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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “driver 615” as described in the specification ([0077)]. [0077] of the specification describes a light source 605 is coupled to a driver 615 and the driver 615 is coupled to a power source 617, where element 613 (in Fig. 6) appears to match this description. It would appear that the specification should instead recite that the driver 615 is actually a driver 613. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figs. 1A and 1B show an element 181, however, the specification does not described an element 181. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 6 has an element 161 that is not described in the specification. [0077] of the specification recites a light source 605 is coupled to a driver 615 and the driver 615 is coupled to a power source 617. It would appear that element 613 in Fig. 6 is element 615 that is described in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 of claim 15 recites “a reflector meter” when it should instead recite “a reflectometer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 08/14/2024) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches, in Fig. 13, a system for processing substrates (Abstract), comprising:
a process chamber (deposition process monitoring system 100c) comprising a process volume (area within the deposition process monitoring system);
a susceptor (support 112 which may be a susceptor [0039]) disposed in the process volume (shown in Fig. 13);
a plurality of lamps (lamps 140) configured to generate heat along a Z-axis ([0048]: Lamps are configured to supply radiant heat energy into the chamber to raise the temperature of a wafer 200, therefore, it would necessarily follow that the plurality of lamps 140 are configured to generate heat along a z-axis (the heat would be moving from the lamps to the wafer 200 which would be along the z-axis).) toward the susceptor (support 112);
a pre-heat ring (preheating ring 118) supported on a sidewall (chamber body 115) of the process chamber (shown in Fig. 13 and described in [0040]); and
a reflectometer system ([0139]: Thickness of by-products can be calculated based on detected intensity of a laser beam where the detected intensity signal is a reflected signal from reflection plate 130 shown in Fig. 2) comprising:
a first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122), the first block comprising a first inner surface (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below),
a light emitter (light emitting unit 120h-E described in [0076] and shown in Figs. 3A-3B) disposed in the first block and oriented toward the first inner surface (shown in Fig. 2),
a light source ([0076]: Light emitting unit 120h-E would have a light source) coupled to the light emitter,
a light receiver (light receiving unit 120h-R from [0076] and shown in Figs. 3A-3B) disposed in the first block and oriented toward the first inner surface (shown in Fig. 2), a sensor coupled to the light receiver (sensor 120h from Fig. 2 and described in [0076]), and
a second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132) opposing the first block in an X-Y plane that is perpendicular to the Z-axis (shown in Fig. 2), the second block comprising a second inner surface facing the first inner surface (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee appears to be silent to a first block is disposed in the process volume and
a second block is disposed in the process volume.
Edgerton, related to optical methods for controlling layer thickness, does teach a first block (Fig. 3B: white light source 110) that is disposed in the process volume (Fig. 3B shows that the white light source 110 is inside the chamber 76) and a second block (Fig. 3B: detector 114) that is disposed in the process volume (Fig. 3B shows that the detector 114 is inside the chamber 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee so that the first block is disposed in the process volume and
the second block disposed in the process volume, as disclosed by Edgerton. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (having components within a process volume) to yield predictable results (for detecting thickness of layer on substrates) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches that each of the first inner surface and the second inner surface is planar, and the second inner surface is parallel to the first inner surface (shown in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches a first window (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on left hand side where broadly interpreted, a window is an opening (such as a shutter, slot, or value) that resembles or suggests a window. Definition for window is taken from merriam-webster.com) formed in the first inner surface (shown in annotated Fig. 2 above); and
a second window (Fig. 2: facility cover 150, where broadly interpreted, the facility cover has an opening (where element 152 is) that resembles a window (definition taken from merriam-webster.com).) formed in the first inner surface (shown in annotated Fig. 2 above), the second window is wider than the first window (shown in Fig. 2 where the facility cover 150 is wider than the shutter 156).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376) and further in view of Metzner (US 2007/0089836 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122) and the second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132).
Lee modified by Edgerton appears to be silent to each of the first block and the second block are formed of graphite, and the graphite of each of the first block and the second block is coated with silicon carbide (SiC).
Metzer, related to a process chamber for epitaxial deposition, does teach components which are formed of graphite ([0006]: Most process chambers for epitaxial deposition of silicon films utilize components fabricated from graphite having a silicon carbide coating.), and the graphite of each of the first block and the second block is coated with silicon carbide (SiC) ([0006], [0049]: This paragraph mentions how metal-free sintered silicon carbide has a greater thermal conductivity than CVD (chemical vapor deposition) silicon carbide coated graphite, which implies the use graphite components coated with silicon carbide.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee combined with Edgerton so that each of the first block and the second block are formed of graphite, and the graphite of each of the first block and the second block is coated with silicon carbide (SiC), as disclosed by Metzer.
Components fabricated from graphite are common in process chambers for epitaxial deposition of silicon films ([0006] from Metzer), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use graphite to form the first block and the second block. Furthermore, graphite is well known for its advantageous properties in the manufacturing of semiconductor devices.
Components within a deposition process chamber are generally fabricated from materials able to withstand the processing environment within the processing chambers. One such material is silicon carbide which typically coats graphite components for epitaxial deposition of silicon films. The advantage of using a process-resistant material (E.g., SiC) is that it can increase the overall lifespan of the manufactured components which reduces the cost of production ([0005-0006] from Metzer).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376) further in view of Ranish (US 2014/0330422 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 8.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches the first window (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on left hand side where broadly interpreted, a window is an opening (such as a shutter, slot, or value) that resembles or suggests a window. Definition for window is taken from merriam-webster.com) and the second window (Fig. 2: facility cover 150, where broadly interpreted, the facility cover has an opening (where element 152 is) that resembles a window (definition taken from merriam-webster.com).)
Lee modified by Edgerton appears to be silent to the first and second window comprise a transparent quartz window.
Ranish, related a method and apparatus for semiconductor processing, does teach a window which comprises a transparent quartz window ([0070]: “The window 320 may be made of material that is transparent to infrared light, for example, clear fused silica quartz.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Edgerton so that the first and second window comprise a transparent quartz window, as disclosed by Ranish. It is advantageous to use clear fused silica quartz as material for a window because this allows for a window to be transparent to infrared light ([0070]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a window material to best optimize their measurements for which wavelengths of light they are aiming to measure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376), Eckman (US 2022/0326264 A1) and Liu (US 20020089669 A1), and further in view of Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches that the second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132) further comprises a coupon opening (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on the right-hand side, could function as an opening for a coupon) formed in the second inner surface (Fig. 2: inner surface of shutter 156 on the right-hand side), the light receiver (Fig. 3A-3B: light receiver 120h-R) disposed in the first block (shown in Figs. 3A-3B where the first block is sensor cover 122), the reflectometer system ([0059]: The thickness of the thin film may be calculated or quantified according to the detected intensity of the laser beam (E.g., reflected light from the reflection plate 130); Fig. 5A) further comprises a reflection plate 130 disposed at least partially in the coupon opening (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on the right-hand side, which effectively could function as an opening for a coupon).
Lee modified by Edgerton appears to be silent to the light receiver comprises a transparent light collector disposed in the first block and one or more fiber optic cables coupling the transparent light collector to the sensor, and the reflectometer system further comprises a crystalline coupon disposed at least partially in the coupon opening, wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC).
Eckman, related to measuring reflected light, does teach the light receiver (E.g., detector 150) comprises a transparent light collector (Fig. 1 optical prism 120; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee combined with Edgerton so that the light receiver comprises a transparent light collector disposed in the first block, as disclosed by Eckman. By incorporating a transparent light collector (E.g., prism), spectral information may be obtained at different wavelengths ([0040] from Eckman). The changes in the properties of light can be an indication of the changes on a surface ([0040] of Eckman) which is useful for being able to monitor in-situ film growth.
Lee modified by Edgerton and Eckman does not teach one or more fiber optic cables coupling the transparent light collector to the sensor a crystalline coupon disposed at least partially in the coupon opening, wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC).
Liu, related to investigating or analyzing materials by use of optical means (in particular, detecting and analyzing light reflection), does teach one or more fiber optic cables (Fig. 11: collector fiber bundle 68) coupling the transparent light collector (Fig. 11: collector lens 104) to the sensor (Fig. 11: first detector 54a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Edgerton and Eckman so that one or more fiber optic cables is used to couple the transparent light collector to a sensor, as disclosed by Liu. Fiber optic cables are well-known in optics for receiving light to be sent to a sensor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of fiber optic cables coupled with a transparent light collector to a sensor) to yield predictable results (for directing light to a sensor) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Lee modified by Edgerton, Eckman and Liu does not teach a crystalline coupon disposed at least partially in the coupon opening, wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC).
Ebata, related to measuring film thickness, does teach a crystalline coupon (Fig. 1: monitoring wafer 40) wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC) (Fig. 1: In step 4, the base material is removed to form the SiC monitor wafer 40; Abstract: Development of a SiC wafer to be used as a wafer for monitoring film thickness which essentially can function as a crystalline coupon of claimed invention.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee, Edgerton, Eckman, and Liu so that the reflection plate, from Lee, would be replaced with a SiC monitor wafer (E.g., crystalline coupon) for in-situ monitoring of the film growth rate. Incorporating a monitor wafer (E.g., crystalline coupon wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of SiC) is advantageous because monitor wafers can be used for measuring film thickness ([0011] from Ebata). Furthermore, a monitor wafer made out of SiC has high corrosion resistance against nitric and hydrofluoric acid (common wafer cleaning agents) which makes it easy to remove adherents by etching without being damaged by the etching. Thereby, increasing the longevity of use of the SiC monitor wafer ([0006] from Ebata).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1), in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376), Eckman (US 2022/0326264 A1), Liu (US 20020089669 A1), and Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1), and further in view of Tae (US 2021/0388494 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee modified by Edgerton, Eckman, Liu, and Ebata teaches the system of claim 10.
Lee modified by Edgerton, Eckman, Liu, and Ebata further teaches that the light emitter is coupled to a light source (Lee, [0076]: Light emitting unit 120h-E would have a light source.).
Lee modified by Edgerton, Eckman, Liu, and Ebata appears to be silent to the light emitter comprises one or more fiber optic cables coupled to the light source.
Tae, related to a processing chamber, does teach that the light emitter comprises one or more fiber optic cables coupled to a light coupling device (Fig. 2: light source 201 is coupled to a light coupling device 204 with fiber optic cable 232 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Edgertonn, Eckman, Liu, and Ebata so that the light emitter comprises one or more fiber optic cables coupled to the light source, as disclosed by Tae. Using fiber optic cables to transmit light from a light source to another element is well-known. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (coupling a light emitter to a light source by using fiber optic cables) to yield predictable results (as a way of transmitting light) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376) and further in view of Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches that the first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122) further comprises a coupon opening (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on the left-hand side, which could function as an opening for a coupon) formed in the first inner surface (Fig. 2: inner surface of shutter 156 on the left-hand side), and the reflectometer system ([0059]: The thickness of the thin film may be calculated or quantified according to the detected intensity of the laser beam (E.g., reflected light from the reflection plate 130); Fig. 5A) further comprises a laser sensor 120h disposed at least partially in the first clock (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122).
Lee modified by Edgerton does not teach a crystalline coupon disposed at least partially in the coupon opening, wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC).
Ebata, related to measuring film thickness, does teach a crystalline coupon (Fig. 1: monitoring wafer 40) wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC) (Fig. 1: In step 4, the base material is removed to form the SiC monitor wafer 40; Abstract: Development of a SiC wafer to be used as a wafer for monitoring film thickness which essentially can function as a crystalline coupon of claimed invention.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee combined with Edgerton to incorporate a crystalline coupon wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of silicon carbide (SiC), as disclosed by Ebata. Incorporating a monitor wafer (E.g., crystalline coupon wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of SiC) is advantageous because monitor wafers can be used for measuring film thickness ([0011] of Ebata). Furthermore, a monitor wafer made out of SiC has high corrosion resistance against nitric and hydrofluoric acid (common wafer cleaning agents) which makes it easy to remove adherents by etching without being damaged by the etching. Thereby, increasing the longevity of use of the SiC monitor wafer ([0006] from Ebata).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376) and further in view of Yoon (US 20180090303 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee modified by Edgerton teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee modified by Edgerton further teaches the first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122), the second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover), and the pre-heat ring (Fig. 13: preheating ring 118)
Lee modified by Edgerton appears to be silent to the first block and the second block are supported on the pre-heat ring.
Yoon, related to a semiconductor processing chamber, does teach that the first block (Fig. 5: electrode 112) and the second block (Fig. 5: electrode 111) are supported on a quartz ring (Fig. 5: quartz ring 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Edgerton so that the first block and the second block are supported on the pre-heat ring, as disclosed by Yoon. Yoon discloses that the pair of electrodes (equivalent to first and second block) are inserted and installed inside the quartz ring (piezoelectric member Q in [0049]) to protect the electrodes and reduce/prevent the monitoring process from being influenced ([0049]). Therefore, it would be advantageous to have a first and second block supported on a pre-heat ring to provide protection for the first and second block and to prevent/reduce the monitoring process from being influenced.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376), Yoon (US 20180090303 A1) and further in view of Ranish 2 (US 2019/0385872 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee modified by Edgerton and Yoon teaches the system of claim 13.
Lee modified by Edgerton and Yoon appears to be silent to the sidewall comprises a liner that lines a base ring.
Ranish 2, related to a processing chamber, does teach that the sidewall comprises a liner (Fig. 4: liner 424 which is on a sidewall) that lines a base ring (Fig. 4: base ring 408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Edgerton and Yoon so that the sidewall comprises a liner that lines a base ring, as disclosed by Ranish 2. The advantage of having a liner is that the liner shields the processing volume (processing region 412 and purge region 414 from Fig. 4) from metallic walls of the processing chamber ([0052] from Ranish).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches, in Fig. 13, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (control computer 180) that, when executed, cause:
conducting a substrate processing operation ([0131]: Process conditions can be adjusted by the control computer 180.) on a substrate supported on a susceptor disposed in a process volume of a process chamber (shown in Fig. 13), the substrate processing operation comprising:
flowing one or more process gases into the process volume [0007]: Injecting a process gas into the chamber), and heating the substrate ([0005]: Lamps configured to supply radiant heat energy into the chamber during a deposition process.);
while conducting the substrate processing operation, a reflector meter system ([0059]: The thickness of the thin film may be calculated or quantified according to the detected intensity of the laser beam (E.g., reflected light from the reflection plate 130); Fig. 5A), comprising a first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122) and second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132), directing light from a light emitter (Fig. 3A-3B: light emitting unit 120h-E) disposed in the first block (shown in Fig. 2) toward a reflection plate 130 (shown in Fig. 2) disposed in the second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132)
collecting reflected light that is reflected off of the reflection plate 130 (shown in Fig. 2); and
determining a growth rate of the thickness of a thin film using the reflected light ([0059]: Thickness of thin film may be calculated which can be applied to determining the growth rate of a crystalline coupon.).
Lee appears to be silent to having a crystalline coupon where light is reflected off of the crystalline coupon;
and determining a growth rate of the crystalline coupon using the reflected light.
Ebata, related to measuring film thickness, does teach a crystalline coupon (monitor wafer from [0015]) where light is reflected off of the crystalline coupon ([0015]);
and determining a growth rate of the crystalline coupon using the reflected light ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee so that the reflection plate, from Lee, would be replaced with a SiC monitor wafer (E.g., crystalline coupon) for in-situ monitoring of the film growth rate. Incorporating a monitor wafer (E.g., crystalline coupon wherein the crystalline coupon is formed of SiC) is advantageous because monitor wafers can be used for measuring film thickness ([0011] from Ebata). Furthermore, a monitor wafer made out of SiC has high corrosion resistance against nitric and hydrofluoric acid (common wafer cleaning agents) which makes it easy to remove adherents by etching without being damaged by the etching. Thereby, increasing the longevity of use of the SiC monitor wafer ([0006] from Ebata).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee modified by Ebata teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Lee modified by Ebata further teaches that heating the substrate comprises generating heat along a Z-axis toward the substrate (Lee, [0060]: “For example, the analysis and control computer 180 may adjust the temperature in the chamber by adjusting the lamps 140 so that the temperature in the chamber becomes a proper temperature.”; [0005]: Lamps configured to supply radiant heat energy into the chamber during a deposition process.), the directing light comprises directing light from the light emitter (Lee, Fig. 3A-3B: 120h-E) toward the crystalline coupon (Ebata, monitoring wafer from [0015]) along an X-Y plane that is perpendicular to the Z-axis (Lee, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee modified by Ebata teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Lee modified by Ebata further teaches that the reflected light is collected through a transparent light collector (Fig. 2: shutter 156 on left-hand side where the shutters can be made of plastic which can be transparent [0072]) disposed in the first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122) and transmitted to a sensor (Fig. 2 and 13: laser sensor 120h) disposed outside of the process volume (Fig. 2 and 13: Laser sensor 120h is outside of the process volume).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee modified by Ebata teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Lee modified by Ebata further teaches that a controller is configured to conduct a method according to the instructions (control computer 180 from [0057-0058]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1), and further in view of Nozawa (US 2006/0185588 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee modified by Ebata teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18.
Lee modified by Ebata further teaches a controller (Fig. 13: control computer 180).
Lee modified by Ebata appears to be silent to the controller can be configured to target a film thickness or film growth rate.
Nozawa, related to substrate processing, does teach the controller can be configured to target a film thickness or film growth rate ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Ebata so that the controller can be configured to target a film thickness or film growth rate, as disclosed by Nozawa. The advantage of a controller being configured to target a film thickness or film growth rate is that one can control a vapor deposition apparatus so that a desired film thickness can be achieved ([0032] from Nozawa).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0010243 A1) in view of Ebata (US 2004/0067370 A1), and further in view of Edgerton (US 4,525,376).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee modified by Ebata teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Lee modified by Ebata further teaches that determining the growth rate further comprises:
measuring a plurality of light intensity values of the reflected light across one or more time intervals (Shown in Fig. 8 and described in [0058]: The analysis and control computer 180 may quantify the thickness of the by-products BP according to the detected intensity of the light beam where an intensity of the laser beam detected after the deposition process is performed for a certain amount of time.; [0101]); and
determining the growth rate according to a change in light intensity across one or more time intervals (Shown in Fig. 8 and described in [0058]: Thickness is calculating by the detected intensity of the laser beam where the measurement is taken for a certain amount of time.).
Lee modified by Ebata appears to be silent to determining the growth rate further comprises correlating the plurality of light intensity values to a reference data or physical models.
Edgerton, related to measuring and controlling thickness of layers upon a substrate, does teach determining the growth rate further comprises correlating the plurality of light intensity values to a reference data or physical models (Claim 1: Thickness of layers is determined by comparing the intensity of the light beam with the intensity of a reference signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee combined with Ebata so that determining the growth rate further comprises correlating the plurality of light intensity values to a reference data or physical models, as disclosed by Edgerton. Comparing a measurement value to a reference value is well-known. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (comparing a measurement value with a reference value) to yield predictable results (data analysis) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the system of claim 1.
Lee (US 20180010243 A1) further teaches the first block (Fig. 2: sensor cover 122) and the second block (Fig. 2: reflection plate cover 132).
Lee does not teach a first connector bar coupled to the first block and the second block; and
a second connector bar coupled to the first block and the second block.
Kenworthy (US 2017/0133283 A1), related to an apparatus for use in a processing chamber, does teach a first connector bar coupled to the first block and the second block; and
a second connector bar coupled to the first block and the second block (Shown in annotated Fig. 5 below where a processing ring 464 is segmented into four segments and connected by hangers 462).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to modify Lee with Kenworthy so that Lee’s first and second blocks are coupled to one another by a first connector bar and a second connector. The hangers used in Kenworthy to couple the processing ring segments are used to measure the mass of the processing ring ([0030] from Kenworthy). Lee does not require any mass measurements, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use Kenworthy to modify Lee.
Therefore, as to Claim 3, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for processing substrates so that a first connector bar is coupled to the first block and the second block; and a second connector bar is coupled to the first block and the second block, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 3.
Claims 4-6 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877