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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending, and have been examined herein on the merits.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent 7,108,753) in view of Aggarwal (US Patent 7,725,012).
Regarding claim 1, Wood teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus (Fig. 2, entirety) comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 2, chamber #10) comprising: an upper chamber wall and a lower chamber wall connected by vertical sidewalls (C3, L53-60 and Fig. 1, walls #14 and #16 connected by #11 and #12), the chamber walls being joined by an upstream inlet flange and a downstream outlet flange (Fig. 2, inlet flange #17 and outlet flange #18) wherein a longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber extends from the inlet flange to the outlet flange (see Fig. 2, left/right direction); and a plurality of ribs provided on an outer surface of at least the upper chamber wall (Fig. 2, ribs #24), the plurality of ribs being orientated transversely to the longitudinal direction of the chamber (Fig. 2, oriented perpendicularly in/out of the page); at least one array of heating elements disposed above the reaction chamber (Fig. 2, heating elements/lamps #56).
Wood does not teach at least one variable positioning device coupled to the at least one array of heating elements and configured to controllably adjust a position of the at least one array of heating elements.
However, Aggarwal teaches at least one variable positioning device coupled to the at least one array of heating elements and configured to controllably adjust a position of the at least one array of heating elements (Aggarwal – C3, L36: one motor #104 for all heating elements #18; referencing aspects of Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding the limitation: “relative to a position of the plurality of ribs”, this limitation would necessarily be met by the combination of references set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Wood teaches wherein the at least one array of heating elements comprises a plurality of radiant heating lamps (C4, L49-50).
Regarding claim 3, Wood teaches wherein the plurality of radiant heating lamps are of an elongated tube type disposed substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber (C4, L50-54 and Fig. 2, #56).
Regarding claim 4, Wood does not teach wherein the upper plurality of radiant heating lamps are of an elongated tube type disposed substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber.
However, Wood teaches wherein the lower plurality of radiant heating lamps are of an elongated tube type disposed substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber (C4, L56-61 and Fig. 2, lamps #66).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the upper lamps of Wood to be oriented in the perpendicular direction as a matter of simple substitution. See MPEP 2143.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.).
Wood merely requires wherein the upper and lower lamps are not oriented in the same direction (Wood – C4, L48-65) such that a PHOSITA would recognize that the upper lamps could be oriented perpendicularly and the lower lamps could be oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction of the chamber as a matter of preference to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches wherein the at least one variable positioning device is configured to controllably adjust the position of the at least one array of heating elements (Aggarwal – C3, L36: one motor #104 for all heating elements #18; referencing aspects of Fig. 1) in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber (Aggarwal – C5, L66 and Fig. 2: moves in a linear path; C6, L24: parallel to workpiece).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding claim 6, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, teaches wherein the at least one variable positioning device is configured to controllably adjust the position of the at least one array of heating elements (Aggarwal – C3, L36: one motor #104 for all heating elements #18; referencing aspects of Fig. 1) in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the reaction chamber (Aggarwal – C5, L66 and Fig. 2: moves in a linear path; C6, L24: perpendicular to workpiece).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding claim 7, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches wherein the at least one variable positioning device is configured to controllably adjust a height of the at least one array of heating elements (Aggarwal – C3, L36: one motor #104 for all heating elements #18; referencing aspects of Fig. 1) relative to a position of the upper chamber wall of the reaction chamber (Aggarwal – C8, L34-36: can provide changes in vertical plane also).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding claim 8, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches wherein the at least one array of heating elements is coupled to at least two variable positioning devices (Aggarwal – C3, L52-59: can comprise as many positioning devices as there are lamps in the array).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding claim 9, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches wherein the at least one array of heating elements is coupled to at least three variable positioning devices (Aggarwal – C3, L52-59: can comprise as many positioning devices as there are lamps in the array).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Regarding claim 10, Wood teaches a substrate support disposed within the reaction chamber (Fig. 2, susceptor #22) beneath the at least one array of heating elements (see Fig. 2, beneath #56), the substrate support configured to support at least one substrate (see Fig. 2, supporting wafer #20); and wherein the substrate support has a central axis around which the substrate support rotates (C4, L35-38 and Fig. 2, central vertical axis of shaft #90).
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims are merely an intended use and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
The Wood apparatus (without or without modification) is regarded as capable of adjustable temperature uniformity meeting the limitations of the claim by virtue of the independent lamp control (Wood – C5, L5-9) and the stated goal of temperature uniformity (Wood – C2, L13).
Regarding claim 14, Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches wherein the at least one variable positioning device (Aggarwal – C3, L36: one motor #104 for all heating elements #18; referencing aspects of Fig. 1) is configured to provide a displacement of the at least one array of heating elements no greater than approximately 2 centimeters (Aggarwal – C5, L9: capable of operating in displacements of 10 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Additionally, the Examiner notes the claim recites merely an intended use of the apparatus, which is met by the explicit recitation above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Aggarwal teaches a single piece reflector comprising a plurality of parabolic reflectors disposed adjacent to the at least one array of heating elements (Aggarwal – C4, L46-56 and Fig. 1, reflectors #22 adjacent to bulbs #20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wood apparatus to comprise the reflectors of Aggarwal in order to direct or focus the light directed from the plurality of bulbs onto the workpiece (Aggarwal – C4, L46-56).
Regarding claim 17, Wood teaches an additional array of heating elements disposed beneath the reaction chamber (Fig. 2, lamps #66).
Regarding claim 21, Wood teaches wherein the plurality of radiant heating lamps is of an elongated tube type disposed substantially parallel and adjacent to one another (Fig. 2, heating elements/lamps #56).
Wood does not teach wherein the distance between the individual radiant heating lamps is adjustable.
However, Aggarwal teaches this limitation (Aggarwal – C3, L47-48: lamps can be independently movable; C3, L52-57: motors for individual, groups of, or the entirety of the lamps).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wood apparatus to comprise the at least one variable positioning device and operation of Aggarwal in order to “smooth” the heating to enhance process uniformity (Aggarwal – C6, L48-50).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent 7,108,753) and Aggarwal (US Patent 7,725,012), as applied to claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21 above, and further in view of Lin (US Pub. 2005/0238807).
The limitations of claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lin teaches wherein the reaction chamber comprises a refurbished reaction chamber (Lin – [0001]-[0006]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a refurbished reaction chamber according to Lin for the reaction chamber of modified Wood in order to reduce contamination of substrates processed in the chamber due to thermal process damage (Lin – [0004]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent 7,108,753) and Aggarwal (US Patent 7,725,012), as applied to claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21 above, and further in view of Kusuda (US Patent 6,843,202).
The limitations of claims 1-14, 16-17, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Wood teaches wherein the at least one array of heating elements are disposed in an upper heating housing (Wood – C4, L48-58 and Fig. 2, lamps #56/#66 arranged in some sort of enclosure.
Modified Wood does not teach wherein the upper heating housing is connected to a reaction chamber housing via one or more hinged mechanisms.
However, Kusada teaches this limitation (Kusada – C4, L51-52 and Fig. 3, lamp house #10 hingedly attached to chamber #20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wood apparatus to comprise the hinged mechanism of Kusada in order to allow for easy maintenance of both chamber and housing (Kusada – C1, L44-51).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wood does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kusada teaches wherein the one or more hinged mechanisms are connected to the reaction chamber housing in a fixed position (Kusada – C4, L51-52 and Fig. 3, lamp house #10 hingedly attached in a fixed manner to chamber #20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wood apparatus to comprise the hinged mechanism of Kusada in order to allow for easy maintenance of both chamber and housing (Kusada – C1, L44-51).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
The Wood apparatus (as modified by Aggarwal and Kusada) is regarded as capable of operating in the claimed manner by virtue of the structure and operation of the hinged mechanism of Kusada (C4, L59; C5, L1-6; C4, L58; see also Figs. 1-3) and the lamp/rib structure of Wood.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujii (US Patent 5,335,309) was cited in the parent application as particularly relevant in teaching where a light source may be moved in the x/y/z directions by individual, independent movement devices (Fig. 1). Vu (US Patent 4,581,520) was also cited in the parent application as disclosing a similar feature (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights