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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 6 and 17 has necessitated the withdrawal of the 35 USC 112, 2nd rejections as the insufficient antecedent basis of the claim limitation “the first ejection port” has been resolved.
The amendments to the claims has clarified the present invention.
These amendments necessitated the introduction of the prior art of Cook et al (US 2003/0049372) which teaches the speed of the reactant gas is in excess of 10 cm/sec, flow of gas above and below the wafer see Figs. 10 and 14, reactant gases are injected into slits and holes see [0078] and the introduction of the prior art of Matsuura et al which teaches a substrate processing apparatus which teaches the supply decomposition gas (SiCl6) and non-decomposition gas (NH3) see col. 8 lines 20-37 and independent control of the plurality of gas supplies via control valves/mass flow controllers see the paragraph that joins 6 and 7. The prior art of Li et al (US 2015/0368796) was introduced to teach the structure of the gas nozzle end surface where a first gas source and a second gas source are introduced independently and separate and different positions along the nozzle so the desired gas and interact with the desired surface/area of the substrate.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al (US 2003/0049372) in view of Matsuura et al (US 7,807,587) and Li al (US 2015/0368796).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Cook et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber 222 in which a substrate is processed; a substrate holder (see Fig. 14) configured to hold a plurality of substrates 226 in a vertical stacking direction; and a gas supply nozzle (gas injectors 278) disposed adjacent the substrate holder.
The prior art of Cook et al teaches that the gas nozzle (gas injectors 278) including a nozzle body having an end surface facing the plurality of substrates 226 see Fig. 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Cook et al fails to teach a first gas supply passage in fluid communication with the plurality of first ejection ports; and a second gas supply passage in fluid communication with the at least one second ejection port, and wherein, during processing, a flow velocity of the second gas from the at least one second ejection port is higher than a flow velocity of the first gas from the plurality of first ejection ports such that the second gas forms a flow along the surface of the substrate and the first gas flows following the flow of the second gas to suppress generation of a vortex on the surface of the substrate.
The prior art of Matsuura et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus and illustrates a gas injector 5 (see 5A, 5B that depend on the kinds of the gas with gas introducing holes 11 which are provided on the lateral side of the gas injector where the process gas or purge gas is ejected from the gas-introducing holes 11 above the wafers w, and flows parallel to the upper surfaces of the respective wafers w. See col 7 lines 10-23 of Matsuura et al. See Matsuura et al the paragraph that joins paragraphs 6 and 7 where independent control of the plurality of gas supplies via control valves/mass flow controllers is discussed this independent control obviates that the flow velocity of the gases can be the same or different. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Cook et al with gas injector of Matsuura et al which allows for different process gases to be individually and independently provided to the upper or lower position of the substrate dependent upon the desired process result.
PNG
media_image2.png
876
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Cook et al also fails to teach wherein the first gas is a decomposition gas and the second gas is a non-decomposition gas. Note the specific type of gas supplied is a matter of intended use as the structure of the gas supply is capable of supplying a plethora of gases to include a decomposition gas or a non-decomposition gas.
According to the original specification of the present invention [0080], ammonia is a non-decomposition gas.
The prior art of Matsuura et al teaches the process gas such hexachlorosilane (Si2Cl6) through gas injector 5A and the other process gas such as ammonia (NH3) is caused to flow into the respective processing space 10 from the gas introduction holes 11 of the other gas injector 5B. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Cook et al with the suggested process gases of Matsuura et al as these gases are known gases in semiconductor processing with optimal chemical and physical properties to yield the desired process result.
The combined teachings of the prior art of Cook et al and Matsuura et al also fails to teach the end surface includes a plurality of first ejection ports that inject a first gas from an upper position in a direction perpendicular to a surface of a substrate and at least one second ejection port that ejects a second gas from a lower position in the perpendicular direction wherein each of the plurality of first ejection ports are disposed along a horizontal direction orthogonal to the perpendicular direction and the at least one second ejection port has a laterally long slit shape extending in the horizontal direction.
The prior art of Li et al teaches an apparatus for gas injection to epitaxial chamber where according to [0026]-[0030] the first gas source 135A is provided to the processing volume 110 via inject cap 129 while the second gas source 135B is provided through the baffle line 132G. Although not shown, the first gas source 135A may be provided to the processing volume 110 through a second baffle liner or the baffle liner 132G if the first and second gases are kept separate until the gases reach the processing volume 110. See Figure 1A.
PNG
media_image3.png
824
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al and Matsuura et al with the configuration of the end surface of the gas nozzle as suggested by Li et al is that it allows different gases to be distributed to the substate from different positions and those gas are independently controlled based on the desired process result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Cook et al with the suggested process gases of Matsuura et al using the end surface of the gas nozzle as suggested by Li et al to allow different gases to be distributed to the substate from different positions and those gas are independently controlled based on the desired process result.
Regarding claim 3: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a lateral width of the at least one second ejection port in a direction orthogonal to the perpendicular direction is wider than a lateral width of each of the plurality of first ejection ports in the orthogonal direction. See Fig. 2 and 4Aof Matsuura et al where the widths of the first ejection ports and second ejection parts are illustrated.
Regarding claim 5: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the first ejection ports is provided in a horizontal direction, and wherein a plurality of the second ejection ports is provided in the horizontal direction, and a total width of the first ejection ports in the horizontal direction is narrower than a total width of the second ejection ports in the horizontal direction. See Fig. 2 and 4Aof Matsuura et al where the widths of the first ejection ports and second ejection parts are illustrated.
Regarding claim 6: See Fig. 14 of Cook et al where at least one of the plurality of first ejection ports 278 configured to eject the first gas is arranged to provide for radial injection with respect to the substrate 226. See also the first ejection ports of first gas source 135A of Li et al in Figures.
Regarding claim 7: See Fig. 14 of Cook et al of a substrate holder configured to hold a plurality of the substrates in multiple stages, wherein the gas supplier nozzle 278 is provided in multiple stages in a stacking direction of the plurality of substrates 226.
Regarding claim 10: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first gas supply flow path that includes the plurality of first ejection ports and supplies the first gas; and a second gas supply flow path that includes the at least one second ejection port and supplies the second gas. Recall the rejection of claim 1 with the teachings of Li et al to provide a gas supply flow path for first gas 135A and another different gas supply flow path for second gas 135B.
Regarding claim 11: The combined teachings of the prior art of Cook et al and Matsuura et al also fails to teach the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein a pressure in the first gas supply flow path is lower than a pressure in the second gas supply flow path. See [0027], [0029], and [0042] of Li et al where the first gas 135A and second gas 135B are introduced individually and independently such that there flow rate and pressures are controlled via valves 156A, 156B. Controlling the flow rate also controls their respective pressures. Note that pressure is an optimizable process parameter where the optimal values would be determined without undue routine experimentation in order for the process gases to be supplied at the optimal rate and pressure to achieve the desire process result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Cook et al with the suggested process gases of Matsuura et al using the valves of Li et al to control the pressure of the first and second supply flow paths.
Regarding claim 12: A gas nozzle comprising: a nozzle body having an end surface configured to face a substrate held in a process chamber; a plurality of first ejection ports in the end surface configured to eject a first gas from an upper position of a surface of the substrate in a perpendicular direction; and at least one second ejection port in the end surface configured to eject a second gas from a lower position in the perpendicular direction wherein each of the plurality of first ejection ports are disposed along a horizontal direction orthogonal to the perpendicular direction and the at least one second ejection port has a laterally long slit shape extending in the horizontal direction, wherein the first gas is a decomposition gas and the second gas is a non- decomposition gas, and wherein a flow velocity of the second gas from the at least one second ejection port is higher than a flow velocity of the first gas from the plurality of first ejection ports. See the rejections of claim 1 above using the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al.
Regarding claim 14: The combined teachings of the prior art of Cook et al and Matsuura et al also fails to teach the gas nozzle according to claim 12, wherein a lateral width of the at least one second ejection port in a direction orthogonal to the perpendicular direction is wider than a lateral width of each of the plurality of first ejection ports in the orthogonal direction.
See Fig. 2 and 4A of Matsuura et al where the widths of the first ejection ports and second ejection parts are illustrated.
Regarding claim 16: The combined teachings of the prior art of Cook et al and Matsuura et al also fails to teach the gas nozzle according to claim 12, The gas nozzle according to claim 12, wherein a plurality of the first ejection ports is provided in a horizontal direction, a plurality of the second ejection ports is provided in the horizontal direction, and a total width of the first ejection ports in the horizontal direction is narrower than a total width of the second ejection ports in the horizontal direction. See Fig. 2 and 4Aof Matsuura et al where the widths of the first ejection ports and second ejection parts are illustrated.
Regarding claim 17: The combined teachings of the prior art of Cook et al and Matsuura et al also fails to teach the gas nozzle according to claim 12, wherein at least one of the plurality of first ejection ports configured to eject the first gas is arranged to provide for radial injection with respect to the substrate. See Fig. 4B of Li et al.
Regarding claim 18; The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the flow velocity of the first gas is 100 mm/s to 1 m/s and the flow velocity of the second gas is 300 mm/s to 5 m/s. See the prior art of Cook et al teaches in [0070] that the flow rate range of the process gases is 10-50cm/s which is 100mm/s to 500mm/s.
Regarding claim 19: The gas nozzle according to claim 12, wherein the flow velocity of the first gas is 100 mm/s to 1 m/s and the flow velocity of the second gas is 300 mm/s to 5 m/s. See the prior art of Cook et al teaches in [0070] that the flow rate range of the process gases is 10-50cm/s which is 100mm/s to 500mm/s.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al (US 2003/0049372) in view of Matsuura et al (US 7,807,587) and Li al (US 2015/0368796) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 in further view of Nakayama Izume Pare Hiratsuk et al (EP 0254651A1).
The combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al a Matsuura et al, and Li et al fails to teach
Regarding claim 4: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first ejection ports has a circular shape, and wherein vertical width of each of the plurality of first ejection ports is 3 mm to 20 mm and a vertical width of the at least one second ejection port has a laterally long shape is 0.5 mm to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 15. The gas nozzle according to claim 12, wherein the first ejection port has a circular shape, and the second ejection port has a laterally long shape.
See Figs. 9, 20-22 where the prior art of Nakayama Izume Pare Hiratsuk et al teaches that the shapes of the ports can be various shapes to include a circular shapes and a laterally long shape like slit or a combination thereof. See col. 10 line 55 – col. 11 line 12 of Nakayama Izume Pare Hiratsuk et al. Note these shapes when compared to each other can provide different later widths. The motivation to modify the shapes of the ejection port(s) in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al Matsuura et al, and Li et al is that the shape of the port is a matter of design choice where the shape is optimized to control and optimize the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flowing through the port as suggested by the Nakayama Izume Pare Hiratsuk et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al Matsuura et al, and Li et al with the shapes of the ejection port(s) as suggested by Nakayama Izume Pare Hiratsuk et al.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al (US 2003/0049372) in view of Matsuura et al (US 7,807,587) and Li al (US 2015/0368796) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 in further view of Carlson et al (US 2012/0240853).
The combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 8: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first gas branch passage in fluid communication with the first gas supply passage and the plurality of first ejection ports; and a second gas branch passage in fluid communication with the second gas supply passage and the at least one second ejection port.
The prior art of Carlson et al teaches a liner assembly for CVD chamber where a first gas source 135A and a second gas source 135B are provided independently through their respect flow paths which are branches and in communication with their respect gas ejections ports. See Figs. 5A See also Fig. 5C where the first and second branch paths are interpreted as inner and outer zones for each gas source where the first gas is gas A and second gas is gas B. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al with the first and second branch paths as suggested by Carlson et al is that this configuration enhances flow control of each gas independently based on an inner and outer region. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al l with the independent flow control suggested by the prior art of Kuribayashi et al.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 9: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein a volume cross-sectional area of the first gas branch passage is larger than a volume cross-sectional area of the second gas branch passage.
PNG
media_image4.png
329
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig 5A of Carlson et al
PNG
media_image5.png
581
693
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig 5C of Carlson et al
Regarding claim 9. The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein a volume of the first gas branch path is larger than a volume of the second gas branch path.
See [0052], [0054], [0055], and [0067] where the prior art of Carlson et al teaches the gas sources are provided independently and are capable of providing the sources at different velocities and volumes. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Watanabe et al with the independent flow control including volume control (where one flow branch is greater than the other or the branches can be equal) as suggested by Carlson et al ensures that the desired gas will be provided to the desired/necessary regions of the wafer that will ensure the expended flow result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Cook et al, Matsuura et al, and Li et al with the independent flow control including volume control (where one flow branch is greater than the other or the branches can be equal) as suggested by Carlson et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2005-256137 teaches a wafer boat 2 that supports a plurality of wafers that are horizontally oriented and stacked vertically. Gas flows horizontally and vertically see Fig. 3.
JP 2011-238832 teaches a wafer boat 220 that supports a plurality of wafers that are horizontally oriented and stacked vertically. See Fig. 2 where gas flows above and below the wafers. Note a plurality of gases that are independently and individually supplied with respective mass flow controllers and valves.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights