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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 5456767 by Aruga et al (Aruga)
Referring to claim 1 A reaction chamber ( Fig 4 item 30 reaction chamber Col 4 lines 14, 15) , comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
500
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a chamber body (item 31 main compartment col 4 lines 15, 16) provided with a wafer stage inside (See item susceptor assembly 10 with susceptor plate 11 col 4 lines 13, 20, 21) wherein the wafer stage forms a reaction area ( the area above wafer 70 is reaction area) for accommodating a wafer (item 70 wafer col 4 lines 60, 61), a top surface of the reaction area is not lower than a top surface of the wafer (It is inherent to observer the top surface of 70 wafer is the reaction area col 4 lines 56 to 64), and
a flow guide tube (item 40 gas inlet in to item 41 spray port forms the flow guide tube) arranged inside the chamber body, wherein the flow guide tube comprises a tube body (item gas inlet 40 contains tube body), a gas inlet (item gas inlet 40 see the arrow and col 4 lines 17 to 20) at one end of the tube body is communicated with the opening (item 41 plasma spray outlets) , and
a gas outlet (through the plasma outlet holes 41) at other end of the tube body (item 40) extends toward the reaction area (area above the wafer 70) and is used to transport the plasma to the top surface of the reaction area so that the plasma reacts with the top surface of the wafer (See col 4 lines 21-64 discloses RF plasma created at gas inlet electrode 40 in to the tube assembly and the plasma is distributed in to the reaction chamber and reaction area above the wafer surface and forms SiO2 film formation).
However, Aruga et al is silent on a side wall of the chamber body is provided with an opening for transporting a plasma into the chamber body.
However Aruga teaches a side wall (a top side wall item 31a col 4 line 17 -19) of the chamber body (item 31) is provided with an opening for transporting a plasma (see Col 5 lines 31 to 39) into the chamber body (item 31)
Hence it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to try the gas inlet electrode from side wall of the chamber body 31 is within the scope of the plasma processing in order to have more efficient reaction on the surface of wafer.
Referring to claim 2 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 1, wherein a lower edge of the gas outlet is located above the top surface of the reaction area, and an end surface of the gas outlet is located outside an edge of the reaction area. (Fig 4 of Aruga teaches lower edge of the gas outlet item 41 is located above the wafer 70surface area). It would have been obvious to try to a person with ordinary skill and envisage this limitation.
Referring to claim 3 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 2, but silent on wherein a vertical distance between the lower edge of the gas outlet and the top surface of the reaction area is 2 mm to 5 mm in a height direction of the chamber body; and a horizontal distance between the end surface of the gas outlet and an outer edge of the reaction area is 2 mm to 5 mm in a width direction of the chamber body. However, it would be obvious to person with ordinary skill to try this limitation as it is art known skill in the glow discharge plasma process optimization relationship between pressure X distance and voltage curve.
Referring to claim 4 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 1, but silent on wherein the tube body is a flexible and retractable tube body; and/or the gas outlet is rotatably connected to the tube body. However, it would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill to try tube body flexible and variable. Also, rotation of gas outlet or plasma out for uniform plasma density is known skill within the scope of the art.
Referring to claim 5 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 1, but Aruga is silent wherein the flow guide tube is made of quartz. However, Aruga teaches using the susceptor plate parts made of quartz in order to facilitate the heat radiation. Hence, it would be obvious to the person with ordinary skill to use quartz the gas flow guide tube made of quartz in order to facilitate the plasma radiation heat.
Referring to claim 6 modified reference of Aruga teaches the e reaction chamber of claim 1, wherein a central axis of the opening intersects with a central axis of the wafer stage and is parallel to a central axis of an end surface of the gas outlet, the end surface of the gas outlet is parallel to a plane where the opening is located, and two side edges of the gas outlet in a width direction of the chamber body are symmetrically arranged relative to the central axis of the wafer stage.
Referring to claim 7 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 6, wherein the tube body is a gradually expanding structure, an expanded end of the tube body forms the gas outlet, and a contracted end of the tube body forms the gas inlet, wherein a diameter of the gas outlet in the width direction of the chamber body is larger than a diameter of the gas inlet in the width direction of the chamber body.
Referring to claim 8 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 1, wherein a central axis of the opening is staggered with a central axis of the wafer stage, and an end surface of the gas outlet is parallel to a height direction of the chamber body and inclined relative to an end surface of the opening. (See Fig 4 where Auraga teaches these limitations inherently).
Referring to claim 9 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 8, but Aruga is silent on wherein the tube body is a gradually expanding structure, an expanded end of the tube body forms the gas outlet, and a contracted end of the tube body forms the gas inlet, wherein a diameter of the gas outlet in the width direction of the chamber body is larger than a diameter of the gas inlet in the width direction of the chamber body. However, it would have been obvious to try by a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as expansion of gas helps for plasma formation in a uniform manner and reaction over the surface of the wafer also very uniform. It is within the scope of the art.
Referring to claim 10 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 6, wherein a diameter of the gas outlet (See Fig 4 item 41 ) in the height direction of the chamber body (item 31) is smaller than a diameter of the gas inlet (See item 40 gas inlet diameter) in the height direction of the chamber body (Aruga explicitly does not suggest but it within the scope of the ordinary skill in the art to try smaller openings of the plasma outlets in to the reaction area in order to make the reaction uniform above the surface of the wafer for uniform deposition of the coating.
Referring to claim 11 modified reference of Aruga teaches the reaction chamber of claim 10, wherein the gas outlet is of a flat mouth shape; and/or, the gas inlet is of a circle shape. (Fig 4 suggests the gas outlet item 41 is of a flat mouth shape and inlet is of circle shape. However, it is within the scope of the ordinary skill as well-known skill of the art.
Referring to claim 12 Aruga teaches: An oxidation device (See Fig 4 and col 4 lines 50 to 52), comprising:
a reaction chamber ( Fig 4 item 30 reaction chamber Col 4 lines 14, 15), comprising:
a chamber body (item 31 main compartment col 4 lines 15, 16) provided with a wafer stage inside (See item susceptor assembly 10 with susceptor plate 11 col 4 lines 13, 20, 21) wherein the wafer stage forms a reaction area ( the area above wafer 70 is reaction area) for accommodating a wafer (item 70 wafer col 4 lines 60, 61), a top surface of the reaction area is not lower than a top surface of the wafer (It is inherent to observer the top surface of 70 wafer is the reaction area col 4 lines 56 to 64), and
a flow guide tube (item 40 gas inlet in to item 41 spray port forms the flow guide tube) arranged inside the chamber body, wherein the flow guide tube comprises a tube body (item gas inlet 40 contains tube body), a gas inlet (item gas inlet 40 see the arrow and col 4 lines 17 to 20) at one end of the tube body is communicated with the opening (item 41 plasma spray outlets) , and
a gas outlet (through the plasma outlet holes 41) at other end of the tube body (item 40) extends toward the reaction area (area above the wafer 70) and is used to transport the plasma to the top surface of the reaction area so that the plasma reacts with the top surface of the wafer (See col 4 lines 21-64 discloses RF plasma created at gas inlet electrode 40 in to the tube assembly and the plasma is distributed in to the reaction chamber and reaction area above the wafer surface and forms SiO2 film formation).
a plasma source (item 52 col 4 lines 24-26) arranged outside the reaction chamber (item 31), wherein a plasma output port of the plasma source is communicated with the opening (See col 4 lines 21 to 29 where Aruga teaches a RF plasma source 52 connected to the gas inlet electrode 40 and susceptor plate 11 via a switch 51 and communicating via controller 53 col 4 lines 40-52)
However, Aruga et al is silent on a side wall of the chamber body is provided with an opening for transporting a plasma into the chamber body.
However Aruga teaches a side wall (a top side wall item 31a col 4 line 17 -19) of the chamber body (item 31) is provided with an opening for transporting a plasma (see Col 5 lines 31 to 39) into the chamber body (item 31)
Hence it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to try the gas inlet electrode from side wall of the chamber body 31 is within the scope of the plasma processing in order to have more efficient reaction on the surface of wafer.
Referring to claim 13 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 12, wherein a lower edge of the gas outlet is located above the top surface of the reaction area, and an end surface of the gas outlet is located outside an edge of the reaction area. (Fig 4 of Aruga teaches lower edge of the gas outlet item 41 is located above the wafer 70surface area). It would have been obvious to try to a person with ordinary skill and envisage this limitation.
Referring to claim 14 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 13, but Aruga is silent on wherein a vertical distance between the lower edge of the gas outlet and the top surface of the reaction area is 2 mm to 5 mm in a height direction of the chamber body; and a horizontal distance between the end surface of the gas outlet and an outer edge of the reaction area is 2 mm to 5 mm in a width direction of the chamber body. However, it would be obvious to person with ordinary skill to try this limitation as it is art known skill in the glow discharge plasma process optimization relationship between pressure X distance and voltage curve.
Referring to claim 15 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 12, but Aruga is silent on wherein the tube body is a flexible and retractable tube body; and/or the gas outlet is rotatably connected to the tube body. However, it would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill to try tube body flexible and variable. Also, rotation of gas outlet or plasma out for uniform plasma density is known skill within the scope of the art.
Referring to claim 16 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 12, but Aruga is silent on wherein the flow guide tube is made of quartz. However, Aruga teaches using the susceptor plate parts made of quartz in order to facilitate the heat radiation. Hence, it would be obvious to the person with ordinary skill to use quartz the gas flow guide tube made of quartz in order to facilitate the plasma radiation heat.
Referring to claim 17 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 12, but Aruga is silent on wherein a central axis of the opening intersects with a central axis of the wafer stage and is parallel to a central axis of an end surface of the gas outlet, the end surface of the gas outlet is parallel to a plane where the opening is located, and two side edges of the gas outlet in a width direction of the chamber body are symmetrically arranged relative to the central axis of the wafer stage. However, it is within the scope of an person with ordinary skill in the art to try smaller openings of the plasma outlets in to the reaction area in order to make the reaction uniform above the surface of the wafer for uniform deposition of the coating.
Referring to claim 18 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 17, but Aruga is silent on wherein the tube body is a gradually expanding structure, an expanded end of the tube body forms the gas outlet, and a contracted end of the tube body forms the gas inlet, wherein a diameter of the gas outlet in the width direction of the chamber body is larger than a diameter of the gas inlet in the width direction of the chamber body. However, it is within the scope of the art and hence it would be obvious to try by an ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant application for spreading plasma and facilitate the heat radiation uniform over the surface of the wafer for uniform reaction.
Referring to claim 19 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 12, wherein a central axis of the opening is staggered with a central axis of the wafer stage, and an end surface of the gas outlet is parallel to a height direction of the chamber body and inclined relative to an end surface of the opening. (See Fig 4 where Auraga teaches these limitations inherently).
Referring to claim 20 modified reference of Aruga teaches the oxidation device of claim 19, but Aruga is silent on wherein the tube body is a gradually expanding structure, an expanded end of the tube body forms the gas outlet, and a contracted end of the tube body forms the gas inlet, wherein a diameter of the gas outlet in the width direction of the chamber body is larger than a diameter of the gas inlet in the width direction of the chamber body. However, it would have been obvious to try by a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as expansion of gas helps for plasma formation in a uniform manner and reaction over the surface of the wafer also very uniform. It is within the scope of the art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected over prior art.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. See examiner recorded prior art : US20180240656 A1; US2005002909
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/ 06/13/2025
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights