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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horioka et al. (6,132,551) in view of Outten (2019/0145005).
Regarding Claim 1, Horioka et al. (6,132,551) discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a chamber (reactor chamber, abstract) (figs. 2, 4) having a sidewall (side wall 120, fig. 2, Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2 line 4);
a susceptor (wafer pedestal 110) (fig. 2) configured to mount a substrate (workpiece) inside the chamber (Col. 3, lines 21-23);
an upper dome (annotated below) (fig. 4) surrounding an upper surface of the chamber (figs. 2, 4) and formed of a transparent dielectric material (Fig. 4, Col. 9, lines 51-60);
PNG
media_image1.png
842
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an antenna (coil antenna 115) disposed above the upper dome to generate inductively-coupled plasma (“laminated RF window 400 includes a dielectric window body, Col. 9, lines 51-60; inductively coupled plasma reactor, abstract); and
As discussed above, Horioka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein an electrically grounded electromagnetic wave shield housing surrounding the antenna; a heater embedded in the electromagnetic wave shield housing, configured to heat the electromagnetic wave shield housing.
However, Outten discloses an electrically grounded electromagnetic wave shield housing (plasma chamber is electrically grounded (paragraph [0066]). Further, it is connected to the wall of electromagnetic wave shield 330, therefore, the wall of electromagnetic wave shield housing 330 is also grounded through the plasma chamber body) surrounding the antenna; a heater (inductive winding 312) embedded in the electromagnetic wave shield housing (comprised of electromagnetic wave shield around the windings) configured to heat (plasma discharge 316) the electromagnetic wave shield housing (comprised of electromagnetic wave shield around the windings).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a heater embedded in the electromagnetic wave shield housing in Horioka in order to concentrate or focus the plasma to the workpiece on the holder as taught by Outten.
As discussed above, Horioka does not explicitly disclose an electromagnetic wave shield housing a cooling housing spaced apart from the electromagnetic wave shield housing surrounding the electromagnetic wave shield housing, and cooled by a refrigerant.
However, Outten (2019/0145005) discloses an electromagnetic wave shield housing (330) disposed to surround the antenna (312) (fig. 3) and a cooling housing (304, 308) spaced apart from the electromagnetic wave shield housing (330) surrounding the electromagnetic wave shield housing (330), and the cooling housing is cooled by a refrigerant (refrigerants, paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an electromagnetic wave shield housing to surround the antenna in order to confine the plasma and electromagnetic wave inside the chamber in Horioka as taught by Outten and have provided a cooling housing to cool down the excessive heat at the chamber in order to prevent overheating of the plasma chamber body in Horioka taught by Outten.
Regarding Claim 5, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein a temperature of the electromagnetic wave shield housing ranges from 200 degrees Celsius to 600 degrees Celsius (Outten teaches the temperature can be reached several hundreds to thousands of degrees Celsius, paragraph [0004], which meets the range as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the heater spatially uniformly heats the electromagnetic wave shield housing (it generates plasma discharge 316 uniformly inside the housing) (Fig. 3 of Outten)
Regarding Claim 10, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the heater is a resistive heater (the inductive windings 312 resist changes in current causing the current to lag behind the voltage. This lag introduces a phase difference, which can affect power factor and cause reactive power in the AC circuit) (Fig. 3 of Outten).
Regarding Claim 11, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave shield housing (330) has a lid (flange 306 in Outten) and the resistive heater (inductive windings) is embedded in the lid (flange 306 in Outten) of the electromagnetic wave shield housing.
Regarding Claim 12, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the resistive heater has a spiral shape (inductive windings of Outten has spiral shape)
Regarding Claim 13, Horioka in view of Outten discloses the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the cooling housing blocks radiant heat from the electromagnetic wave shield housing (the housings 304, 308 located around the electromagnetic wave shield housing block the heat radiated therefrom).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horioka et al. (6,132,551) in view of Outten (2019/0145005), further in view of Ranish et al. (2017/0263466).
Regarding Claim 2, Horioka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1, further comprising: a thermally insulating spacer thermally insulated from the electromagnetic wave shield housing and an upper surface of the chamber.
However, Ranish discloses high temperature resistant material such as polyimide ceramic or quartz (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the high temperature resistant material such as ceramic in Horioka/Outten in order to control the temperature inside the chamber as taught by Ranish.
Regarding Claim 3, Horioka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the substrate processing apparatus as set forth in claim 2, wherein the thermally insulating spacer has a shape of a ring formed of a ceramic material.
However, Ranish discloses high temperature resistant material such as polyimide ceramic or quartz (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the high temperature resistant material such as ceramic in Horioka/Outten in order to control the temperature inside the chamber as taught by Ranish.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 6-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior arts of record do not render obvious, nor anticipate the combination of claimed elements including the technique of:
“a funnel-shaped lower dome covering a lower surface of the chamber and comprising a transparent dielectric material;
a concentric lamp heater on a lower surface of the lower dome;
a ring-shaped upper liner on an internal side of the chamber, surrounding a lower side edge of the upper dome, and formed of comprising a dielectric material;
a ring-shaped lower line on the internal side of the chamber, surrounding an internal circumferential surface of an upper edge of the lower dome, and comprising a dielectric material; and
a reflector on a lower surface of the concentric lamp heater, wherein the electromagnetic wave shield housing is heated by an additional heater” such as required by claim 6.
“the antenna comprises two one-turn unit antennas,
the two one-turn unit antennas are disposed to overlap each other on an upper surface and a lower surface,
the two one-turn unit antennas are connected to a radio-frequency (RF) power supply in parallel, and
a width direction of the two one-turn unit antennas stands upright” such as required by Claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights