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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a lower shield comprising and annular ring configured” should read “a lower shield comprising [[and]] an annular ring configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu et al, US 20210335581 A1, in view of Salinas et al, US 2024/0062993 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Babu et al teaches a process chamber 100, comprising: a chamber body 106 having a sidewall, the chamber body partially defining an interior volume 119; a substrate support 124 disposed in the interior volume 119; a process kit 117 supported by the sidewall 106 the process kit 117 comprising: a metal top plate 210 (Paragraph 0024) having a top side and a bottom side (Figure 1); a plurality of holes168 disposed on the bottom side; a channel 166 extending from an outer portion of the top plate 210 and coupled to the plurality of holes 168 (Figure 1); wherein a gas flow path extends from the channel, through the plurality of holes, and into the interior volume (Figure 1).
Babu et al differs from the present invention in that Babu et al does not teach at least one heater embedded in the top plate; and at least one temperature sensor embedded in the top plate.
Salinas et al teaches a top plate 304 having at least one heater 330 embedded in the top plate 304; and at least one temperature sensor 334, 336, or 338 embedded in the top plate 304. (Figures 3B, 8, 10)
The motivation for adding the heater and temperature sensors of Salinas et al to the top plate of Babu et al is to control the temperature of the top plate of Babu et al as taught by Salinas et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the heater and temperature sensors of Salinas et al to the top plate of Babu et al.
Regarding claim 2, Salinas et al teaches the at least one heater 330 includes a plurality of heaters spaced about the top plate. (Paragraph 0052)
Regarding claim 3, Salinas et al teaches the at least one temperature sensor includes a plurality of temperature sensors 334, 336, 338 spaced about the top plate 304.
Regarding claim 7, Babu et al teaches a tubular body 117 extending down from the bottom side of the top plate 210 and surrounding the plurality of holes 168, the tubular body 117 further configured to surround a substrate support 124.
Regarding claim 8, Babu et al teaches that the process kit is made of aluminum. (Paragraph 0024)
Regarding claim 10, Babu et al teaches a lower shield 105 comprising and annular ring 184 configured to surround the substrate support 124 and an annular lip 182 extending from an upper surface of the annular ring 184, wherein the annular ring 184 includes a plurality of ring slots 186, and wherein the annular lip includes a plurality of lip slots 188. (Figure 1, Paragraph 0027)
Regarding claim 11, Salinas et al teaches that the at least one heater 330 includes a resistive heating element (claim 23) extending about the top plate 304 and the at least one temperature sensor 334, 336, 338 includes a temperature sensing element extending parallel to the resistive heating element (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 12, Salinas et al teaches a ringed or serpentine pattern for the heaters (Paragraph 0052) and the sensors place on the opposite edges and in the center (Figure 10). Thus the at least one heater includes a plurality of resistive heaters spaced about the top plate, wherein the at least one temperature sensor includes a plurality of temperature sensors spaced about the top plate, and wherein at least one temperature sensor is spaced between adjacent resistive heaters.
Regarding claim 13, Salinas et al teaches at least one of the resistive heaters or the temperature sensors extends radially with respect to a center of the top plate. (Figure 8 and Figure 10)
Regarding claim 14, Salinas et al teaches that the at least one temperature sensor includes a plurality of temperature sensors 334, 336, 338 spaced about the top plate 304. (Figure 8 and Figure 10)
Claims 4-6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu et al and Salinas et al, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-14 above, and further in view of Gottheim et al, TW1820667 B.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Babu et al and Salinas et al differ from the present in that they do not teach thermal insulation extending at least partially along the top side and/or the bottom side of the top plate.
Gottheim et al teaches thermal insulation 150, 109 extending at least partially along the top side (insulation 150) and/or the bottom side (insulation 109) of the top plate 108. (Figure 2)
The motivation for adding thermal insulation extending at least partially along the top side and/or the bottom side of the top plate of Babu et al and Salinas et al is to prevent the transfer of heat to or from the top plate of Babu et al and Salinas et al as taught by Gottheim et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add thermal insulation extending at least partially along the top side and/or the bottom side of the top plate of Babu et al and Salinas et al as taught by Gottheim et al.
Regarding claim 5, Gottheim et al teaches that the thermal insulation is configured as a ring (bottom side 109) or a disc (top side 150).
Regarding claim 6, the thermal insulation of Gottheim et al has a lower thermal conductivity than the process kit.
Regarding claim 16, Babu et al teaches the process kit further comprises a tubular body 117 extending down from the bottom side of the top plate and surrounding the plurality of holes 168, the tubular body 117 further configured to surround a substrate support 124, and wherein the tubular body 117 has an outer side and the top plate has a flange extending outward beyond the outer side, and wherein the thermal insulation is at least partially disposed below the flange.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu et al, US 20210335581 A1, in view of Bartlett et al, US 2011/0146571 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Babu et al, teaches a method of processing a substrate in a process chamber comprising, the method comprising: the chamber body 106 defining an interior volume 119; flowing a plasma forming gas 118 through a channel 166 and a plurality of holes 168 in the top plate into the interior volume 119; and generating plasma 102 from the plasma forming gas above a substrate support 124 in the interior volume 119, and a metal top plate 210 of a process kit supported by sidewalls of a chamber body 106 of the process chamber.
Babu et al differs from the present invention in that Babu et al does not teach actively heating the top plate.
Bartlett et al teaches actively heating the top plate 306 with a heater 504 (Figure 6).
The motivation for heating the top plate of Babu et al is to control the temperature of the top plate of Babu et al and improve the uniformity of the plasma as taught by Bartlett et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to heat the top plate of Babu et al as taught by Bartlett et al.
Regarding claim 18, Babu et al teaches that the top plate 210 is disposed directly opposite the substrate support 124 and extends across the entire substrate support 124, and wherein the plasma forming gas enters the interior volume through the plurality of holes 168 disposed on a bottom side of the top plate 210.
Regarding claim 19, Babu et al teaches that the plurality of holes 168 are located around the substrate support 124.
Regarding claim 20, Bartlett et al teaches monitoring a temperature of the top plate; and controlling the heating based on the monitored temperature. (Figure 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references teach the use of a top plate heater: US 20240068096 A1, US 20230335377 A1, TW 202126847 A, CN 112740389 A, US 20200051789 A1, US 9362148 B2, US 20050241765 A1, and US 20050133160 A1.
The following references teach the use of a top plate insulation: TW 202126847 A, and US 20050133160 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights