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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07-26-2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foad et al (US 2011/0127156; hereafter Foad).
In regards to claims 7. Foad teaches a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) device (see, for example, abstract, Figures, [0005-0006], [0008-11]), comprising:
a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 102);
a showerhead (see, for example, Fig 1, Fig 5, [0008-11],[0029], [0039], [0042], abstract) within the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 102);
wherein the showerhead (see, for example, Fig 1, Fig 5, [0008-11],[0029], [0039], [0042], abstract) comprises: a plenum defined by a lower shower plate (perforated area below 558), an outer sidewall (such as portions of 556 along the sides of 558), and an upper plate (such as portions of 556 or 102 above 558); a gas inlet (such as 552) feeding the plenum (such as 558); and a domed internal baffle plate (such as 562) at a mouth of the gas inlet, the domed internal baffle plate comprising a plurality of perforations (see, for example, Fig 5B-C, [0032], 0037], [0057-0059]).
In regards to claims 19. Foad discloses a showerhead for a CVD system, comprising:
a lower shower plate (perforated area below 558) with a plurality of holes (see, for example, Fig 2b/2C, and [0035], wherein the openings can be positioned along concentric circles); an outer sidewall (such as portions of 556 along the sides of 558) about a circumference of the lower shower plate (perforated area below 558);
an upper plate (such as portions of 556 or 102 above 558) with a gas inlet (such as 552) at a center of the upper plate (such as portions of 556 or 102 above 558); and a domed internal baffle plate (such as 562) comprising a plurality of perforations (see, for example, Fig 5B-C, [0032], 0037], [0057-0059]).;
wherein the lower shower plate (perforated area below 558), the outer sidewall (such as portions of 556 along the sides of 558), and the upper plate (such as portions of 556 or 102 above 558) together define a plenum (such as 558), and the domed internal baffle plate (such as 562) is located within the plenum at the gas inlet (such as 552).
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1] in view of Linebarger Jr et al [US 2022/0415624 A1]
In regards to claims 1, Foad discloses a chemical vapor deposition device (see, for example, abstract, Figures, [0005-0006], [0008-11]) comprising:
a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 102);
wherein the showerhead (see, for example, Fig 1, Fig 5, [0008-11],[0029], [0039], [0042], abstract) comprises a gas inlet (such as 552) feeding into a plenum (such as 558) and a domed internal baffle plate (such as 562) at a mouth of the gas inlet, the domed internal baffle plate (such as 562) comprising a plurality of perforations (see, for example, Fig 5B-5C, [0032], 0037], [0057-0059]).
Foad does not specify a pedestal within the reaction chamber for supporting a wafer substrate; a showerhead within the reaction chamber located above the pedestal;
Linebarger discloses a pedestal (Fig. 1, 16) within the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 12) for supporting a wafer substrate (Fig. 1, 18); a showerhead (Fig. 1, 14) within the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, 12) located above the pedestal (Fig. 1, 16);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to use the teachings of Linebarger with Foard to disclose a pedestal within the reaction chamber for supporting a wafer substrate for purpose of providing a smooth gliding action during mounting, reduce the generation of unwanted particles and prevent free-fall of the carrier ring to the pedestal as disclosed by Linebarger (Paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claims 3. Foad in view of Linebarger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate to a height of the domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate is from about 2.1 to about 10.8 (Foad teaches wherein the sizing of various outlet holes are any convenient size and distribution to provide desired flow and pressure drop characteristics (see, for example, [0031-32])); or wherein a ratio of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate to a diameter of the gas inlet is from about 1.32 to about 1.85.
Thus although Foad does not provide a quantitative ratio of diameter of a domed portion to the height of the baffle plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a value of such a ratio within the claimed range since the curvature is result effective and influences the spreading characteristics and since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 5. Foad in view of Linebarger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total surface area of the domed internal baffle plate (see, for example, [0032], [0058])
Although Foad does not quantify a particular density or ratio of hole to solid surface area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total surface area of the domed internal baffle plate is from about 0.06 to about 0.48 since such a condition would predictably influence the flow distribution and since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1] in view of Linebarger Jr et al [US 2022/0415624 A1] and further in view of Hendrickson et al [EP 1031641].
In regards to claims 2. Foad in view of Linebarger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the perforations have an inlet diameter along an internal surface of the domed internal baffle plate and an outlet diameter along an external surface of the domed internal baffle plate (See, for example, Fig 5B-5C, [0032], 0037], [0057-0059]); and
Foad in view of Linebarger does not specify a ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter is from about 1.2 to about 2.6.
Hendrickson discloses a ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter is from about 1.2 to about 2.6 (see, for example, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to use the teachings of Hendrickson with Foad in view of Linebarger to disclose a ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter is from about 1.2 to about 2.6 since such a configuration would predictably insure high precision in the shape and exact location of the holes and aid in control of flow and coating uniformity as disclosed by Hendrickson (see, for example, [0024]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1] in view of Linebarger Jr et al [US 2022/0415624 A1] and further in view of Chandrasekharan (US 2015/0315706; hereafter Chandrasekharan).
In regards to claims 4. Foad in view of Linebarger discloses the device of claim 1,
Foad in view of Linebarger does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead is from about 0.00164 to about 0.0170.
Chandrasekharan discloses wherein a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead is from about 0.00164 to about 0.0170 (Chandrasekharan additionally teaches wherein the number of holes in both the baffle and the underlying showerhead faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of flow of gas therethrough (See, for example, [0049], [0052-0053]). Chandrasekharan has additionally taught an exemplary embodiment wherein the ratio of area (2d projected) of holes of the baffle to the showerhead faceplate is 0.0106 (see, for example, table 1 calculated as area of baffle holes = 6 holes* pi* (0.04)2; area of showerhead face plate holes = 2257 holes*pi*(0.02)2).).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead of about 0.0106 since the number of holes of the baffle and faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of the gas and since such a ratio provides for a predictable and desirable flow uniformity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1] in view of Linebarger Jr et al [US 2022/0415624 A1] and further in view of Mainhold et al (KR20090003703U).
In regards to claims 6. Foad in view of Linebarger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device further comprises a radio frequency power supply for generating a plasma within the reaction chamber (See, for example, [0010], [0037-39], [0051], [0062], [0065-67], [0072]),
Foad further teaches wherein the showerhead further comprises a lower shower plate (518/lower wall of 556) having a plurality of holes (520/560) and wherein the size and density of such holes assist in controlling uniformity of gas flow (see, for example, Fig 5B-C, [0058])
Foad in view of Linebarger does not specify wherein the showerhead further comprises a lower shower plate having from about 3000 to about 6000 holes;
Mainhold further teaches wherein the lower shower plate can predictably possess from 10 to 10,000 holes, and, like Foad, teaches that the number and orientation can influence the film uniformity, profile, and gas flow (See, for example, for example, pg 5 5th paragraph) and a showerhead comprising a gas inlet, a plenum, a lower shower plate and an internal baffle (See, for example, abstract, Fig 3a-c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated from 10 to 10000 holes in the lower shower plate since such a number would yield predictable control over the desired film uniformity, profile, and gas flow, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly about 3000 to about 6000, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a number of holes within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1] in view of Hendrickson et al [EP 1031641].
In regards to claims 8. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the perforations have an inlet diameter along an internal surface of the domed internal baffle plate and an outlet diameter along an external surface of the domed internal baffle plate (See, for example, Fig 5B-5C, [0032], 0037], [0057-0059]). Foad further teaches wherein the sizing and distribution of the holes can be adjusted to control density profile (See, for example, [0031-0032], But it does not explicitly teach wherein the inlet diameter is larger than the outlet diameter. Hendrickson teaches apparatus thereof including a showerhead comprising a gas inlet, a plenum and an internal perforated baffle (See, for example, abstract, Fig 4). Hendrickson further teaches wherein hole shaping influences flow and coating uniformity and by incorporating a dual diameter somewhat funnel shape of holes with a larger diameter at the inlet and smaller diameter at the outlet insures high precision in the shape and exact location of the holes (see, for example, Fig 7 and [0024]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the inlet diameter larger than the outlet diameter since such a configuration would predictably insure high precision in the shape and exact location of the holes and aid in control of flow and coating uniformity.
In regards to claims 9. Foad in view of Hendrickson the device of claim 8, wherein a ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter is in a range of about 1.2 to about 2.6 (Hendrickson further teaches wherein the ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter is about 2, see, for example, [0024]).
Claim 10-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad et al [US 2011/0127156 A1]
In regards to claims 10. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the sizing of various outlet holes are any convenient size and distribution to provide desired flow and pressure drop characteristics (see, for example, [0031-32]). Therefore, although it does not explicitly teach outlet diameter particular to outlets along an external surface of the domed internal baffle plate within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an outlet diameter along an external surface of the domed internal baffle plate of from about 1.0mm to about 2.1 mm since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 11. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, Foad further depicts a domed internal baffle plate possessing diameter greater than its height to create gas flow spreading (See, for example, Fig 5C). Foad further teaches wherein degree of convexivity / curvature influences the direction and spreading behavior of the gas flow (See, for example [0031]). Thus although Foad does not provide a quantitative ratio of diameter of a domed portion to the height of the baffle plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a value of such a ratio within the claimed range since the curvature is result effective and influences the spreading characteristics and since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 15. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, Foad further teaches wherein the size and density of holes within perforated plates can be controlled to tailor the gas flow distribution (see, for example, [0032], [0058]). Although Foad does not quantify a particular density or ratio of hole to solid surface area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total surface area of the domed internal baffle plate is from about 0.06 to about 0.48 since such a condition would predictably influence the flow distribution and since “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 16. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the perforations comprise: a first zone of perforations comprising a central hole and a first plurality of holes distributed circumferentially around the central hole; a second zone of perforations comprising a second plurality of holes distributed circumferentially around the first zone of perforations; and a third zone of perforations comprising a third plurality of holes distributed circumferentially around the second zone of perforations (see, for example, Fig 2b/2C, and [0035], wherein the openings can be positioned along concentric circles)..
In regards to claims 17. Foad teaches the device of claim 16, and further teaches wherein the first plurality of holes is located at a diameter of about ⅙ to about ⅕ of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate; or the second plurality of holes is located at a diameter of about ¼ to about ½ of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate; or the third plurality of holes is located at a diameter of about ½ to about ¾ of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate (refer to Fig 2c and [0035] particular concentrically arranged holes arranged at distances within the respective spans of the first, second, and third holes as claimed are interpreted as first, second, and third plurality of holes respectively.
In regards to claims 18. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, wherein a total hole area of the third zone is greater than a sum of a total hole area of the first zone and a total hole area of the second zone (see, for example, Fig 2c wherein zone 1 and 2 are interpreted as the center and two inner most concentric circles, comprising 20 holes, while zone 3 is interpreted as the outer two concentric circles possessing 32 holes).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Chandrasekharan (US 2015/0315706; hereafter Chandrasekharan).
In regards to claims 12. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a diameter of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate to a diameter of the gas inlet is from about 1.32 to about 1.85. Chandrasekharan teaches a CVD method including deposition via a showerhead comprising a gas inlet, a plenum and an internal baffle plate comprising a plurality of perforations (See, for example, abstract, [0027], Fig 2-7). Chandrasekharan further teaches wherein the diameter of the baffle should be greater than the gas inlet as it influences the gas flow uniformity and encourages outward flow through the plenum (see, for example, [0041], [0046]). Chandrasekharan further teaches an exemplary embodiment wherein the inlet is on the order of 0.125 inches and the baffle a diameter of between 0.1 and 2 inches (calculated ratio of 0.8 to 16) (see, for example, Figures, [0051], and [0065]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a ratio of a domed portion of the domed internal baffle plate to a diameter of the gas inlet of greater than 1 to 16 since a value greater than 1 would encourage outward flow through the plenum and since it would predictably encourage improved gas flow uniformity. Although such a range is not explicitly about 1.32 to about 1.85, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
In regards to claims 14. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, Chandrasekharan additionally teaches wherein the number of holes in both the baffle and the underlying showerhead faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of flow of gas therethrough (See, for example, [0049], [0052-0053]). Chandrasekharan has additionally taught an exemplary embodiment wherein the ratio of area (2d projected) of holes of the baffle to the showerhead faceplate is 0.0106 (see, for example, table 1 calculated as area of baffle holes = 6 holes* pi* (0.04)2; area of showerhead face plate holes = 2257 holes*pi*(0.02)2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead of about 0.0106 since the number of holes of the baffle and faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of the gas and since such a ratio provides for a predictable and desirable flow uniformity.
Claims 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad as applied to claim 7 above and in view of Mainhold et al (KR20090003703U; machine translation provided and cited to herein; hereafter Mainhold).
In regards to claims 13. Foad teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the showerhead further comprises a lower shower plate (518/lower wall of 556) having a plurality of holes (520/560)
but Foad is silent as to a suitable number of holes, so it does not explicitly teach the lower shower plate having from about 3000 to about 6000 holes.
Mainhold further teaches wherein the lower shower plate can predictably possess from 10 to 10,000 holes, and, like Foad, teaches that the number and orientation can influence the film uniformity, profile, and gas flow (See, for example, for example, pg 5 5th paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated from 10 to 10000 holes in the lower shower plate since such a number would yield predictable control over the desired film uniformity, profile, and gas flow, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly about 3000 to about 6000, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a number of holes within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foad as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Chandrasekharan (US 2015/0315706; hereafter Chandrasekharan).
In regards to claims 20. Foad discloses the showerhead of claim 19,
Foad does not specify wherein a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead is from about 0.00164 to about 0.0170.
Chandrasekharan additionally teaches wherein the number of holes in both the baffle and the underlying showerhead faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of flow of gas therethrough (See, for example, [0049], [0052-0053]). Chandrasekharan has additionally taught an exemplary embodiment wherein the ratio of area (2d projected) of holes of the baffle to the showerhead faceplate is 0.0106 (see, for example, table 1 calculated as area of baffle holes = 6 holes* pi* (0.04)2; area of showerhead face plate holes = 2257 holes*pi*(0.02)2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a ratio of a total hole area of the domed internal baffle plate to a total hole area of the showerhead of about 0.0106 since the number of holes of the baffle and faceplate influence the spatial uniformity of the gas and since such a ratio provides for a predictable and desirable flow uniformity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI (VICTOR) CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
WEI (VICTOR) CHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/WEI (VICTOR) Y CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights