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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “shower” is misspelled in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ring heater” in line 2 is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ring lift” in line 1 is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Murakami (US 2021/0348272).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches a shallow process chamber comprising:
a susceptor (220) disposed within a chamber volume (100, fig. 1a);
a lifting ring (258) formed at the susceptor (Fig. 3a) ; and
a moving means for moving the lift ring up and down [0040],
wherein a wafer moves up and down above an electrostatic chuck (220) by moving the lift ring (258) up and down [0040] [0044].
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kozuka (US 2016/0035541) and Lu (US 6,218,320).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami does not teach an internal shower head and an external shower head, and a shower head heater is disposed at the internal shower head.
Kozuka teaches an internal shower head (40a) and an external shower head (40b, Fig. 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Murikami by providing an internal shower head and an external shower head, as taught by Kozuka, because it would allow more than one gas to be introduced to the chamber (fig. 1, [0042]).
None of the above cited prior art teaches a shower head heater is disposed at the internal shower head.
Lu teaches a shower head heater is disposed at the internal shower head (col. 4, ln. 1-10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Murikami by providing a shower head heater is disposed at the internal shower head, because it would allow the temperature of the shower head to be controlled allowing uniformity of films formed on wafer to be efficiently improved (col. 4, ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami does not teach the chamber further comprises a baffle disposed between the internal shower head and the external shower head.
Kozuka teaches the chamber further comprises a baffle (42) disposed between the internal shower head (40a) and the external shower head (40b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Murikami by providing it further comprises a baffle disposed between the internal shower head and the external shower head, as taught by Kozuka, because it would allow more than one gas to be introduced to the chamber [0040].
Regarding claim 5, Murikami teaches a process volume is formed between an upper electrode and the wafer (W) as the lift ring moves up (Fig. 1).
Kozuka teaches a process volume formed between the inner shower head and substrate holder (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Murikami by providing a process volume is formed between an inner showerhead and the wafer (W) as the lift ring moves up (Fig. 1), as taught by Kozuka, because it would allow the substrate to be processed by gas to be introduced to the chamber [0040].
Regarding claim 9, Kozuka teaches a flow path is formed at the baffle (42 Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada (US 2007/0292598).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami does not teach the chamber further comprises a ring heat disposed within the lift ring.
Tada teach the chamber further comprises a ring heater (35b) disposed within the wafer holder (32, [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ring of Murikami by providing a ring heater disposed within the lift ring, as taught by Tada, because it would provide control over a temperature difference between a central portion and peripheral portion of the wafer [0061].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsumine (KR 2014-0114281).
Regarding claim 7, Murakami does not teach the moving means comprises a pair of linear gears and a pair of lift shafts capable of moving along the pair of linear gears.
Mitsumine teach a moving means (106) comprises a pair of linear gears (rack and pinion) and a pair of lift shafts (102a-102d, fig. capable of moving along the pair of linear gears (Fig. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the moving means of Murakami by providing a pair of linear gears and a pair of lift shafts capable of moving along the pair of linear gears, as taught by Mitsumine, because it would provide a mechanism for moving the substrate trays up and down (Fig. 1 and 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 106935469)
Regarding claim 8, Murakami does not teach the chamber further comprises an internal shower head and a moving gas wall capable of moving up and down in order to surround the internal shower head.
Liu directed to a plasma processor teach the chamber (100) further comprises an internal shower head (11) and a moving gas wall (50, 51) capable of moving up and down in order to surround the internal shower head (11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Murakami by providing an internal shower head and a moving gas wall capable of moving up and down in order to surround the internal shower head, as taught by Liu, because it would prevent disturbance of the plasma distribution in the chamber by shielding the opening for transporting the substrate in and out of the chamber (last paragraph of pg. 3-top of pg. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 4, no prior art teaches the lift ring moves up and contacts the baffle as required by the combination of claims 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 10, no prior art teaches a lift ring contacts a bottom surface of the baffle, a portion of the bottom surface of the baffle or the bottom surface and an inner surface of the baffle as required by the combination of claims 1, 2, 3, and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights