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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add a first quartz nozzle, a second quartz nozzle, in an annular space coated by a fluorine material, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2007/0034158 to Nakaiso et al in view of United States Patent No. 5484484 to Yamaga and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0033183 to Sun et al is presented below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0034158 to Nakaiso et al in view of United States Patent No. 5484484 to Yamaga and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0033183 to Sun et al.
“Study on application of PTFE, FEP and PFA fluoropolymers on radiation dosimetry” by Galante et al is relied upon as evidence of infrared transmission between PTFE and PFA.
The Wikipedia entry for stainless steel is relied upon as evidence for the iron alloy material of Claim 10.
In regards to Claim 1, Nakaiso teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1comprising: a processing vessel 3, 4 made of quartz [0043] provided with a processing space 16 in which one or more substrates is processed; and a first nozzle 6 made of quartz [0041], which is provided in a space having an annular shape in a plan view between an inner wall of the processing vessel and the substrates 30 (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein 62, 72, 82, 92 are all in the annular space between 30 and 3), and which rises upward from a lower portion of the inner wall of the processing vessel in a direction in which substrates are arranged (vertically risen, as shown in Fig. 1), and which supplies a source gas 43 to the processing space; and a second nozzle 7 made of quartz [0041], which is provided in the space having an annular shape in a plan view between the inner wall of the processing vessel (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein 62, 72, 82, 92 are all in the annular space between 30 and 3) and the substrates and rises upward in an arrangement direction of the substrates from a lower portion of the inner wall of the processing vessel (vertically risen, as shown in Fig. 1), and which supplies a reaction gas 42 to the processing space; wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to supply the source gas and the reaction gas to the processing space at a processing temperature of room temperature or higher [0038] and 120°C or lower (as the temperature is 30-50°C [0038]), and to process the one or more substrates 30 in a state in which a wall surface of the processing vessel facing the substrate placed in the processing space [0036-0085].
Nakaiso does not expressly teach that in a state in which a wall surface of the processing vessel facing the substrate placed in the processing space are each covered with a fluorine-containing substance.
Yamaga teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a processing vessel 2 provided with a processing space in which a substrate W is processed; and a constituent member (evidenced as the wafer boat, gas nozzles, reaction tube and/or manifold [0041]; and as such interpreted as the gas supply pipes/nozzles 4 and 6 and manifold 3) disposed in the processing space, wherein a wall surface (31, which is a bottom cap and within the reactor as it faces the interior of 2) facing the processing space provided in the processing vessel (as it is within the outer diameter of 2) and a surface of the constituent member (gas nozzle of 4, 6) facing the processing space are each covered with a fluorine-containing substance (Teflon; Col. 4 lines 20-47), and the fluorine-containing substance is selected according to a processing temperature of the substrate (the fluorine is corrosion resistant in the heater reaction tube, so that it is implicitly selected to be stable according to a processing temperature of the substrate; Col. 4 line 20-Col. 16 line 43).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a structures such as nozzles and walls analogous to that of Nakaiso with a fluorine coating as taught by Yamaga, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. One would be also motivated to do so for the predictable result of have corrosion resistance in the heater reaction tube.
Nakaiso in view of Yamaga does not teach that the processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls have a coating, also has a covering of a fluorine containing surface.
Sun teaches a chamber or reactor 11 Fig. 1 that has a coating 64 that is formed of the fluoropolymer 64, the chamber coating being a PFA [0004, 0005, 0017, 0021, 0023, 0024]. Sun also expressly teaches that PFA coating downstream higher cleaning rates can be achieved and are preferred [0024].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and coated the processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls, with PFA, a material for coating the chamber walls as per the teachings of Sun. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to achieve higher cleaning rates and preference. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls have a coating analogous to that of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga out of PFA, as taught by Sun, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 2, Nakaiso teaches a third nozzle 8 made of quartz [0041], which is arranged in a ring- shaped space in a planar view between the inner wall of the processing vessel and the substrate (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein 62, 72, 82, 92 are all in the annular space between 30 and 3), rising from a lower portion of the inner wall of the processing vessel upward in the arrangement direction of the substrate (vertically risen, as shown in Fig. 1), and supplies a modifying gas to the processing space (a combination of 42/43), [0036-0085] but does not expressly teach the surface of the third nozzle facing the substrate is configured to be covered with a fluorine-containing material.
Yamaga teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a processing vessel 2 provided with a processing space in which a substrate W is processed; and a constituent member (evidenced as the wafer boat, gas nozzles, reaction tube and/or manifold [0041]; and as such interpreted as the gas supply pipes/nozzles 4 and 6 and manifold 3) disposed in the processing space, wherein a wall surface (31, which is a bottom cap and within the reactor as it faces the interior of 2) facing the processing space provided in the processing vessel (as it is within the outer diameter of 2) and a surface of the constituent member (gas nozzle of 4, 6) facing the processing space are each covered with a fluorine-containing substance (Teflon; Col. 4 lines 20-47), and the fluorine-containing substance is selected according to a processing temperature of the substrate (the fluorine is corrosion resistant in the heater reaction tube, so that it is implicitly selected to be stable according to a processing temperature of the substrate; Col. 4 line 20-Col. 16 line 43).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a structures such as nozzles and walls analogous to that of Nakaiso with a fluorine coating as taught by Yamaga, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. One would be also motivated to do so for the predictable result of have corrosion resistance in the heater reaction tube.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Nakaiso teaches the processing vessel 3, 4 includes a reaction tube 3 (made of quartz) and a flange 2 (made out of stainless steel, [0042]) provided below the reaction tube, and the fluorine-containing substance covering the surface of the reaction tube is higher in infrared transmittance at the processing temperature than the fluorine-containing substance covering a surface of the flange facing the processing space, as the quartz material that is coated with PTFE has a high infrared transmittance than that of stainless steel as per the rejection of Claim 1 above and as evidenced by Galante et al.
In regards to Claim 4, Nakaiso teaches a support 26, 15 configured to support the substrate, the support being disposed in the processing chamber (as shown in Fig. 1) and configured such that, when the substrate is supported by the support, a portion of the support tool not facing the processing space (surface of 15 covered by 26) is not covered with the fluorine containing substance (as it is isolated from the processing and thus implicitly not coated.
In regards to Claims 5 and 6 and 8 and 15, Nakaiso does not expressly teach the source gas contains a silicon and halogen-containing gas or wherein the silicon and halogen-containing gas includes at least one of bis(trichlorosilvl)methane gas, 1,2-bis(trichlorosilvl)ethane gas, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- 1,2-dimethyldisilane gas, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetramethyldisilane gas, 1,1,3,3- tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane gas, tetrachlorosilane gas, hexachlorodisilane gas, and octachlorotrisilane gas or that the reaction gas includes at least one of catalytic gas and an oxidizing agent or wherein the catalytic gas includes at least one of pyridine gas, aminopyridine gas, picoline gas, lutidine gas.
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of gas is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga would be capable of processing a silicon and halogen-containing gas or at least one of bis(trichlorosilvl)methane gas, 1,2-bis(trichlorosilvl)ethane gas, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- 1,2-dimethyldisilane gas, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetramethyldisilane gas, 1,1,3,3- tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane gas, tetrachlorosilane gas, hexachlorodisilane gas and octachlorotrisilane gas, or that the reaction gas includes at least one of catalytic gas and an oxidizing agent or wherein the catalytic gas includes at least one of pyridine gas, aminopyridine gas, picoline gas, lutidine gas based on user selection of the type of gas, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
In regards to Claim 7, Nakaiso teaches a support 26 configured to support the substrate, which is disposed within the processing chamber, wherein the support too is configured such that when the substrate is placed on a mounting part [0044], a portion of the surface of the mounting part that comes into contact with the substrate is not covered with the fluorine containing material, as the boat can be uncoated as desired material of Nakaiso, and as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 11, Yamaga teaches any one fluorine-based resin selected from the group of PTFE is selected as the fluorine-containing substance (as it is made out of stainless steel coated with Teflon, Col. 4 lines 20-47), as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claims 12 and 16, Nakaiso does not expressly teach the processing vessel is maintained at a temperature at which the source gas does not go undergo gas-phase decomposition when the source gas is supplied to the processing space or that wherein the modifying gas is supplied to the processing space at a processing temperature of room temperature or higher and 250° or lower.
Nakaiso does expressly teach that temperature of the gas can be 300-400°C and 650-670°C [0070-0074], the temperature ranges being chosen based on the type of gas for film formation, such that the range of temperatures are a result effective variable for processing different gases.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Nakaiso expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for processing different processing gases, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as gas temperatures would be chosen for film formation based on different gases and thus fall within the temperature ranges.
In regards to Claim 13, Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and Sun teaches the fluorine-containing substance is formed by coating with a fluorine based resin/passive film, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 14, Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and Sun teach the processing vessel includes a reaction tube 3, 4 and a flange 2 provided below the reaction tube and the passive film can be formed on a surface of the flange, which is in the reaction tube, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 17, Nakaiso teaches a quartz processing vessel 3 Fig. 1 provided with a processing space 16 in which a substrate 30 is processed, comprising: a first nozzle 6 made of quartz [0041], which is provided in a space having an annular shape in a plan view between an inner wall of the processing vessel and the substrates 30 (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein 62, 72, 82, 92 are all in the annular space between 30 and 3), and which rises upward from a lower portion of the inner wall of the processing vessel in a direction in which substrates are arranged (vertically risen, as shown in Fig. 1), and which supplies a source gas 43 to the processing space; and a second nozzle 7 made of quartz [0041], which is provided in the space having an annular shape in a plan view between the inner wall of the processing vessel (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein 62, 72, 82, 92 are all in the annular space between 30 and 3) and the substrates and rises upward in an arrangement direction of the substrates from a lower portion of the inner wall of the processing vessel (vertically risen, as shown in Fig. 1), and which supplies a reaction gas 42 to the processing space; wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to supply the source gas and the reaction gas to the processing space at a processing temperature of room temperature or higher [0038] and 120°C or lower (as the temperature is 30-50°C [0038]), and to process the one or more substrates 30 in a state in which a wall surface of the processing vessel facing the substrate placed in the processing space [0036-0085].
Nakaiso does not expressly teach that in a state in which a wall surface of the processing vessel facing the substrate placed in the processing space are each covered with a fluorine-containing substance.
Yamaga teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a processing vessel 2 provided with a processing space in which a substrate W is processed; and a constituent member (evidenced as the wafer boat, gas nozzles, reaction tube and/or manifold [0041]; and as such interpreted as the gas supply pipes/nozzles 4 and 6 and manifold 3) disposed in the processing space, wherein a wall surface (31, which is a bottom cap and within the reactor as it faces the interior of 2) facing the processing space provided in the processing vessel (as it is within the outer diameter of 2) and a surface of the constituent member (gas nozzle of 4, 6) facing the processing space are each covered with a fluorine-containing substance (Teflon; Col. 4 lines 20-47), and the fluorine-containing substance is selected according to a processing temperature of the substrate (the fluorine is corrosion resistant in the heater reaction tube, so that it is implicitly selected to be stable according to a processing temperature of the substrate; Col. 4 line 20-Col. 16 line 43).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a structures such as nozzles and walls analogous to that of Nakaiso with a fluorine coating as taught by Yamaga, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. One would be also motivated to do so for the predictable result of have corrosion resistance in the heater reaction tube. Nakaiso in view of Yamaga does not teach that the processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls have a coating, also has a covering of a fluorine containing surface.
Sun teaches a chamber or reactor 11 Fig. 1 that has a coating 64 that is formed of the fluoropolymer 64, the chamber coating being a PFA [0004, 0005, 0017, 0021, 0023, 0024]. Sun also expressly teaches that PFA coating downstream higher cleaning rates can be achieved and are preferred [0024].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and coated the processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls, with PFA, a material for coating the chamber walls as per the teachings of Sun. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to achieve higher cleaning rates and preference. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a processing vessel walls, or inner reaction vessel walls have a coating analogous to that of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga out of PFA, as taught by Sun, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 17.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0034158 to Nakaiso et al in view of United States Patent No. 5484484 to Yamaga and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0033183 to Sun et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0185592 to Matsuura.
The teachings of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and Sun are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 9 and 10, Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and Sun does not expressly teach the support is made of a material having a higher thermal conductivity than the processing vessel or the support comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Fe, Al, Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Cr, Co, Zr, or Hf, and its alloys.
Matsuura teaches a wafer boat/support 90 that is made out of aluminum, a material that has a higher thermal conductivity higher than the processing vessel [0075].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a wafer boat/substrate support analogous to that of Nakaiso in view of Yamaga and Sun out of aluminum, as taught by Matsuura, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights