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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 19-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 14 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Sandhu in addition to previously relied on references below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Driving member (support shaft and drive motor, para. [0022]) in at least claims 1-18.
Power supply unit (any structure that supplies power to generate plasma, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0024]) in at least claims 1, 14.
Rotation support member (rotation shaft, disk shape, para. [0029]) in at least claims 4-7, 16-17.
Rotation drive member (drive motor or the like, para. [0029]) in at least claims 4-7, 16-17.
Rotation driver (any structure that rotates the transfer arm and transferring the substrate, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0047]) in at least claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitation “rotation driver” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Rotation driver” has no specific structure associated with “rotation driver” and thus it is unclear what the structure of “rotation driver” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6499425 to Sandhu in view of US 20160148821 to Singh, US 20230383403 to Lee, US 20130203268 to Kato.
Claims 1, 13, 14: Sandhu discloses (claims 1, 14) a deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber (226 [chamber], Fig. 6); a support unit (204 [susceptor]) within the chamber (226) and including a chuck (204), wherein a substrate (206 [wafer]) is seated on the chuck (204), and a driving member (stem of 204), wherein the chuck (204) has a first process position (first position, Fig. 6), a showerhead (210 [showerhead]) disposed to face the chuck (204) and supplying process gas toward an upper surface of the substrate (206) that is seated on the chuck (204), when the chuck (204) is located in the first process position (first position);
and a first ultraviolet lamp (406 [ultraviolet lamp], Fig. 6) disposed above the chuck (204) in the chamber (226) and emitting ultraviolet rays toward the upper surface of the substrate that is seated on the chuck (204), wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (406) is located on an outer periphery of the showerhead (periphery of 210, Fig. 6).
However Sandhu does not disclose (claims 1, 14) and a driving member, wherein the chuck has a second process position, wherein the first process position is for processing the substrate in a first process, wherein the second process position is located below the first process position and is for processing the substrate in a second process, wherein the driving member is connected to the chuck and moves the chuck between the first process position and the second process position; when the chuck is located in the second process position, (claim 13) wherein a separation distance between the chuck and the first ultraviolet lamp is about 15 cm to about 30 cm, when the chuck is in the second process position;
Singh teaches a driving member (570 [stem], Fig. 5, para. [0061) and wherein a pedestal are movable vertically towards and from the showerhead and are moved closer to the showerhead during processing, and the distance can be greater or lesser, or adjusted during any process, for the purpose of being located in an operational position such as during etching processes (para. [0062]).
Additionally, the courts have held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. MPEP 2144.04 V (D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the movable and adjustability of first and second positions teachings as taught by Singh with motivation to be located in an operational position such as during etching processes.
However the apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh does not disclose a power supply unit connected to the showerhead and supplying power to generate plasma between the chuck and the showerhead.
Lee discloses a power supply unit (115 [power source], Fig. 1A) connected to the showerhead (105) and supplying power to generate plasma between the chuck (107) and the showerhead (105, para. [0046]), for the purpose of providing power to the second electrode in order to ignite plasma during introduction of the precursor material (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Lee with motivation to provide power to the second electrode in order to ignite plasma during introduction of the precursor material.
Sandhu discloses (claim 14) a deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber (210/226 [chamber], Fig. 6).
Sandhu does not disclose (claim 14) having a plurality of processing areas; a transfer arm within the chamber and transferring a substrate to the plurality of processing areas;
Kato discloses (claim 14) having a plurality of processing areas (24 [circular concave portions], Fig. 23-24); a transfer arm (10 [transfer arm]) within the chamber (1 [vacuum chamber]) and transferring a substrate (W [wafer]) to the plurality of processing areas (24) for the purpose of delivering and receiving wafers to different positions (para. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transfer arm and processing areas as taught by Kato with motivation to deliver and receive wafer to different positions.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato discloses wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (406, Fig. 6, Sandhu) is disposed adjacent to a side surface of the showerhead (210, Fig. 6).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato discloses wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (406, Fig. 6, Sandhu) emits ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of about 150 nm to about 400 nm (c. 8, 5-15).
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato as applied to claims 1-2, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 20070256635 to Bour.
Claims 3, 15: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato does not disclose wherein the first ultraviolet lamp protrudes beyond a lower surface of the showerhead.
Bour discloses wherein the ultraviolet lamp (632/628 [ultraviolet source]/[light pipes], Fig. 6, Bour) protrudes beyond a lower surface of the showerhead (see where 632/628 protrudes beyond lower surface of “showerhead,” Fig. 6, para. [0046]) for the purpose of excitation occurring directly on the deposition surface, providing less opportunity for relaxation and/or recombination to occur (para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Bour with motivation to have excitation occur directly on the deposition surface, providing less opportunity for relaxation and/or recombination to occur.
The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato, Bour does not disclose (claim 15) and a separation distance between the chuck and the ultraviolet lamp is about 15 cm to about 30 cm, when the chuck is in the annealing position
Singh teaches wherein a pedestal are movable vertically towards and from the showerhead and are moved closer to the showerhead during processing, and the distance can be greater or lesser, or adjusted during any process, for the purpose of being located in an operational position such as during etching processes (para. [0062]).
Additionally, the courts have held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. MPEP 2144.04 V (D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the movable and adjustability of first and second positions teachings as taught by Singh with motivation to be located in an operational position such as during etching processes.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato discloses wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (406, Fig. 6, Sandhu) is disposed adjacent to a side surface of the showerhead (210, Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 8-9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato as applied to claims 1-2, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 20220178031 to Aita.
Claims 8-9, 17: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato does not disclose (claim 8, 17) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is coupled to a lower edge region of the showerhead; (claim 9) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is disposed an annular shape along a circumference of the lower edge region of the showerhead.
Aita discloses (claim 8) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (26/27b/25b [light source]/[optical fibers]/[transmission window], Fig. 5) is coupled to a lower edge region of the showerhead (20 [showerhead]); (claim 9) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (26/27b/25b) is disposed an annular shape along a circumference of the lower edge region of the showerhead (20, para. [0052]) for the purpose of being configured so that the irradiation amount with ultraviolet light can be partially changed in the processing container (para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Aita with motivation to be configured so that the irradiation amount with ultraviolet light can be partially changed in the processing container.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato as applied to claims 1-2, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 4558660 to Nishizawa.
Claims 10-11: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato does not disclose (claim 10) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp includes a lamp bulb emitting ultraviolet rays, a power source supplying power to the lamp bulb, a reflector surrounding the lamp bulb and reflecting ultraviolet rays, and a light transmitting window disposed between the lamp bulb and the chuck and transmitting ultraviolet rays that are emitted from the lamp bulb toward the upper surface of the substrate; (claim 11) wherein the lamp bulb is comprised of an H-type ultraviolet lamp bulb.
Nishizawa discloses (claim 10) wherein the ultraviolet lamp (17 [combination lamps], Fig. 1) includes a lamp bulb (20 [tungsten filament]) emitting ultraviolet rays (c. 2, l. 37-45), a power source (A. C. power source, c. 6, l. 30-50) supplying power to the lamp bulb (20), a reflector (18 [reflecting blocks]) surrounding the lamp bulb (20) and reflecting ultraviolet rays, and a light transmitting window (11 [reaction tube]) disposed between the lamp bulb (20) and the chuck (12 [support]) and transmitting ultraviolet rays that are emitted from the lamp bulb (20) toward the upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of 13 [wafers]); (claim 11) wherein the lamp bulb is comprised of an H-type ultraviolet lamp bulb (Fig. 2-3, c. 6, l. 30-50), for the purpose of effectively utilizing the radiation energy from the lamps (c. 2, l. 37-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lamp details as taught by Nishizawa with motivation to effectively utilize energy from the lamps.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato as applied to claims 1-2, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 20200173018 to Hiester.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Sandhu in view of Singh, Lee, Kato does not disclose further comprising a rotation driver rotating the transfer arm and transferring the substrate from one processing area of the plurality of processing areas to another processing area of the plurality of processing areas.
Hiester discloses further comprising a rotation driver (220 [rotation mechanism], Fig. 2) rotating the transfer arm (226 [spider forks]) and transferring the substrate (101 [wafers]) from one processing area (chamber station) of the plurality of processing areas (plurality of chamber stations) to another processing area of the plurality of processing areas (para. [0047]) for the purpose of transferring substrates within the processing chamber (102, para. [0047-0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rotation driver and transfer arm arrangement as taught by Hiester with motivation to transfer substrates within the processing chamber.
Claims 19-20: (Withdrawn).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140318453 discloses an energy activator (31b, Fig. 1) at a portion lower than the showerhead (28) and can be applied in multiple directions (para. [0035]). US 20060234515 discloses an ultraviolet optical source (25, Fig. 1) with a stage (22) that can rotate and lift for various processing (para. [0076-0078]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights