(see attached(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 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 Interpretation
It's noted that for dependent claims 12-14, the applicant seems to be describing two different heating elements (heating elements 302 and 304 of the instant application, respectively). As such, the examiner is utilizing two different references for the limitation "a heating element arranged within the processing chamber," in independent claim 8 to properly describe each heating element; utilizing one reference would create a conflict since the heating element cannot simultaneously be on the bell jar structure and on an inner wall of the processing chamber (as this would create a new matter situation).
Specifically, claim 12 is directed to specifically to the heating element being arranged on and around the bell jar structure (the heating element 304). Meanwhile, claims 13-14 are directed to the heating element being arranged on an inner wall of the chamber housing (the heating element 302) with an additional heating element arranged on and around the bell jar structure (the heating element 304). As such, the examiner will utilize Sharpless et al. (US 20100243164) as the base reference for the heating element for claim 12, and Leahey et al (US 6367410) as the base reference for the heating element of claims 13-14.
The examiner recommends, for the purposes of clarity, amending claims 8 and 12-14 such that each distinct heating element is clearly defined in the independent claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Collins teaches a process tool, comprising: a chamber housing (side wall 105) defining a processing chamber; a wafer chuck (wafer pedestal 120) arranged within the processing chamber and configured to hold a substrate; a bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230; the semiconductor windows can comprise of silicon or silicon carbide) arranged over the wafer chuck, wherein an opening of the bell jar structure faces the wafer chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the window electrode 230 has an opening that faces the pedestal 120); a plasma coil (antenna 235) arranged over the bell jar structure [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Collins does not specifically disclose an oxygen source coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input oxygen gas into the processing chamber.
Liu teaches an oxygen source (gas source 60) coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input oxygen gas into the processing chamber (oxygen is supplied from the gas source 60) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 34-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include an oxygen source, as in Liu, to improve controllability through controlled polymerization [Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8]. Furthermore, etching utilizing oxygen and argon is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) [Singh - Col. 12 lines 1-5; Kim - Col. 4 lines 43-48; Morrow - Col. 5 lines 48-60]. As such, utilizing oxygen and argon gas sources would merely be the application of a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I D). It is noted that both Collins and Liu utilize fluorocarbon with argon for etching [Collins - Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30; Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 2:
Collins teaches wherein the opening of the bell jar structure has a maximum width equal to a first distance, wherein the wafer chuck has a maximum width equal to a second distance, and wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the width of the window electrode 230 is greater than a width of the wafer pedestal 120) [Fig. 41A & Col. 27 lines 62-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Regarding Claim 3:
Collins teaches a plasma coil power circuitry (RF power generator 150) coupled to the plasma coil and configured to apply a first bias to the plasma coil to create a plasma gas within the processing chamber (RF power generator 150 inductively couples RF power into the chamber); and a wafer chuck circuitry (RF power generator 130) coupled to the wafer chuck and configured to apply a second bias to the wafer chuck to attract the plasma gas toward the wafer chuck (the bias RF power generator 130 applies a bias potential to the wafer pedestal) [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 45-59].
Furthermore although taught by the prior art, the limitations “configured to apply a first bias to the plasma coil to create a plasma gas within the processing chamber; and configured to apply a second bias to the wafer chuck to attract the plasma gas toward the wafer chuck,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 4:
Collins teaches a vacuum pump (vacuum pump 140) coupled to the processing chamber and configured to create vacuum conditions within the processing chamber (vacuum pump 140 evacuates the chamber 100 to a desired pressure; the chamber is a vacuum chamber) [Fig. 1 ,41a & Col. 14 lines 52-53, Claim 1].
Furthermore although taught by the prior art, the limitations “configured to create vacuum conditions within the processing chamber,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 7:
Collins teaches a noble gas source coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input a noble gas into the processing chamber (fluorocarbon gas can be fed alongside an argon gas) [Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above, and further in view of Leahey et al (US 6367410), with Strang et al. (US 20030094238) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose a heating lamp arranged over the bell jar structure and on an inner wall of the chamber housing, wherein the heating lamp is configured to increase a temperature of the processing chamber proximate to the bell jar structure.
Leahey teaches a heating lamp (lamp assembly 110) arranged over the bell jar structure (ceramic dome 102) and on an inner wall (the lid of lamp assembly 110) of the chamber housing (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 2, the lamps are arranged on the lid of the lamp assembly 110, which can be reasonably interpreted as "an inner wall" of the chamber housing since it is physically connected to the heat exchange chamber 114), wherein the heating lamp is configured to increase a temperature of the processing chamber proximate to the bell jar structure (the ceramic dome is heated by the lamp assembly 110) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heating lamp over the bell Jar structure, as in Leahey, to reduce the temperature change that is experienced by the chamber when the plasma is cycled on and off [Leahey - Col. 1 lines 42-45]. It's further noted that Collins itself discloses that it'd be beneficial to maintain the temperature of the semiconductor window within certain temperature ranges [Collins - Col. 15 lines 28-30]. It's also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230) of Collins and the ceramic dome 102 of Leahey as analogous structures since they are both windows for inductive coils. Strang et al. (US 20030094238) discloses that both dielectric (quartz) and semiconductor (silicon) windows may be used for inductive coils [Strang - 0022].
Furthermore although taught by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the heating lamp is configured to increase a temperature of the processing chamber proximate to the bell jar structure,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above, and further in view of Sharpless et al. (US 20100243164).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose a heat jacket structure arranged on a surface of the bell jar structure and surrounding the bell jar structure, wherein the heat jacket structure is configured to increase a temperature of the bell jar structure.
Sharpless teaches a heat jacket structure (heating and cooling apparatus 246) arranged on a surface of the bell jar structure (upper chamber section 244) and surrounding the bell jar structure, wherein the heat jacket structure is configured to increase a temperature of the bell jar structure (the heating and cooling apparatus 246 may operate to control the temperature of the upper chamber section 244 of the plasma processing apparatus 202 such that the inner surface of the upper chamber section 244, which is exposed to the plasma during operation, is maintained at a controlled temperature) [Fig. 1 & 0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heat jacket, as in Sharpless, to provide further control over upper chamber temperature, thereby improving process repeatability [Sharpless - 0008, 0012].
Furthermore although taught by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the heat jacket structure is configured to increase a temperature of the bell jar structure,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of Liu et al. (US 6451703), Leahey et al (US 6367410), and Sharpless et al. (US 20100243164), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), Morrow et al. (US 6448177), and Strang et al. (US 20030094238) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 8:
Collins teaches a process tool, comprising: a chamber housing (side wall 105) defining a processing chamber; a wafer chuck (wafer pedestal 120) arranged within the processing chamber and configured to hold a substrate; a plasma coil (antenna 235) arranged over the bell jar; a bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230; the semiconductor windows can comprise of silicon or silicon carbide) arranged over the wafer chuck, wherein an opening of the bell jar structure faces the wafer chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the window electrode 230 has an opening that faces the pedestal 120) [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Collins does not specifically disclose an oxygen source coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input an oxygen gas into the processing chamber.
Liu teaches and an oxygen source (gas source 60) coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input oxygen gas into the processing chamber (oxygen is supplied from the gas source 60) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 34-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include an oxygen source, as in Liu, to improve controllability through controlled polymerization [Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8]. Furthermore, etching utilizing oxygen and argon is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) [Singh - Col. 12 lines 1-5; Kim - Col. 4 lines 43-48; Morrow - Col. 5 lines 48-60]. As such, utilizing oxygen and argon gas sources would merely be the application of a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I D). It is noted that both Collins and Liu utilize fluorocarbon with argon for etching [Collins - Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30; Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose an oxygen source coupled to the processing chamber and configured to input an oxygen gas into the processing chamber.
Leahey teaches a heating element (lamp assembly 110) arranged within the processing chamber (the chamber defined by the lid of the lamp assembly 110) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heating lamp over the bell Jar structure, as in Leahey, to reduce the temperature change that is experienced by the chamber when the plasma is cycled on and off [Leahey - Col. 1 lines 42-45]. It's further noted that Collins itself discloses that it'd be beneficial to maintain the temperature of the semiconductor window within certain temperature ranges [Collins - Col. 15 lines 28-30]. It's also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230) of Collins and the ceramic dome 102 of Leahey as analogous structures since they are both windows for inductive coils. Strang et al. (US 20030094238) discloses that both dielectric (quartz) and semiconductor (silicon) windows may be used for inductive coils [Strang - 0022].
Additionally, Sharpless teaches a heating element arranged within the processing chamber (heating and cooling apparatus 246) arranged on a surface of the bell jar structure (upper chamber section 244) [Fig. 1 & 0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heat jacket, as in Sharpless, to provide further control over upper chamber temperature, thereby improving process repeatability [Sharpless - 0008, 0012].
The limitations “configured to increase a temperature of the processing chamber,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that both the lamp assembly 110 of Leahey and heating apparatus of Sharpless are directed to heating, and as such, would be capable of heating a processing chamber [Leahey - Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65; Sharpless - Fig. 1 & 0008].
Regarding Claim 9:
Collins teaches wherein the opening of the bell jar structure completely overlies the wafer chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the window electrode 230 has an opening that completely overlies the pedestal 120) [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Regarding Claim 10:
Collins teaches wherein the opening of the bell jar structure is spaced apart from the wafer chuck by a non-zero distance (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the window electrode 230 has an opening that is a distance away from the pedestal 120) [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Regarding Claim 11:
Collins teaches a noble gas source coupled to the processing chamber (fluorocarbon gas can be fed alongside an argon gas) [Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30].
The limitations “configured to input a noble gas into the processing chamber at a same time as the oxygen gas is inputted into the processing chamber,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that the mass flow controllers 64 and 68 of Liu control gas flow from oxygen gas source 60 and argon gas source 62 [Liu - Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 34-45]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of controlling gas timing as desired.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Collins (Collins modified by Liu) does not specifically disclose wherein the heating element is arranged on an inner wall of the chamber housing.
Leahey teaches wherein the heating element is arranged on an inner wall of the chamber housing (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 2, the lamps are arranged on the lid of the lamp assembly 110, which can be reasonably interpreted as "an inner wall" of the chamber housing since it is physically connected to the heat exchange chamber 114) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heating lamp over the bell Jar structure, as in Leahey, to reduce the temperature change that is experienced by the chamber when the plasma is cycled on and off [Leahey - Col. 1 lines 42-45]. It's further noted that Collins itself discloses that it'd be beneficial to maintain the temperature of the semiconductor window within certain temperature ranges [Collins - Col. 15 lines 28-30]. It's also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230) of Collins and the ceramic dome 102 of Leahey as analogous structures since they are both windows for inductive coils. Strang et al. (US 20030094238) discloses that both dielectric (quartz) and semiconductor (silicon) windows may be used for inductive coils [Strang - 0022].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Collins (Collins modified by Liu) does not specifically disclose an additional heating element arranged on and around the bell jar structure.
Sharpless teaches an additional heating element (heating and cooling apparatus 246) arranged on and around the bell jar structure (upper chamber section 244) [Fig. 1 & 0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heat jacket, as in Sharpless, to provide further control over upper chamber temperature, thereby improving process repeatability [Sharpless - 0008, 0012].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of Liu et al. (US 6451703), Leahey et al (US 6367410), and Sharpless et al. (US 20100243164), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), Morrow et al. (US 6448177), and Strang et al. (US 20030094238) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 8-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Wintenberger et al. (US 20070215596).
The limitations of claims 8-11 and 13-14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Collins teaches wherein the heating element (heating and cooling apparatus 246) is arranged on and around the bell jar structure (upper chamber section 244) [Sharpless - Fig. 1 & 0008].
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose wherein the heating element has a ring like structure surrounding the bell jar structure.
Wintenberger teaches and wherein the heating element (resistive heating elements 6a) has a ring like structure surrounding the bell jar structure (chamber 1) [Fig. 1, 2A & 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heating element of Modified Collins to be ring shaped, as in Wintenberger, because cylindrical heaters provide a continuous heating surface, which improved uniformity [Wintenberger - 0007, 0024, 0043].
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of White et al. (US 20100173432) and Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), Morrow et al. (US 6448177), Harada et al. (US 20100227478), and Long (US 20030084848) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 15:
Collins teaches a process tool, comprising: a chamber housing (side wall 105) defining a processing chamber; a wafer chuck (wafer pedestal 120) arranged within the processing chamber; a plasma coil (antenna 235) arranged over the bell jar structure [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14]; a bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230; the semiconductor windows can comprise of silicon or silicon carbide) arranged over the wafer chuck, wherein an opening of the bell jar structure faces the wafer chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 41A, the window electrode 230 has an opening that faces the pedestal 120); a vacuum pump (vacuum pump 140) coupled to the process chamber by an outlet [Fig. 1, 41A & Col. 14 lines 34-59, Col. 15 lines 15-18, Col. 27 lines 40-67, Col. 28 lines 1-14].
Collins does not specifically disclose an inlet arranged within a sidewall of the chamber housing and laterally outside of the bell jar structure.
Although White does not specifically disclose "and an inlet arranged within a sidewall of the chamber housing and laterally outside of the bell jar structure," White does disclose that gas inlet location is a result effective variable. Specifically, White discloses that gas inlet position can be adjusted to obtain a desired gas flow path [White - 0032]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum gas inlet location to achieve a desired gas flow path. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose wherein the inlet is coupled to an oxygen source and a noble gas source by way a plurality of ducts that intersect upstream of the inlet.
Liu teaches wherein the inlet is coupled to an oxygen source (gas source 60) and a noble gas source (gas source 62) by way a plurality of ducts that intersect upstream of the inlet (gas sources 60 and 62 intersect) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 34-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include an oxygen source with an argon source that intersect upstream of an inlet, as in Liu, to improve controllability through controlled polymerization [Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8]. Furthermore, etching utilizing oxygen and argon is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) [Singh - Col. 12 lines 1-5; Kim - Col. 4 lines 43-48; Morrow - Col. 5 lines 48-60]. As such, utilizing oxygen and argon gas sources would merely be the application of a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I D). It is noted that both Collins and Liu utilize fluorocarbon with argon for etching [Collins - Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30; Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
It's also noted that Harada et al. (US 20100227478) discloses that it'd be beneficial to have independent gas flow paths to provide more control over flow rates and compositions [Harada - 0057]. Long (US 20030084848) further discloses that intersecting gas flows would be beneficial so as to provide uniform mixing of gas mixtures prior to entry into a processing chamber [Long - 0026].
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Collins (Collins modified by White) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of ducts comprise a first duct coupled to the oxygen source and a second duct coupled to the noble gas source, the first duct and the second duct meeting at a confluence that is further coupled to the inlet by a third duct.
Liu teaches wherein the plurality of ducts comprise a first duct coupled to the oxygen source (gas source 60) and a second duct (gas source 62) coupled to the noble gas source,
the first duct and the second duct meeting at a confluence that is further coupled to the inlet by a third duct (as evidenced by Fig. 2, gas sources 62 and 60 are coupled to respective ducts that combine and couple to another duct that leads into the manifold 74) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 34-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include an oxygen source with an argon source that intersect upstream of an inlet, as in Liu, to improve controllability through controlled polymerization [Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8]. Furthermore, etching utilizing oxygen and argon is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), and Morrow et al. (US 6448177) [Singh - Col. 12 lines 1-5; Kim - Col. 4 lines 43-48; Morrow - Col. 5 lines 48-60]. As such, utilizing oxygen and argon gas sources would merely be the application of a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I D). It is noted that both Collins and Liu utilize fluorocarbon with argon for etching [Collins - Fig. 1 & Col. 12 lines 25-30; Liu - Col. 5 lines 67-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
It's also noted that Harada et al. (US 20100227478) discloses that it'd be beneficial to have independent gas flow paths to provide more control over flow rates and compositions [Harada - 0057]. Long (US 20030084848) further discloses that intersecting gas flows would be beneficial so as to provide uniform mixing of gas mixtures prior to entry into a processing chamber [Long - 0026].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of White et al. (US 20100173432) and Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), Morrow et al. (US 6448177), Harada et al. (US 20100227478), and Long (US 20030084848) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Sharpless et al. (US 20100243164).
The limitations of claims 15 and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose one or more lower heating elements arranged within the processing chamber below the plasma coil, wherein the one or more lower heating elements are above the substrate chuck and proximate to a bottom of the bell jar structure.
Sharpless teaches one or more lower heating elements (heating and cooling apparatus 246) arranged within the processing chamber below the plasma coil (induction coil 231),
wherein the one or more lower heating elements are above the substrate chuck and proximate to a bottom of the bell jar structure (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the heating apparatus 246 is disposed proximate a bottom of the section 244) [Fig. 1 & 0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heat jacket, as in Sharpless, to provide further control over upper chamber temperature, thereby improving process repeatability [Sharpless - 0008, 0012].
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6036878) in view of White et al. (US 20100173432) and Liu et al. (US 6451703), with Singh et al. (US 5980637), Kim et al. (US 6362109), Morrow et al. (US 6448177), Harada et al. (US 20100227478), and Long (US 20030084848) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Leahey et al (US 6367410), with Strang et al. (US 20030094238) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 15 and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose an upper heating element disposed directly over a top of the bell jar structure and laterally between interior sidewalls of the one or more lower heating elements.
Leahey teaches an upper heating element (lamp assembly 110) arranged over the bell jar structure (ceramic dome 102) disposed directly over a top of the bell jar structure (the lid of lamp assembly 110) of the chamber housing (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 2, the lamps are arranged on the lid of the lamp assembly 110, which can be reasonably interpreted as "an inner wall" of the chamber housing since it is physically connected to the heat exchange chamber 114) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heating lamp over the bell Jar structure, as in Leahey, to reduce the temperature change that is experienced by the chamber when the plasma is cycled on and off [Leahey - Col. 1 lines 42-45]. It's further noted that Collins itself discloses that it'd be beneficial to maintain the temperature of the semiconductor window within certain temperature ranges [Collins - Col. 15 lines 28-30]. It's also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230) of Collins and the ceramic dome 102 of Leahey as analogous structures since they are both windows for inductive coils. Strang et al. (US 20030094238) discloses that both dielectric (quartz) and semiconductor (silicon) windows may be used for inductive coils [Strang - 0022]. It is also noted that the combination of references would disclose "an upper heating element disposed laterally between interior sidewalls of the one or more lower heating elements," since the lamps of the lamp assembly 110 of Leahey are disposed inside a central portion of the ceramic dome 102 [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65]. It is noted that the heating element 246 of Sharpless is disposed outside the central portion of its bell jar structure [Sharpless - Fig. 1 & 0008].
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Collins does not specifically disclose wherein the upper heating element is arranged directly between segments of the plasma coil in a cross-sectional view of the chamber housing.
Leahey teaches wherein the upper heating element is arranged directly between segments of the plasma coil in a cross-sectional view of the chamber housing (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the lamps of lamp assembly 110 are disposed within segments of coil 104) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 3 lines 49-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Collins to include a heating lamp over the bell Jar structure, as in Leahey, to reduce the temperature change that is experienced by the chamber when the plasma is cycled on and off [Leahey - Col. 1 lines 42-45]. It's further noted that Collins itself discloses that it'd be beneficial to maintain the temperature of the semiconductor window within certain temperature ranges [Collins - Col. 15 lines 28-30]. It's also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the bell jar structure (semiconductor window electrode 230) of Collins and the ceramic dome 102 of Leahey as analogous structures since they are both windows for inductive coils. Strang et al. (US 20030094238) discloses that both dielectric (quartz) and semiconductor (silicon) windows may be used for inductive coils [Strang - 0022].
Regarding Claim 19:
Collins does not specifically disclose wherein the inlet is vertically between the one or more lower heating elements and the upper heating element.
Although White does not specifically disclose "wherein the inlet is vertically between the one or more lower heating elements and the upper heating element," White does disclose that gas inlet location is a result effective variable. Specifically, White discloses that gas inlet position can be adjusted to obtain a desired gas flow path [White - 0032]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum gas inlet location to achieve a desired gas flow path. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Osada et al. (US 20140014269) and Takizawa et al. (US 20110293853) teach bell jar structures [Osada – Fig. 1; Takizawa – Fig. 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights