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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 5882411 to Zhao et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Zhao teaches a faceplate 100 Fig. 2 for a process chamber (as generally shown in Fig. 1), the faceplate comprising: an inner section 102, comprising a plurality of apertures 104; an outer section having a ring shape 116, 132, the outer section surrounding the inner section; and a thermal expansion section 140, 142, 146 having a thickness less than a thickness of the inner section and a thickness the outer section (as the thickness of in the area of the groove of 140), the thermal expansion section connecting the inner section and the outer section (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the thermal expansion section is configured to deform when the inner section expands (Col. 4 lines 43-56; Col. 3 line 20-Col. line 2).
In regards to Claim 5, Zhao teaches the faceplate comprises a monolithic body formed of a material comprising aluminum (Col. 1 lines 44-48).
In regards to Claim 7, Zhao teaches the outer section comprises a seal cavity 120.
In regards to Claim 8, Zhao teaches lid assembly Fig. 2 for a process chamber Fig. 1, the lid assembly comprising: a gas box 40, a gas conduit 18 passing through the gas box; a blocker plate (plate shown in Fig. 1 between plates 40 and 22) coupled to the gas box; and a faceplate 100 comprising: an inner section, comprising a plurality of apertures 104; an outer section 116, 132 having a ring shape; and a thermal expansion section 140, 142, 146 having a thickness less than a thickness of the inner section and a thickness the outer section (as the thickness of in the area of the groove of 140), the thermal expansion section connecting the inner section and the outer section (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the thermal expansion section is configured to deform when the inner section expands (Col. 4 lines 43-56; Col. 3 line 20-Col. line 2).
In regards to Claim 12, Zhao teaches the faceplate comprises a monolithic body formed of a material comprising aluminum (Col. 1 lines 44-48).
In regards to Claim 15, Zhao teaches a processing chamber 14 Fig. 1 comprising: a substrate support 10 assembly disposed within a processing volume (interior space of 14) of the process chamber; a chamber wall (interior surfaces of 14); and a lid assembly Fig. 2 coupled to the chamber wall, the lid assembly comprising: a blocker plate (plate shown in Fig. 1 between plates 40 and 22) coupled to the gas box; and a faceplate 100 comprising: an inner section, comprising a plurality of apertures 104; an outer section 116, 132 having a ring shape; and a thermal expansion section 140, 142, 146 having a thickness less than a thickness of the inner section and a thickness the outer section (as the thickness of in the area of the groove of 140), the thermal expansion section connecting the inner section and the outer section (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the thermal expansion section is configured to deform when the inner section expands (Col. 4 lines 43-56; Col. 3 line 20-Col. line 2).
In regards to Claim 19, Zhao teaches the faceplate comprises a monolithic body formed of a material comprising aluminum (Col. 1 lines 44-48).
In regards to Claim 20, Zhao teaches an outer section of the faceplate 16 is restrained to the chamber wall using a vacuum pressure, i.e., sealed through vacuum seals O-rings and 120.
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) 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 5882411 to Zhao et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0048467 to Sanchez et al.
The teachings of Zhao are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17, Zhao does not expressly teach the thickness of the inner section and the outer section of the faceplate is less than 25 mm or that the faceplate of claim 2, wherein the thickness of the inner section and the outer section of the faceplate is within a range of about 5 mm to about 12 mm.
Sanchez teaches a faceplate 125 Fig. 2 for use in a plasma processing apparatus wherein the thickness of the inner section (216-220=1.5-1.0 inches=0.5inches=12.7 mm), the thickness 218 of the flange being 0.5 inches = 12.7mm, and the inner diameter has a range of 13 inches =330.2 mm, a step just outside off 224-226 having a thickness of 0.5 inches 12.7 mm [0021-0051]. Sanchez teaches the thermal expansion section has a width from about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as Sanchez teaches 226-224 = 12.5 [0041] - 12.25 inches [0040] = 6.35 mm.
Sanchez teaches the dimensions allow for thermal expansion [0009-0010].
It has been held that change of size or portion is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the size of the showerhead or the dimensions that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the thickness of the inner section and the outer section of the faceplate is less than 25 mm or that the faceplate of claim 2, wherein the thickness of the inner section and the outer section of the faceplate is within a range of about 5 mm to about 12.7 mm. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Zhao in view of Sanchez expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for a showerhead dimensions, to make it slightly thinner at 12 mm, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 4 and 11 and 18, Zhao teaches the thermal expansion section (thin wall of 146) has a thickness within a range of about 1mm to about 2mm at 2 mm, or 1-4 mm (Col. 4 lines 2-12).
In regards to Claims 6 and 13, Zhao in view of Sanchez teaches the inner section has a diameter within a range of about 300mm to about 400mm, as per the rejection of Claims 2 above.
In regards to Claim 14, Zhao in view of Sanchez teaches the thermal expansion section has a width from about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as Sanchez teaches 226-224 = 12.5 [0041] - 12.25 inches [0040] = 6.35 mm, as per the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 10907252 to Zhang et al which teaches a different thickness at the periphery of the showerhead.
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
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights