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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Matsushita et al (2016/0322241).
The Moradian et al reference teaches a method and apparatus for semiconducting processing, note entire reference. The Moradian et al apparatus comprising a processing chamber para.11 and figs. The chamber body defining a processing volume disposed between a lid and a floor. There is an upper window and a lower window para. 11. A substrate support assembly note figs; and arrays of radiant heating lamps (108, 110) para.44 and fig 2. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the cooling channels extending at least partially between the one or more heat sources and the one or more windows. However, the Matsushita et al reference teaches a coolant flow path (201) and a flow path (202) are provided between a transmission window (162) provided in a processing chamber (37) and a lamp (61) of a chamber (60) (note paragraphs 43, 103-104, figure 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Moradian et al reference by the teachings of the Matsushita et al reference to add a cooling means between windows and heater in order to control the temperature of the chamber for increase deposition control.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Matsushita et al (2016/0322241) and Sriraman et al (2018/0156489).
The Moradian et al and Matsushita et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the cooling channels being loops. However, the Sriraman et al reference teaches cooling channel loops in chambers, note fig 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Moradian et al reference by the teachings of the Sriraman et al reference to have the cooling means in loop form in order to increase heat transfer during operation.
With regards to claim 3, the Sriraman et al reference teaches a loop which are parallel to the support, note fig. 2
With regards to claim 5, the Sriraman et al. reference teaches controllers for the coolant means, note fig 2.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Matsushita et al (2016/0322241) and Sriraman et al (2018/0156489).
The Moradian et al, Sriraman et al and Matsushita et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the shape of the coolant means. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a U-shaped tube in order to have an affective coolant means.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Lau et al (2023/0369077).
The Moradian et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in blocker plates between the heaters. However, the Lau et al reference teaches a heat shield, a blocker, (175) is disposed between arrays of radiant heating lamps (104 a, 104 b) and a first window (108) to block unwanted transmission of heat (note paragraphs [21], [25], [27], figure 1A) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Moradian et al reference by the teachings of the Lau et al reference to have blockers between heaters in order to control the heating between heaters and the direction of the heat.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Lau et al (2023/0369077).
The Moradian et al and Lau et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in blocker plates sizes and positions with respect to each other . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a different sized blocker plates and positions in order to better affect control over the heat in the chamber, noting the Moradian et al reference does show different blocker positions.
With regards to claim 10, Lau et al reference teaches actuators to move the blocks as need, note figs.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Lau et al (2023/0369077).
The Moradian et al and Lau et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in blocker plates having an opaque surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have an opaque surface in order to better block the heat.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Lau et al (2023/0369077).
The Moradian et al and Lau et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in blocker plates positions . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a different blocker plates positions in order to adjust as needed to the conditions.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Lau et al (2023/0369077).
The Moradian et al and Lau et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in blocker plates composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a blocker plates with different materials in order to have different heat absorption or reflection.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Matsushita et al (2016/0322241)
The Moradian et al and Matsushita et al. references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the cooling liquid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use a specific coolant in order to increase heat transfer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al (2024/0248297) in view of Matsushita et al (2016/0322241)
The Moradian et al and Matsushita et al. references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the controlling over substrate temperatures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use the substrate temperatures to control in order to maintain the entire surface of the substrate at the deposition temperature.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in semiconductor deposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
