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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending (claims 1, 14, 20 are independent) and have been examined herein on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1)
Regarding claim 1, LIM teaches plasma etching apparatus, comprising: a chamber receiving a wafer substrate, the wafer substrate is etched inside the chamber (Fig 1, chamber 10, a substrate “SUB” inside the chamber); a gas supply device including a gas box storing a process gas and a gas line transferring the process gas from the gas box to the chamber (Fig 1, gas supply unit 20 with a reactant gas source (GSd, Paragraph #22 ); a plasma generator generating a plasma from the process gas inside the chamber (Paragraph#23 suggest that plasma could be generated inside the chamber for the manufacturing of semiconductor); and a gas cooling device disposed outside the chamber and cooling the process gas supplied from the gas box to the chamber (Fig 3B, cooling unit GC, Paragraph# 48), wherein the gas line includes an inlet line supplying the process gas from the gas box to the gas cooling device to cool the process gas, and an outlet line supplying the cooled process gas from the gas cooling device to the chamber. (Fig 3B depicted a gas line GL supplying the source gas GSd to a cooling unit GC (Paragraph# 49) surrounding the gas line GL and the gas being fed to chamber 10).
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.
5. 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.
6. 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 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1).
The limitation of claim 1 is set above
Regarding claim 2, LIM doesn’t teach the gas cooling device includes: a gas case connected to the gas line, the gas case including a gas flow path that the process gas flows therethrough; and a cooling case coupled to one side of the gas case, the cooling case including a cooling flow path that a coolant flows therethrough for heat exchange with the process gas flowing in the gas flow path.
However, Buschbeck discloses the gas cooling device includes: a gas case connected to the gas line (Fig 2, material conduit# 120 within heat shields#162) , the gas case including a gas flow path that the process gas flows therethrough (Figs1 and 2, heatable liquid material# 105) ; and a cooling case coupled to one side of the gas case, the cooling case including a cooling flow path that a coolant flows therethrough for heat exchange with the process gas flowing in the gas flow path. (In Fig 2, the cooling gas supply #154 supplying a cooling gas# 106 to a cooling device#152 is arranged in thermal contact with an enclosure# 101 containing a heatable liquid material# 105, paragraph# 37)
LIM and Buschbeck both teach film depositions on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include a cooling case with a cooling flow path that a coolant flows for heat exchange with the process gas from the teaching of Buschbeck in order to ensure proper cooling of process gas while avoiding the risk of chemical reactions between the process gas and the coolant (Paragraph#36) to produce uniform evaporative deposition (Buschbeck, Paragraph# 5).
Regarding claim 3, LIM discloses the gas flow path has a shape that is repeatedly bent inside of the gas case. (In Fig 2, Paragraph 44, shows the cooling passage 153 of helical extension shape to increase the cooling interaction area).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) and Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Chung-Lai Lei (US patent 6277199 B1) and Bowling (US Pub 2008/0029241 A1).
The limitations of claim 2 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, LIM doesn’t teach a support frame including a base portion supporting the gas box and a support portion extending along the gas line, wherein the gas cooling device includes a cabinet accommodating the gas case and the cooling case therein, the cabinet is coupled to the support portion.
Chung-Lai Lei teaches a support frame including a base portion supporting the gas box and a support portion extending along the gas line. (Figs 4, 5 and 6, gas panels#30 supported on supports# 59,49 with hood# 62 (considered as a base) in Col 7 lines 34-39, along gas line (gas supply lines# 49,50)
LIM and Chung-Lai Lei both teach film depositions on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the support from the teaching of Chung-Lai Lei in order to provide proper mechanical support to the gas box above the chamber ( Chung-Lai Lei, Col 3, lines 6-11).
LIM modified by Chung-Lai Lei does not teach the gas cooling device includes a cabinet accommodating the gas case and the cooling case therein, the cabinet is coupled to the support portion.
However, Bowling teaches the gas cooling device includes a cabinet accommodating the gas case and the cooling case therein, the cabinet is coupled to the support portion. (considered in Figs 1 and 4, a cooling housing#38 holding a plurality of boxes#60, mounted on frame 24, paragraph 13).
LIM and Bowling both teach cooling systems for reducing heat and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the housing for the gas case and cooling case from the teaching of Bowling to include a cooling system in which the amount of dust and debris moving through the intake thereof is substantially minimized (Bowling, Pargaraph#15).
Claims 5,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) and Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Ettinger (US patent 5895548).
The limitation of claim 2 is set above
Regarding claim 5, modified LIM doesn’t teach a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path.
However, Ettinger teaches a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path. (Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulate a coolant through the cooling system of a plasma applicator#10, Col 9, lines 8-12).
LIM and Ettinger both teach plasma generation and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the chiller supplying coolant from the teaching of Ettinger to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 6, modified LIM doesn’t explicitly disclose the chiller cools the coolant to a temperature less than or equal to about 40 degrees Celsius.
However, the examiner interprets the chiller cools the coolant to a temperature less than or equal to about 40 degrees Celsius, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Since the claimed temperature range is at or below 40 *C, virtually any cooling device would be capable of supplying coolant at this temperature since it includes room temperature.
The placement of the chiller with a cooling flow path within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case cools the coolant to a temperature less than or equal to about 40 degrees Celsius.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of cooling the coolant to a temperature less than or equal to about 40 degrees Celsius as claimed.
Claims 7,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1), Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1) and Ettinger (US patent 5895548) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1).
The limitation of claim 5 is set forth above
Regarding claim 7, modified LIM doesn’t disclose “the gas cooling device further includes: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path; and a control unit adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
LIM modified by Hasegawa doesn’t explicitly disclose a control unit adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.
However, the examiner interprets a control unit adjusting the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or mass flow rate of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”. (see Fig 1, from Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 8, modified LIM doesn’t disclose “if the measured temperature of the process gas is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to decrease the temperature or increases the flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path.”
Ettinger teaches a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path. ( Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulate a coolant through the cooling system of a plasma applicator#10, Col 9, lines 8-12).
Hasegawa discloses a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
Modified LIM by Ettinger and Hasegawa does not disclose “if the measured temperature of the process gas is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to decrease the temperature or increases the flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path.”
However, the examiner interprets “if the measured temperature of the process gas is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to decrease the temperature or increases the flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path”
, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or mass flow rate of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case if the measured temperature of the process gas is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to decrease the temperature or increases the flow rate of the cooling flow path
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of measuring the temperature of the process gas relative to a reference temperature and performed the claimed function. (see Fig 1, from Hasegawa).
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1), Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1), Ettinger (US patent 5895548) and Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1) as applied to claim 7,8 above and further in view of Ding (US Pub 2022/0161288 A1).
The limitations of claims 7.8 are set forth above
Regarding claim 9, LIM doesn’t disclose “the gas cooling device further includes: a control unit controlling a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose “a control unit controlling a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor and the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, the examiner interprets “a control unit controlling a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor and the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or pressure of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor and the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of controlling the temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on pressure and temperature sensor indication.
LIM modified by Hasegawa doesn’t disclose “a pressure sensor measuring the pressure of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path”.
However, Ding teaches a pressure sensor measuring the pressure of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig 7, pressure sensor 716, paragraph 40).
LIM and Ding both teach gas delivery processes and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the pressure sensor and from the teaching of Ding to provide improve the gas delivery accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility (Ding, Paragraph# 17).
Regarding claim 10, LIM doesn’t disclose a chiller.
However, Ettinger teaches a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path. (Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulate a coolant through the cooling system of a plasma applicator#10, Col 9, lines 8-12).
LIM and Ettinger both teach plasma generation and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the chiller supplying coolant from the teaching of Ettinger to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
LIM modified by Ettinger doesn’t disclose” the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a control unit (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM further by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose “the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”.
However, the examiner interprets “the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or pressure of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor and the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shin (US Pub 2017/0167022 A1).
Regarding claim 11, LIM doesn’t disclose “the gas supply device includes a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber from outside the gas cooling device”.
However, Shin discloses a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other (Fig 2, shows a gas supply device#120 with a bypass conduit #160 directing directly inert gas to reaction chamber#110, Paragraph# 15).
LIM and Shin both teach plasma deposition and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to add a bypass line connecting gas source directly to chamber for better control of deposition temperature such that the thin film exhibits excellent covering preventing diffusion and oxidation at the interface (Shin, Paragraph# 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) and Shin (US Pub 2017/0167022 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1).
Regarding claim 12, LIM discloses the gas line (Fig 3B, depicted a gas line GL).
LIM doesn’t disclose a bypass line.
However, Shin discloses a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other (Fig 2, shows a gas supply device#120 with a bypass conduit #160 directing directly inert gas to reaction chamber#110, Paragraph# 15).
LIM and Shin both teach plasma deposition and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to add a bypass line connecting gas source directly to chamber for better control of deposition temperature such that the thin film exhibits excellent covering preventing diffusion and oxidation at the interface (Shin, Paragraph# 3).
Modified LIM by Shin doesn’t disclose “a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line; and a control unit controlling the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41) ; and a control unit adjusting temperature of the process ( Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM further by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose” a control unit controlling the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, the examiner interprets “a control unit controlling the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust the flow of gas based on temperature of the processing gas. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control a gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chung-Lai Lei (US Pub 20060196603 A1, referred as Chung-Lai Lei2 in the rejection.
Regarding claim 13, LIM discloses “the gas supply device further includes a first gas injection unit disposed above the wafer substrate”. (Fig 3B, depict the gas line disposed above the wafer)
LIM doesn’t disclose “a second gas injection unit disposed on a sidewall of the chamber, and the gas line is connected to the first gas injection unit and the second gas injection unit”.
However, Chung-Lai Lei2 discloses a first gas injection unit disposed above the wafer substrate (Fig 8, gas distributor#811 above the wafer in chamber# 813), and a second gas injection unit disposed on a sidewall of the chamber (Fig 8, side gas ring #837 with gas nozzles# 839 side injection into the chamber# 813, Paragraph# 31 and 35).
LIM and Chung-Lai Lei2 both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to add the sidewall injection unit to the chamber from the teaching of Chung-Lai Lei2 to increase the uniformity of a process gas onto a substrate (Chung-Lai Lei2, paragraph#5).
Claims 14,15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) and further in view of Takayoshi (US Pub 2021/0351019 A1), Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1), Ettinger (US patent 5895548), and Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1).
Regarding claim 14, LIM discloses a plasma etching apparatus, comprising: a chamber for a plasma etching process (Fig1, chamber#10, a substrate “SUB” inside the chamber) ; a gas supply device including a gas box storing a process gas and a gas line supplying the process gas from the gas box into the chamber (Fig 1, gas supply unit#20 with a reactant gas source (GSd, Paragraph #22 ); a plasma generator generating a plasma from the process gas inside the chamber (Paragraph#23 suggest that plasma could be generated inside the chamber for the manufacturing of semiconductor); a gas cooling device coupled to the gas line from outside the chamber (Fig 3B, cooling unit GC, Paragraph# 48).
LIM doesn’t disclose “an electrostatic chuck fixing a wafer substrate in the chamber to etch the wafer substrate”.
However, Takayoshi discloses an electrostatic chuck fixing a wafer substrate in the chamber to etch the wafer substrate. (Fig1, Electrostatic chuck #5, to fix substrate W, on substrate support ST).
LIM and Takayoshi both teach plasma processing on a substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the electrostatic chuck from the teaching of Takayoshi to generate a coulomb force which electrostatically attract the substrate (Takayoshi, Paragraph# 22).
Modified LIM further by Takayoshi doesn’t disclose “the gas cooling device including a gas flow path that the process gas passes through and a cooling flow path that a coolant passes through”.
However, Buschbeck discloses, the gas cooling device includes a gas flow path that the process gas passes through and a cooling flow path that a coolant passes through (Fig2, flow path through material conduit # 120, cooling flow path #153 from cooling gas supply#154).
LIM and Buschbeck both teach film depositions on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include from the teaching of Buschbeck to ensure proper cooling of process gas to produce uniform evaporative deposition (Buschbeck, Paragraph# 36).
Modified LIM further by Buschbeck doesn’t disclose “a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path to cool the process gas passing through the gas flow path”.
However, Ettinger teaches a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling path to cool the process gas passing through the gas flow path. (Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulate a coolant through the cooling system of a plasma applicator#10, Col 9, lines 8-12).
LIM and Ettinger both teach plasma generation and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the chiller supplying coolant from the teaching of Ettinger to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
Modified LIM further by Ettinger doesn’t disclose “a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line or the gas flow path; and a control unit controlling the chiller to adjust a temperature of the coolant based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.”
However, Hasegawa discloses: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
LIM modified further by Hasegawa doesn’t explicitly disclose “a control unit adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, the examiner interprets “a control unit controlling the chiller to adjust a temperature of the coolant based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or mass flow rate of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of adjusting a temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor”. (see Fig 1, from Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 15, LIM doesn’t disclose “if the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas flow path measured by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to increase the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose “if the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas flow path measured by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to increase the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path.”
However, the examiner interprets “if the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas flow path measured by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to increase the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path.”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or mass flow rate of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case if the measured temperature of the process gas is greater than or equal to a reference temperature, the control unit controls the chiller to increase the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of measuring the temperature of the process gas relative to a reference temperature and performed the claimed function. (see Fig 1, from Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 19, LIM discloses the gas line includes an inlet line located upstream of the gas cooling device and an outlet line located downstream of the gas cooling device. (Fig 3B depicted a gas line GL supplying the source gas GSd to a cooling unit GC located upstream and the outlet line Paragraph# 49) surrounding the gas line GL downstream going to chamber 10).
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1) Takayoshi (US Pub 2021/0351019 A1), Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1), Ettinger (US patent 5895548), and Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1) as applied to claims 14,15,16 above and further in view of Ding (US Pub 2022/0161288 A1).
The limitations of claims 14,15,16 are set forth above
Regarding claim 16, LIM doesn’t disclose “the gas cooling device further includes a pressure sensor measuring a pressure of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path, wherein the control unit controls the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor”.
However, Ding teaches a pressure sensor measuring the pressure of the process gas flowing into the gas flow path (Fig 7, pressure sensor 716, paragraph 40).
LIM and Ding both teach gas delivery processes and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the pressure sensor and from the teaching of Ding to improve the gas delivery accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility (Ding, Paragraph# 17).
Modified LIM by Ding doesn’t disclose “the control unit controls the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a control unit (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM further by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose “the control unit controls the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor”.
However, the examiner interprets “the control unit controls the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or pressure of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control a temperature of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of controlling the temperature or a flow rate of the coolant flowing through the cooling flow path based on the pressure sensor indication.
Regarding claim 17, LIM doesn’t disclose “the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”.
However, Ettinger teaches a chiller supplying the coolant to the cooling flow path. (Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulate a coolant through the cooling system of a plasma applicator#10, Col 9, lines 8-12).
LIM and Ettinger both teach plasma generation and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the chiller supplying coolant from the teaching of Ettinger to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
Modified LIM by Ettinger doesn’t disclose” the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”.
However, Hasegawa discloses: a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM by Ettinger and further by Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose “the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”.
However, the examiner interprets “the control unit controls the chiller such that a temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or pressure of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control the chiller such that the temperature of the coolant supplied to the cooling flow path is greater than a liquefaction temperature of the process gas calculated based on the measured pressure of the process gas.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1), Takayoshi (US Pub 2021/0351019 A1), Ettinger (US patent 5895548) Buschbeck (US 2022/0090256 A1) and Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1) as applied to claims 14, 15,19
above and further in view of Shin (US Pub 2017/0167022 A1).
The limitations of claims 14,15, 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, modified LIM doesn’t disclose “the gas supply device further includes a bypass line bypassing the gas cooling device and directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other”.
However, Shin discloses a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other (Fig 2, shows a gas supply device#120 with a bypass conduit #160 directing directly inert gas to reaction chamber#110, Paragraph# 15).
LIM and Shin both teach plasma depositions and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to add a bypass line connecting gas source directly to chamber for better control of deposition temperature such that the thin film exhibits excellent covering preventing diffusion and oxidation at the interface (Shin, Paragraph# 3).
Modified LIM by Shin doesn’t disclose “the control unit controls the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, Hasegawa discloses temperature sensor (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
LIM and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the LIM reference to include the control unit and the temperature sensor from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified LIM further by Shin doesn’t disclose “the control unit controls the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line measured by the temperature sensor”.
However, the examiner interprets “the control unit controls the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line measured by the temperature sensor”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The control unit function is to control and adjust process flow rate based on temperature indication. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case the gas line or the bypass line to be selectively opened and closed based on the temperature of the process gas flowing inside the gas line measured by the temperature sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of controlling the gas line or the bypass line open/close function based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor indicator.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayoshi (US Pub 2021/0351019 A1) and further in view of Chung-Lai Lei (US Pub 20060196603 A1, referred as Chung-Lai Lei2 in the rejection, Shin (US Pub 2017/0167022 A1), LIM (US 2021/0159086 A1), Ettinger (US patent 5895548), Hasegawa (US Pub 2023/0124143 A1, and Ding (US Pub 2022/0161288 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Takayoshi discloses a chamber for a plasma etching process (Fig 1, chamber#1); a support having an electrostatic chuck fixing a wafer substrate inside the chamber (Fig 1 , electrostatic chuck# 5 that secures the substrate W to ST, paragraph 20);a gas box storing a process gas (Fig 1, gas supply unit # 15); a gas injection unit injecting the process gas into the chamber (Fig1 , gas inlet port# 3g, paragraph# 27), an inductively coupled plasma generator generating a plasma from the process gas injected by the gas injection unit (Paragraph 113, an inductively coupled plasma can be generated from this plasma apparatus); a gas line connected to supply the process gas from the gas box into the chamber(Fig 1, gas supply pipe# 15a, paragraph# 27), a chiller including a first channel supplying a coolant to the wafer substrate (Fig 1, Paragraph# 23, chiller unit circulates water through an inlet pipe# 2b to the substrate).
Takayoshi doesn’t disclose “a second gas injection unit disposed on a sidewall of the chamber, and the gas line is connected to the first gas injection unit and the second gas injection unit”.
However, Chung-Lai Lei2 discloses a first gas injection unit disposed above the wafer substrate (Fig 8, gas distributor#811 above the wafer in chamber# 813), and a second gas injection unit disposed on a sidewall of the chamber (Fig 8, side gas ring #837 with gas nozzles# 839 side injection into the chamber# 813, Paragraph# 31 and 35).
Takayoshi and Chung-Lai Lei2 both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayoshi reference to add the sidewall injection unit to the chamber from the teaching of Chung-Lai Lei2 to increase the uniformity of a process gas onto a substrate (Chung-Lai Lei2, paragraph#5).
Takayoshi doesn’t disclose “a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other”.
However, Shin discloses a bypass line directly connecting the gas box and the chamber to each other (Fig 2, shows a gas supply device#120 with a bypass conduit #160 directing directly inert gas to reaction chamber#110, Paragraph# 15).
Takayoshi and Shin both teach plasma depositions and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayoshi reference to add a bypass line connecting gas source directly to chamber for better control of deposition temperature such that the thin film exhibits excellent covering preventing diffusion and oxidation at the interface (Shin, Paragraph# 3).
Modified Takayoshi by Shin doesn’t disclose “a gas cooling device including a gas flow path that the process gas flow through the gas line passes through, the gas cooling device is disposed outside the chamber”.
However, LIM discloses a gas cooling device including a gas flow path that the process gas flow through the gas line passes through, the gas cooling device is disposed outside the chamber (Fig 3B, cooling unit GC surrounding the gas line GL and the gas being fed to chamber 10, Paragraph# 48, 49).
Takayoshi and LIM both teach plasma depositions and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takayoshi reference to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
Modified Takayoshi further by Gole doesn’t disclose “a second channel supplying the coolant to the gas cooling device”.
However, Ettinger teaches a second channel supplying the coolant to the gas cooling device. (Fig 4, Chiller Unit# 206 circulates a coolant through the cooling system, Col 9, lines 8-12).
Takayoshi and Ettinger both teach plasma generation and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayoshi reference to include the chiller supplying coolant from the teaching of Ettinger to properly handle higher temperature effects of plasma generation such as corrosivity (Ettinger, Col 1, lines 46-53).
Modified Takayoshi further by Ettinger doesn’t disclose “a temperature sensor disposed on the gas line and the gas flow path, the temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas, and a control unit”.
However, Hasegawa discloses a temperature sensor disposed on the gas line and the gas flow path, the temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the process gas (Fig1, temperature sensor#70, paragraph 41); and a control unit adjusting temperature of the process (Control unit# 90, Paragraph #54).
Modified Takayoshi and Hasegawa both teach plasma deposition etching and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayoshi reference to include the temperature sensor and the control unit from the teaching of Hasegawa to uniformly etch the deposited film (Hasegawa, Paragraph# 50).
Modified Takayoshi by Hasegawa doesn’t disclose “a pressure sensor disposed on the gas line and the gas flow path, the pressure sensor measuring a pressure of the process gas”.
However, Ding teaches a pressure sensor disposed on the gas line and the gas flow path, the pressure sensor measuring a pressure of the process gas (Fig 7, pressure sensor# 716, paragraph 40).
Takayoshi and Ding both teach process gas delivery and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayoshi reference to include the pressure sensor and from the teaching of Ding to provide improve the gas delivery accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility (Ding, Paragraph# 17).
Modified Takayoshi does not explicitly disclose “a control unit that controls the chiller based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor or the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor.”
However, the examiner interprets “a control unit that controls the chiller based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor or the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor”, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
A control unit function is to control and adjust either temperature or pressure of a processing flow. The placement of the controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case control controls the chiller based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the temperature sensor or the pressure of the process gas measured by the pressure sensor.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of controlling the chiller based on the temperature of the process gas measured by the pressure and temperature sensor indicators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (us Pub 2003/0121608 A1 Figs 1,3) teaches gas delivery system for atomic layer deposition atmospheric, Matsumoto (US Patent 6482286, Figs 1, 2,) teaches a chemical vapor deposition using metal organic chemical vapor deposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights