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 .
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) 1-3, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0238608 to Sabri et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Dhindsa teaches a showerhead 110/210 Fig. 1,2 for a substrate processing system 100 Fig. 1/200 Fig. 2 comprising: a backplate 118/210 made of a metallic material [0015; made of aluminum]; a faceplate 114/214; a first cooling plate 152/252 arranged between the backplate and a center region of the faceplate; and a plurality of heaters 171,172/271,272 arranged between the backplate and a peripheral region of the faceplate [0013-0068].
PNG
media_image1.png
544
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dhindsa does not expressly teach the faceplate made of a ceramic material, as it acts as an RF top electrode [0018].
Sabri teaches a ceramic showerhead with an embedded RF electrode, wherein the faceplate 30 that has the electrode 50 embedded therein [0035], the embedded electrode allows the high frequency RF to pass through the gas plenum 32 without lightup/arcing such that it prevents self-sustained arcing [0044]; [0031-0058].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Dhindsa by changing the faceplate to an electrode embedded in a ceramic plate, as per the teachings of Sabri. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the face plate would be made of a ceramic material. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Dhindsa teaches the first cooling plate and the plurality of heaters are in direct thermal contact with the faceplate, as there are no gaps in between the plates, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 3, Dhindsa teaches the first cooling plate is in direct thermal contact with the backplate as there are no gaps in between the plates 118 and 252, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 6, Dhindsa teaches the first cooling plate and the plurality of heaters lie in a plane parallel to the faceplate, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 7, Dhindsa teaches the plurality of heaters surrounds the first cooling plate, as it covers the entire bottom surface of the cooling plate, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 8, Dhindsa teaches each heater of the plurality of heaters is controlled independently of rest of the plurality of heaters (outer heater 650A, inner heater 650b, independent control [0066]).
In regards to Claim 10, Dhindsa teaches a layer of a thermally resistive material (thermal chokes 254, 255, 257, 259) disposed between the plurality of heaters and the backplate wherein the thermally resistive material has a lower thermal conductivity than the backplate [0056].
In regards to Claim 11, Dhindsa teaches the layer is annular (as they are rings) with an inner diameter greater than a diameter of the first cooling plate ( diameter of the protrusion of 274 inside of 259) and with an outer diameter less than or equal to a diameter of the faceplate (as shown in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 12, Dhindsa teaches a diameter of the first cooling plate is greater than or equal to half of a diameter of the faceplate, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 13, Dhindsa teaches the plurality of heaters is arranged along a circle with a diameter less than or equal to a diameter of the faceplate [0030].
Claim(s) 4-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0238608 to Sabri et al and United States Patent No. 6359250 to Blonigan et al.
The teachings of Dhindsa in view of Sabri are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 4, Dhindsa teaches the backplate is made out of aluminum [0015] the first cooling plate 152 which comprises liquid channels 174 therein [0037] but does not expressly teach a material having a higher thermal conductivity than the metallic material of the backplate.
Blonigan teaches a showerhead Fig. 4-6 which has cooling channels 223 (Col. 6 lines 28-34) that are made out of copper in a plate 126.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cooling plate channel analogous to that of Dhindsa out of copper, as taught by Blonigan, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 4, as supported by Claim 5.
In regards to Claim 5, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Blonigan teaches the backplate is made of aluminum and wherein the first cooling plate is made of copper, as per the rejection of Claim 4 above.
In regards to Claim 17, Dhindsa teaches elastomeric seals 186 but does not expressly teach a second cooling plate arranged on the backplate wherein the second cooling plate comprises a cooling channel to circulate a coolant.
Blonigan teaches that the backplate can have a cooling channel in the form of the spiral copper tube 223 Fig. 6 (Col. 6 lines 27-32) that is mounted on the layer of 264, an insulating plate (Col. 6 lines 27-32), thus cooling the backing plate and protecting the elastomeric seals (Col. 6 lines 27-32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri, with the additional cooling plate and layers of Blonigan. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of cooling the backing plate and protecting the elastomeric seals. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 18, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Blonigan teaches a layer of a thermally resistive material/insulating layer disposed between the backplate and the second cooling plate wherein the thermally resistive material has a lower thermal conductivity than the backplate, as the layer is insulative, as per the rejection of claim 17 above.
In regards to Claim 19, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Blonigan does not expressly teach a plurality of layers of thermally resistive materials disposed between the backplate and the second cooling plate wherein the thermally resistive material have lower thermal conductivities than the backplate and wherein the thermal conductivities of the layers increase from the backplate to the second cooling plate.
However, Sabri teaches that insulative ceramic plates 100-1, 100-2, 100-3 [0044] above the backing plate 20 Fig. 1A, Fig. 3 the plates forming a plasma suppressing structure 60 with spacing in between, or pockets, that increase as the plates are spaced farther away from the backing plate, such that the air pockets and the plates increase to create increased thermal conductivities, the air pockets being formed from a pattern of features [0031-058]. Sabri teaches that these plates prevent parasitic discharge [0044].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the insulating plates above the backing plate of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Blonigan, with the plurality of plates as claimed, as per the teachings of Sabri. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing parasitic plasma discharge. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 20, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Blonigan teaches at least one of the plurality of layers comprises a pattern of features that provide air pockets, as per the teachings of Claim 19 above.
Claim(s) 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0238608 to Sabri et al and United States Patent No. 2022/0301830 to Li et al.
The teachings of Dhindsa in view of Sabri are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 9, Dhindsa teaches heaters 172 that are encapsulated in the plate of 150 but does not expressly teach a portion of each of the plurality of heaters is in direct contact with the faceplate and wherein a remaining portion of the each of the plurality of heaters is encapsulated in an electrically insulating and thermally conducting material.
Li teaches a plasma processing apparatus Fig.1-6 with a showerhead 313 Fig. 6 with a quartz faceplate 131, 132 Fig. 6 with a cooling plate 133 and cooling channels 133a, with heaters 150a that are in direct contact with the faceplate and the other portion of the plurality of heaters 150b are on the other side, the heaters being sheathed or flexible [0036], [0017-0071].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri to make the heater exposed and in direct contact with the faceplate, whether it is sheathed or flexible, as per the teachings of Li, as an art analogous heating structure in the showerhead. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. The resulting apparatus would have a portion of each of the plurality of heaters is in direct contact with the faceplate and wherein a remaining portion of the each of the plurality of heaters is encapsulated in an electrically insulating and thermally conducting material, as a flexible heater or a sheathed/electrically insulated heater can be embedded and another heater is placed in direct contact with the faceplate, thus resulting in the claimed apparatus.
In regards to Claim 14, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Li teach the first cooling plate comprises a heater, as shown in the embedded heaters of 150a, 150b in 133 Fig. 6.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri to make a heater in the cooling plate, as per the teachings of Li, as an art analogous heating structure in the showerhead. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 15, Dhindsa teaches the heater is a low power heater compared to the plurality of heaters, as the heaters are independently controlled, such that the functionality of the heater can have lower or higher powers applied [0030].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Li is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Li would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and apply a lower power to one electrode vs another, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Li and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Li teaches heater is in direct thermal contact with at least one of the backplate and the faceplate, as per the rejection of Claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0238608 to Sabri et al and United States Patent No. 2006/0137610 to Yoshizaki et al.
The teachings of Dhindsa in view of Sabri are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 21, Dhindsa in view of Sabri do not expressly teach a stem comprising a metallic portion and a ceramic portion wherein the ceramic portion is embedded in the metallic portion and in the backplate.
Yoshizaki teaches a stem/gas inlet 6 Fig. 1, 2B for a showerhead 4 wherein the stem comprises a metallic portion 6 is made out of aluminum or stainless steel [0043] and a ceramic portion 27 that is a tubular insulator/ceramic [0042, 0044, aluminum oxide] that is inserted/embedded in the metallic portion and the back plate 12 [0033-0050]. Yoshizaki teaches that this gas inlet/stem suppresses an occurrence of plasma discharge [0049].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have changed the showerhead gas inlet/stem of Dhindsa in view of Sabri with the stem having a metallic portion and a ceramic portion, as per the teachings of Yoshizaki. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of suppressing an occurrence of plasma discharge. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0238608 to Sabri et al and United States Patent No. 2006/0137610 to Yoshizaki et al and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0083844 to Nishitani et al.
The teachings of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Yoshizaki are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 22, Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Yoshizaki do not expressly teach the ceramic portion comprises a plurality of segments extending radially away from the ceramic portion and wherein distal ends of the segments extending to the faceplate perpendicularly to the segments.
Nishitani teaches a gas inlet Fig. 3 wherein the end of the gas inlet that feeds into the distribution plate, i.e., the outlet of the ceramic portion of the gas inlet, has a plurality of segments 217 extending radially away from the inner portion that caps 221, wherein distal ends of the segments extending to the faceplate perpendicularly to the segments (as shown in Fig. 3), the distal ends extending radially and then downwardly, such that it extends perpendicularly down to the faceplate 212 [0020-0164]. Nishitani teaches that this shape and pipes allows for increased gas flow [0041-0042].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Dhindsa in view of Sabri and Yoshizaki, to have the gas inlet distal end of Nishitani and shape of gas inlet. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of increasing gas flow. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, with pipes/segments extending into the cooling plate radially, as the bottom of the gas inlet/stem is out of the backing plate and there are no gaps between the cooling plate and the backing plate, thus resulting in claims 23-25.
In regards to Claim 23, Dhindsa in view of Sabri, Yoshizaki and Nishitani the distal ends extend to the faceplate via cutouts in the first cooling plate, as per the rejection of Claim 22.
In regards to Claim 24, Dhindsa in view of Sabri, Yoshizaki and Nishitani teaches the stem comprises a gas inlet and wherein the metallic portion, the ceramic portion, and the plurality of segments comprise gas passages in fluid communication with the gas inlet, as per the rejection of Claim 22.
In regards to Claim 25, Dhindsa in view of Sabri, Yoshizaki and Nishitani teaches faceplate comprises a plurality of through holes and wherein the gas passages are in fluid communication with the through holes, as per the rejection of Claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2005/0022735 to Breitung et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights