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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-8 and 7-20 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims corresponding to inventions I and II are related to similar subject matter and separate searches would likely the same references. This is not found persuasive because the search for method claims requires the identification of process steps, while the search for the apparatus claims requires the identification of structure. The method and apparatus claims are differently classified, as pointed out in the restriction requirement, which introduces additional search burden. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. The claim should apparently read “…a second dynamic gas assist coupled to the process chamber at a different location…”
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. The claims should end with a period [.].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 2, 4, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesh et al. (US 2005/0199184) and further in view of Sivaramakrishnan et al. (EP 0843347).
Regarding Claim 1: Murugesh teaches a system comprising:
a process chamber (Fig. 5, element 96) comprising a substrate support (element 108) disposed within a chamber volume of the process chamber;
a gas distribution assembly (element 20) facing the substrate support; and
a gas baffle (Fig. 1, element 56) fluidly coupled to the gas distribution assembly; and
a first dynamic gas assist (element 74) fluidly coupled to the gas baffle.
Murugesh does not expressly disclose a sensor coupled to the process chamber and the dynamic gas assist, and configured to monitor at least one characteristic of the chamber volume of the process chamber. However, Murugesh teaches that the chamber comprises a controller to provide gas flow control to control components of the chamber as needed [0037]. Murugesh teaches that the gas flow is controlled to more effectively clean the chamber surfaces [0025]. It is known to provide a sensor to monitor a characteristic in order to trigger control of chamber components. For example, Sivaramakrishnan teaches a chamber cleaning system comprising a sensor configured to detect a light intensity at a zone of the chamber volume in order to control the cleaning gas flow based on the detected cleaning rate (pg. 24, ll. 41-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murugesh by providing a sensor coupled to the controller and configured to monitor a chamber characteristic in order to determine the cleaning progress and control the cleaning gas accordingly, as taught by Sivaramakrishnan.
Regarding Claim 2: Murugesh further teaches the dynamic gas assist is coupled to a cleaning gas source [0020].
Regarding Claim 4: Murugesh further teaches wherein the first dynamic gas assist is configured to control a direction of a gas flow through the gas baffle and into the process chamber [0025].
Regarding Claim 7: Murugesh further teaches wherein the first dynamic gas assist is configured to redirect a gas flow directed to a first zone of the chamber volume from the first dynamic gas assist to a second zone of the chamber volume [0026].
Regarding Claim 17: Murugesh teaches a system comprising:
a process chamber (Fig. 5, element 96)having a chamber volume;
a substrate support (element 108) disposed within the chamber volume of the process chamber;
a gas distribution assembly (element 20) facing the substrate support and disposed on a lid of the process chamber; and
a gas baffle (Fig. 1, element 56) fluidly coupled to the gas distribution assembly;
a dynamic gas assist (element 74) fluidly coupled to the gas baffle; and
a controller configured to control a cleaning rate in a zone by adjusting the dynamic gas assist [0037].
Murugesh does not expressly disclose a sensor coupled to the process chamber and configured to detect a cleaning rate of a zone in the chamber. However, Murugesh teaches that the chamber comprises a controller to provide gas flow control to control components of the chamber as needed [0037]. Murugesh teaches that the gas flow is controlled to more effectively clean the chamber surfaces [0025]. Sivaramakrishnan teaches a chamber cleaning system comprising a sensor configured to detect a light intensity at a zone of the chamber volume in order to control the cleaning gas flow based on the detected cleaning rate (pg. 24, ll. 41-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murugesh by providing a sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a cleaning rate at a zone of the chamber in order to determine the cleaning progress and control the cleaning gas accordingly, as taught by Sivaramakrishnan.
Regarding Claim 20: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above. Sivaramakrishnan further teaches sensor is an optical sensor coupled to a window on a side wall of the process chamber (Fig. 17D, element 812).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesh et al. (US 2005/0199184) and Sivaramakrishnan et al. (EP 0843347), and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0292894).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6: Murugesh and Sivaramakrishnan teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Sivaramakrishnan teaches the sensor is positioned and oriented to detect a light intensity at a zone of the chamber volume (pg. 24, ll. 41-53). Sivaramakrishnan does not expressly disclose the plurality of sensors. However, it is known to provide a plurality of sensors within a process chamber as claimed. For example, Peng teaches a substrate processing chamber comprising a plurality of temperature sensors around a showerhead to provide multiple temperature readings [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art system with a plurality of sensors as claimed in order to receive multiple readings of the monitored light intensity for accuracy, as suggested by Peng.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesh et al. (US 2005/0199184) and Sivaramakrishnan et al. (EP 0843347), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210125846).
Regarding Claim 19: Murugesh and Sivaramakrishnan teach the elements of Claim 17 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose a motor as claimed. However, Kim teaches a similar system comprising a dynamic gas assist driven by a controlled motor to actuate the dynamic gas assist [0040-0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murugesh and Sivaramakrishnan with a controlled motor to actuate the dynamic gas assist, as taught by Kim.
Claims 3, 8, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not expressly disclose or fairly suggest the features of the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Murugesh as discussed above. However, Murugesh does not teach or fairly suggest a second dynamic gas assist coupled to the process chamber at different location from the first dynamic gas assist as required by Claim 3. Murugesh does not teach the gas baffle comprises a backing plate having a central bore formed therethrough and an integrated cross structure formed in the central bore, the cross structure forming a plurality of openings, as required by Claim 8. Murugesh does not teach or suggest wherein the dynamic gas assist comprises a first volume disposed in the dynamic gas assist and a second volume in the dynamic gas assist, the controller configured to adjust a ratio of the first volume to the second volume, as required by Claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714