DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires a holder “capable of adsorbing a substrate”. It is not specifically clear what this requires of the structure – adsorbing is generally in reference to a gas, liquid or solute, so, in the context, it is not clear what exactly is being adsorbed or what the configuration is required for such. Applicants may be their own lexicographer, however, the specific definition must be clearly set forth (see MPEP 2111.01 IV.) and in this case, applicants do not describe what is required and/or any related structure rather than the use of an electrostatic chuck. The description described that the chuck acts to adsorb and fix the substrate, so it will be interpreted similarly that it is to fix or hold the substrate, as would generally be understood in the art.
Claim 10 requires that the back surface of the substrate contacts the support “between the recess” but it is not clear what is required by “between the recess”.
Claim Interpretation
In regard to the claims, claim 1 requires a first gas supply pipe and also a gas discharge pipe, but there is no further structure to actually distinguish the supply from a discharge (i.e. such as an exhaust pump).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (2019/0198299) in view of Buchberger (2007/0091541).
Watanabe teaches:
- a chamber, see Figs. 1 and 2, chamber,
- a holder in the chamber to hold a substrate, the holder including a recess, see particularly further per Fig. 2/6, wherein the recess is fed by at least a first and second supply hole (26) [0055], and
- a first and second gas passage connected to the respective holes, see 25,
- a first gas supply pipe to supply a first gas to the recess – see supply pipe that feeds each branch 25 from the heat transfer gas supply device 12 (the common pipe leading to each hole 26 is considered the first gas supply pipe), it is noted as a matter of intended use, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), but, in any case, the supply device 12 is taught to supply gas as claimed, and
- a gas discharge pipe 28 which discharges gas from the recess [0058], it is noted that the discharge of gas is intended use, but the discharge pipe of Watanabe teaches the same effect as claimed; and
- as noted, the first and second gas passages are connected to the first gas supply pipe.
The teachings include all elements except for the presence of the first and second valves connected to the first and second gas passage.
Buchberger, however, teaches that in an apparatus for providing a backside supply gas to a recess in a substrate holder, it is useful to include a valve to control the flow of gas through the gas passage leading to the recess, see Figs. 7 and 13, which backside supply source 228 connected to valve 229 and passage not labelled but connected to the recess [0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the valve(s) of Buchberger on the system of Watanabe as a manner of controlling the flow to the substrate backside. The control of flow is a well understood benefit of valves.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Buchberger include controllers 230a/b for the valves as well as a master controller 232 to control the valves and other aspects.
Regarding claim 3, the holder includes an ESC as described.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings include the first and second passage connected to the supply pipe, but do not include it connected to the gas discharge pipe. The connection of the first and second gas passage to a second line is a mere duplication of parts – see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. In this case, while the prior art teaches the claimed “discharge line” and the claim requires such a line, there is no other structural limitations related to defining a “discharge line” from a supply line, for example.
To clarify, this is a modified view of the discussion presented in claim one wherein the holes 26 are duplicated and connected to other passages (the action of the passages is not limited by intended use).
Regarding claim 5, in combination of the teachings as per above and in view of the arguments over the duplication of parts as per claim 4, it would have been further obvious to likewise include such additional valves for the same reasons as the first.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe’s teachings include at least 4 holes in the recess per Fig. 3, valves are taught per the combination and the passages are taught as per the arguments made in regard to the duplication of parts as per above.
Regarding claim 7, this is again duplication of parts as per the MPEP citation above, the duplication of parts includes duplication to include a second gas (the gas can be the same or different). It is generally known to be able to supply additional and/or alternative gases to process chambers.
Regarding claim 8, the use of the system for any gas is intended use of the apparatus – particularly in this case the gas is not actively required. In any case, Buchberger teaches helium gas as a useful backside gas [0088].
Regarding claim 9, the passages are on the backside of the holder in the same manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the use of the substrate contacting the holder is intended use of the system – the claims do not explicitly require a substrate, but in further the prior art is capable of the same substrate contact. While Watanabe teaches a gap, without the backside gas flow present the substrate is capable of contacting the holder and, further Buchberger teaches the same contact, see [0088].
Regarding claims 11-13, the third hole and third passage are addressed above as per claim 6, with the duplication of parts also noted. In regard to the gas passages connected to the gas supply pipe or discharge pipe, again as per claim 4, the use is intended use and additional pipes and other components is duplication of parts. Further to claim 13, as per Bucherger, it is useful to provide such backside gas towards the center and also at the peripheral.
In an alternative view of claims 11-13, Buchberger teaches a gas source in the inner portion and outer portion of the substrate support, see embodiment of Fig. 13 including the inner zone supply 228a and outer zone supply 228b. It would have been further obvious to modify Watanabe with further inner/outer zones as per Buchberger, as such, one or more gas lines feed to the first gas supply pipe and one or more feeds to a different gas pipe. Wherein there is no exhaust pump or the like required, the use of the line as “discharge” is intended use as per above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lane (2005/0120805) teaches a system with multiple inputs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights