DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 11, 2025. Claim 1 is amended.
The applicant contends that the prior art does not situate “all the gas supply nozzles” within the same nozzle accommodation space, as required by claim 1. In the most recent Office letter, the examiner acknowledged this deficiency but argued that Takagi’s present design, in which the dilution nozzles are located in a separate notch from that of the process gas nozzles, necessarily derived from something like the embodiment presently recited by claim 1. However, the assumption that Takagi’s design derived from an embodiment where all nozzles are disposed within the same notch is entirely speculative and informed by hindsight. Takagi separates the hydrogen-supplying nozzles and the oxygen-supplying nozzles to increase the relay delay between these two species, which is not a consideration in the instant invention, as the claimed dilution gas does not react with the process gas (pp. 3-4).
In response, the examiner observes that a critical determinant of inter-plane loading effects is the “distance (time) in which the O2 gas and the H2 gas react in the process chamber” [0132]. The final line of paragraph [0133] concludes, “it may be understood that the reaction delay of the O2 gas and the H2 gas is one of the main factors causing the inter-plane LE.” Paragraph [0136] establishes that the O2 and H2 nozzles are separated by a “predetermined distance” to ensure adequate mixing to maximize the generation of atomic oxygen, thereby reducing inter-plane LE. Finally, Figure 9, depicts the experimental relationship between oxygen concentration and the distance between the two types of gas supply nozzles for various pressure and temperature conditions. From the preceding, it is clear that the distance between the O2 and H2 nozzles is a result-effective variable, and that Applicant’s claimed embodiment has already been modeled. (With regard to Figure 9, the smallest values of “Distance from H2-O2-Mixed” represent a configuration in which these two nozzle types are closely situated, as in Applicant’s claimed embodiment.) In other words, Takagi has already simulated an embodiment in which the O2 and H2 nozzles are separated by a minimal distance, i.e., a scenario equivalent to the claimed embodiment in which all supply nozzles are disposed within the same notch, and determined the results (Fig. 9). Of course, in view of these results, Takagi opted to pursue an embodiment of greater nozzle separation to increase the production of atomic oxygen, but this does not elide the fact that the prior art has already modeled and determined the outcome of the claimed embodiment. Or, put differently, it would have been obvious to organize Takagi’s supply nozzles in a close arrangement since this technique and its effects are already known. That is, applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill. The rejections are maintained.
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 of this title, 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 1, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al., US 2014/0357058.
Claim 1: Takagi discloses a substrate treatment apparatus, comprising:
A vertical reaction tube (210) having an internal space formed therein (Fig. 1);
Wherein the internal space has upper, lower, and central regions;
A substrate boat (217) arranged in the internal space and configured to support a plurality of vertically-spaced substrates [0050];
A plurality of gas supply nozzles, consisting of:
A plurality of process gas supply nozzles (233a-c) within the reaction tube extending along a vertical direction;
Wherein each process gas supply nozzle has a plurality of gas supply holes (248a-c) arranged along the vertical direction in the upper, central, and lower regions of the internal space [0050];
A plurality of dilution gas supply nozzles (233d-e) configured to supply a gas within only some of the plurality of treatment spaces, consisting of:
An upper dilution gas supply nozzle (233d) only having dilution gas supply holes (248d) defined in the upper region and pointing toward a center of the internal space such that said supply holes supply gas only to the treatment spaces arranged in the upper region of the internal space (Fig. 4a);
A lower dilution gas supply nozzle (233e) only having gas supply holes (248e) defined in the lower region and pointing toward a center of the internal space such that said supply holes supply gas only to the treatment spaces arranged in the lower region of the internal space [0052];
Wherein the upper and lower dilution gas supply nozzles extend with the same length along the vertical direction (Fig. 4a);
Wherein the reaction tube comprises a notch portion (204a) protruding from a side wall of the reaction tube disposed at one side of the internal space to define a nozzle accommodation space [0047];
Wherein the process gas supply nozzles are disposed in the nozzle accommodation space (Fig. 2);
Wherein each of the dilution gas supply nozzles is configured to supply gas in a direction crossing a direction in which the process gas is supplied on the plurality of substrates (Fig. 2).
Regarding the final paragraph of claim 1, the dilution gas supply nozzles of Figure 4 depict a total of twelve supply holes. The process gas supply nozzle shown by Figure 8 comprises twenty-seven supply holes. It seems, then, that the central region of the process gas supply nozzle contains fifteen supply holes. In this way, Takagi’s sum of dilution gas supply holes is less than the number of process gas supply holes corresponding to the central region.
It should also be noted that those limitations drawn to the type of gas supplied constitute recitations of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the enumerated functions – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). An operator can supply a given gas nozzle with a process gas, thereby rendering it a “process gas supply nozzle,” and supply another nozzle with a dilution gas, thereby rendering it a “dilution gas supply nozzle.”
Lastly, as limned by Figure 2, Takagi disposes the process gas supply nozzles (233a-c) within a first nozzle accommodation space (204a) and the dilution gas supply nozzles (233d-e) within a second nozzle accommodation space (204b), whereas claim 1 requires all gas supply nozzles to be situated within the same, singular accommodation space [0047]. Takagi has determined that segregating the dilution gas supply nozzles from the process gas supply nozzles, which necessarily increases the distance therebetween, lengthens the duration during which the supplied gases remain in a mixed state. In turn, this improves uniformity across the substrate surface [0134]. Of course, Takagi’s segregated configuration necessarily evolved from a conventional embodiment, in which all of the nozzles remained housed within the same accommodation space, to resolve the encountered problem of hydrogen and oxygen mixing too soon over the perimeter of the substrate rather than its center. In other words, Takagi’s segregated embodiment presupposes a prior contemplation of the conventional embodiment before undertaking experimental optimization to solve the mixing issues attendant to the latter. Thus, because Applicant’s claimed embodiment was known to Takagi before selecting the final segregated design, the act of, once more, grouping all of the gas supply nozzles within the same accommodation space would have been obvious to the skilled artisan simply because the results would be entirely predictable.
Claim 5: Takagi provides an exhaust port (204c) disposed opposite the process gas supply nozzle (233b) (Fig. 2). As shown by Figure 1, there is a vertical exhaust path within the reactor tube leading to the exhaust pipe (231), whereby this path is taken to read upon the claimed “exhaust duct.” Further, gas moves from a lower end of the process gas supply nozzle to an upper end thereof.
Claim 8: Takagi provides a valve (243d) connected to the dilution gas supply nozzle (233d) [0055]. As shown by Figure 2, each nozzle has a dedicated input governed by a dedicated valve. The operator, then, can regulate the necessary valves to ensure greater flow to the lower dilution nozzle than the upper dilution nozzle – it has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Kato et al., US 2010/0068383.
Takagi provides a heater (207) circumscribing the reaction tube, but it is unclear if the heater can apply different thermal treatments to different spaces ([0042]; Fig. 1). In supplementation, Kato discloses a batch treatment apparatus including a heater (12) which surrounds the reaction tube (Fig. 1). In addition, the heater can be of multi-stage form, enabling each stage to be controlled independently [0042]. It would have been obvious to outfit Takagi’s heater with independently controllable stages in order to rectify thermal gradients within the treatment zones.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Chuang et al., US 2014/0154414. Chuang teaches a substrate treatment apparatus comprising a reaction tube having an internal space for accommodating a substrate boat (Fig. 1; [0033]). Further, Chuang provides a process gas supply nozzle and two dilution nozzles (14, 15), whereby one dilution nozzle provides gas to an upper region and the other dilution nozzle provides gas to a lower region (Fig. 3).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716