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 .
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 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.
Claims 21-23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20070215036 by Park et al.
Park discloses a method comprising: providing a processing chamber comprising x number of spatially separated isolated processing stations and loading at least one wafer onto the support assembly, rotating a substrate support assembly having a plurality of substrate support surfaces aligned with the x number of spatially separated isolated processing stations rx-1 or rx’-1so that each substrate support surface rotates (360/x) degrees in a first direction to an adjacent substrate support surface, r being a whole number greater than or equal to 1; and rotating the substrate support assembly within the processing chamber rx times so that each substrate support surface rotates (360/x) degrees in a second direction to the adjacent substrate support surface (see entire reference, Figures 2).
Here, Park discloses a multichamber ALD process including a stepwise rotation of the substrate (rotate in the first direction) sequentially through different reaction zones, i.e. processing chambers, including full or partial rotation, and rotating back by exposing the wafers to intervening spaces in reverse order (0057-0065). Therefore, taking the disclosure of this reference, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum rotation in the first direction (including full rotation or partial rotation) and second direction (second opposite rotation to expose in reverse order) to achieve the desired sequence of exposure (see e.g. Figures 7A-7C). Park discloses a situation where the rotating is performed any number of times to provide the desired thickness (0063) as well as partial rotations, i.e. rx-1, where x is the number of chamber (i.e. 4) and r is 2 and x’ is 2. Here for example, Park would make obvious rx-1 when the number of chambers is 4, as the wafer will be rotated 90 degrees to each of the individual chambers and be rotated 3 times to achieve the treatment at each station.
Each individual area is a processing station within the broadly drafted claim (i.e. no claim requirement or evidence that would suggest that a station is no more than a zone, chamber, area, chamber, reactor, etc. provided that it meets the claimed spatial relationship i.e. spatially separated and isolated). Park discloses that each individual processing chamber segment in the processing chamber is spatially separated and isolated from the other segments and therefore each segmented of the processing chamber can each reasonably be considered a “station” as claimed.
Park discloses a situation where the rotating is performed any number of times to provide the desired thickness (0063) as well as partial rotations, i.e. rx, where x is the number of chamber (i.e. 4) and whole number is 1 (i.e. rotate in first direction 3 times) and therefore taking the level of one ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have the optimum number of rotations to expose the substrate to the desired sequence of chambers.
See disclosure at 0058-0064 related to movement of substrates when x=4, i.e. 4 chambers. Here, Park discloses the movement is moved rx-1 times (x=2, 3 times) to be treated under each of the 4 chamber locations (start at 1, rotate, treat at 2, rotate, treat at 3, rotate, treat at 4), X=4, r=2 and x’=2 and each of the rotations is 90 degrees or 360/x as claimed. Rotation back is explicitly made obvious by Park for the reasons set forth above.(see 0057, “ rotation is reversed after completing one circuit of the desired number of reaction spaces, e.g., reversing from clockwise to counter-clockwise rotation, either directly back to the first reaction space or by again employing the intervening spaces in reverse order.”)
Claim 22: Park discloses the plurality of substrate support surfaces are substantially coplanar (see e.g. Figure 4B).
Claim 23: Park discloses substrate supports comprises heaters (0039, stating the substrate support platform is a heated chuck configured for internal e.g., resistive heating.)
Claim 25: Park discloses controlling the movement (i.e. rotation) and therefore would necessarily encompass controlling the speed of rotation (0016, 0087). At the very least, controlling the speed would have been obvious as such is directly related to the movement of the platform. Park discloses the wafers are rotated to each of the stations such that the top surface of the wafer is exposed to a processing condition in the processing station within the processing chamber (see discussion above as it relates to the chamber, stations and exposure). See Also Park as it relates to the exposure (0056).
Claim 26: Park discloses what can reasonably disclose immersing the wafer in a plasma (0056, see ”exposure to plasma”) and while the examiner notes such fails to articulate that such is “to eliminate plasma damage” the examiner notes that this is merely a result of performing the claimed process steps. In other words, immersing the wafer in a plasma would necessarily result in the elimination of plasma damage because that is all that is required by the claims as drafted.
Claim 27: Park discloses plasma generation at the station is optional and desirable and therefore configuring at least one station to generate a plasma would have been obvious to reap the benefits as outlined by Park (0056, 0058).
Claim 28: As outlined above, Park discloses plasma generation is optional based on the film forming recipe and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the plasma or not use the plasma (i.e. plasma station is turned off) based on the film forming recipe. Stationary is taught by Park at 0057-0064, where gases are supplied and residence time in the chamber and after such time periods, next the wafer is rotated (see e.g. 0061-0063).
Claims 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park with US Patent Application Publication 20150200110 by Li et al. and
Park discloses a multichamber ALD process and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, Li, also discloses a multichamber ALD process/apparatus with rotation discloses each section of the chamber can have the same or different temperatures. Li discloses the substrate support is controlled using a heater (0089).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the processing chamber having a processing chamber temperature and each processing station independently having a processing station temperature, the processing chamber temperature different from the processing station temperatures as required by the claims as Li explicitly discloses each section/chamber having different temperatures and thus one would reasonably expect predictable results. Using a heater in x number of substrate support would have been obvious as a known method for independently controlling the temperature.
Claims 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20070215036 by Park et al. with US Patent Application Publication 20150361553 by Murakawa.
Park discloses all that is taught above and discloses the rotation for the ALD device; however, fails to disclose the electrostatic chuck. Murakawa, also discloses an ALD with multiple wafers and rotations (see figures 4 and 5 and accompanying text). Murakawa discloses temperature control using heaters and discloses including electrostatic chucks to prevent the wafer from flowing or being detached during rotation (00128) and therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Park to use the electrostatic chucks to reap the benefits as specifically outlined by Murakawa.
Claim 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park with US Patent Application Publication 20150194298 by Lei et al. and US Patent Publication 20150332912 by Nowak et al.
Park discloses at each processing station, exposing a top surface of the at least one wafer to a process condition to form a film having a substantially uniform thickness (0058-0064). Park discloses step-wise rotation such that the wafer at each processing chamber when film is being formed (versus continuous rotation), (0046, 0058-0064). However, Park fails to explicitly disclose the substrate is stationary when the film is being formed. However, Lei, also discloses a spatial ALD deposition chamber discloses a continuous or discontinuous rotation of the substrate support assembly with substrate support surfaces wherein Lei discloses the wafer can be moved to the region and stopped (0045) and then to the next injector region and stopped (0045) and therefore discloses that the at least one wafer is stopped, i.e. stationary, when the film is formed in the region. Therefore taking the references collectively using this known method of moving the substrates between regions of spatial ALD process, i.e. at least one wafer being stationary when the film is formed would have been obvious as predictable.
Park and Lei discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to explicitly disclose the plasma power is turned off while stationary. However, Nowak, also forming a film using a similar spatial deposition chamber (0014, Figure 2A and accompanying text) discloses the plasma may be continuous or pulsed during the film forming process (0137) and thus discloses wherein the plasma station is turned off while the wafer is stationary. Nowak discloses benefits of such include controlling ion bombardment (0137). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have turned the plasma off to provide a pulsing plasma as such will control ion bombardment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent 12469739 taken with Park. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully encompassed by claims of US Patent 12469739. As for the rotation for Rx’-1, Park discloses a multichamber ALD process including a stepwise rotation of the substrate (rotate in the first direction) sequentially through different reaction zones, i.e. processing chambers, including full or partial rotation, and rotating back by exposing the wafers to intervening spaces in reverse order (0057-0065). Therefore, taking the disclosure of this reference, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum rotation in the first direction (including full rotation or partial rotation) and second direction (second opposite rotation to expose in reverse order) to achieve the desired sequence of exposure (see e.g. Figures 7A-7C).
Claims 21-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 19361307 (reference application) taken with Park. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully encompassed by copending application. As for the rotation for Rx’-1, Park discloses a multichamber ALD process including a stepwise rotation of the substrate (rotate in the first direction) sequentially through different reaction zones, i.e. processing chambers, including full or partial rotation, and rotating back by exposing the wafers to intervening spaces in reverse order (0057-0065). Therefore, taking the disclosure of this reference, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum rotation in the first direction (including full rotation or partial rotation) and second direction (second opposite rotation to expose in reverse order) to achieve the desired sequence of exposure (see e.g. Figures 7A-7C).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Pertintent Art is cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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 on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights