings include the showerhead as noted, having a “large number of openings” [0008] but do not specifically teach the number of size of apertures as claimed. While not explicitly teaching how many, to select any amount would have been obvious over the teachings of a large number. Further, and in view of the size of the diameter, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection of size is obvious without a showing of criticality and therefore to include the number and size as claimed would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the RF isolate is ceramic as per above, while silent on the specific ceramic, alumina is a well-known ceramic for use in such system and would have been an obvious selection, see MPEP 2144.07 wherein it is stated that the selection of a material for an intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the teachings include that the cap housing is stainless steel, but examiner takes Official Notice that alumina is a commonly applied material for use in such chambers and would have been an obvious selection. Also, selection of materials is noted as per above and the instant specification does not support criticality. The combination of materials such as a coating does not overcome the teachings of obviousness of material selection.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, there are multiple channels in the cap/insert including inner channel 193, as such, to include the claimed inlet would have been a routine rearrangement of parts, such an arrangement is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. In regard to the plasma, the teachings include the plasma connected to the central [0006, 46].
Regarding claim 12, similarly to claim 11, cap insert has a plurality of apertures, 341, 346, to modify further would have been a routine rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings include pedestal 140 [0087].
Regarding claim 14, per Zhao the RF source 94 is connected to the showerhead and the pedestal is connected to the associated biasing element 98.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cui further teaches a controller 180 [0075-76] that is understood to control the various elements of the system and process – in the combination of the teachings it would be further obvious to utilize the controller for all elements of the process including the application of plasma and power to electrodes.
Regarding claim 17, the arguments as presented above in regard to the number and size of apertures are applied here and not repeated.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the claim limitations are limited to the use of the apparatus and therefore intended use. The limitations are met wherein the chamber is used for a process up to and including 250C (while the claim does not actually limit the operating temperature from being higher) and wherein a selected gas is flown at a flow rate such that the saturation time is less than or equal to 0.25 seconds.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (2001/0004478) and Cui (2016/0097119) in view of Gungor (2019/0078210).
The teachings of Zhao and Cui are described above, but do not teach the claimed RF gasket. Gungor teaches an equivalent system including a funnel-shaped gas input feeding a showerhead, see Figs. 1-2, the teachings include an RF gasket 224between the top plate 170 and the flange 220 [0028]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the RF gasket of Gungor in the system of Zhao to improve the coupling of the portions as per Gungor. The arrangement further includes complete contact of the gasket in order to maintain vacuum.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the teachings do not include the RF gasket comprises ceramic, such as alumina, but MPEP 2144.07 is cited above in regard to the material. Ceramic is a well-known material in a semiconductor chamber for example for its ability to endure high temperatures and would have been an obvious selection.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (2001/0004478) and Cui (2016/0097119) in view of Noorbakhsh (2011/0162800).
The teachings of Zhao and Cui are described above, the combined art teaches an array of holes on the showerhead, but is silent on the conductance. While the Office initially notes that conductance is related to a number of factors, including use of the system, nonetheless the teachings of Noorbakhsh are applied. Noorbakhsh teaches that it is useful to control the conductance of a showerhead [0045]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to control the conductance of the showerhead of Zhao as Noorbakhsh teaches that such control is useful. In regard to the showerhead thickness, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection of size is obvious without a showing of criticality, and therefore such selection is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art teaches or makes obvious the additional elements of claim 1. The arguments include an improved conductance, but there is no actual data presented to demonstrate that the resulting chamber is improved over what would be expected in the prior art. See MPEP 716.02 and (a) wherein unexpected results must be demonstrated and commensurate in scope to the claims. The flange is taught as per above, and, as argued, the selection of materials, wherein the combined prior art teaches ceramic, is obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
