DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-20 are pending, and claims 9-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. In the amendment filed 10/07/2025, claim 1 was amended, claims 3-4 were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 refers to the chamber having “a lateral side between the top and bottom” (line 2) and then later refers to a first location of the side (line 4-5) and a second location of the side (line 14) and requires that the second location is laterally opposite the first location (line 15). Consistent with the usage in the claim and the instant specification, the use of “side” is interpreted inclusive of the entirety of any sidewall(s) or side structure(s) (i.e. it is not interpreted as merely one of the boundary surfaces such as a left/right side, north/south/east/west side).
Claim 1 references a plurality of gas sources but does not claim the plurality of gas sources as a structure of the apparatus. Therefore claim 1 is interpreted inclusive of not requiring the gas sources as a structure of the apparatus.
Claim 6 defines the gases in the gas sources but does not recite that the gas sources are a structure of the apparatus. Claim 6 has also been interpreted inclusive of not requiring the specific recited gas sources as a structure of the apparatus. In the event the gas sources are claimed as a structure of the apparatus, the prior art rejections below have included reference to where these sources are taught or rendered obvious. If applicant wishes to have the gas sources claimed as a structure of the apparatus, applicant should explicitly recite them as structure of the apparatus within the claims (i.e. separately list “a plurality of gas sources” as a listed structure among the listed chamber, cartridge, mass flow controller, mass flow meter, etc.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severin (prev. presented US 2018/0211823) in view of Kikuchi (prev. presented US 2016/0336190), Halpin (prev. presented US 2002/0185062), Moriyama (prev. presented US 2013/0022743), and WO 2020/059110 of Tanaka et al., hereinafter Tanaka (citing English equivalent US 2021/0172825).
Regarding claim 1, Severin teaches a processing tool (abstract and Fig 1-3), comprising: a chamber (110 Fig 1-3) having a top (shown as upper portion of 110 Fig 1-3) and a bottom (shown as lower portion of 110 Fig 1-3) and a lateral side (shown as side walls of 110 Fig 1-3) between the top and bottom (Fig 1-3); a cartridge (outlet plate of 135 Fig 1-3 and note that [0029] of the instant specification indicates the cartridge may be a showerhead) for flowing one or more processing gasses into a first location of the lateral side of the chamber from a plurality of gas sources (131, 132 Fig 2-3 and [0035]) such that one or more processing gases are fed into the chamber from the lateral side of the chamber; a mass flow controller for each of the plurality of gas sources (161d, 162c, Fig 3, [0037], [0041]); a mass flow meter (161e, 162d Fig 3 [0037) between the plurality of gas sources (131, 132 Fig 3) and the cartridge (135 Fig 3), wherein each gas source of the plurality of gas sources is coupled to the mass flow meter (Fig 3); a second pressure gauge fluidically coupled to the chamber (145 Fig 3 [0047-0048]); a first exhaust line (144 Fig 3 [0034]) coupled to a second location of the lateral side of the chamber (Fig 3), the second location laterally opposite the first location (Fig 3), wherein the second pressure gauge (145 Fig 3) is coupled to the first exhaust line (Fig 3, 145 coupled to 144); and a wafer processing location is laterally between the first location and the second location of the lateral side of the chamber (see area 111 of Fig 3 as wafer processing location). Severin fails to teach a first pressure gauge between the mass flow meter and the cartridge; a second exhaust line coupled to a third location of the lateral side of the chamber, the third location at a same horizontal level as the second location; and the wafer processing location is laterally between the first pressure gauge and the second pressure gauge. Regarding a first pressure gauge between the mass flow meter and the cartridge, in the same field of endeavor of a processing tool with multiple gas supply (abstract, Fig 1), Kikuchi teaches a first pressure gauge (44 Fig 1) between the mass flow controller (M3,M1 Fig 1) and gas inlet line and the cartridge (40 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Severin to include a first pressure gauge between the mass flow meter (on gas line to the showerhead) and the cartridge (outlet plate of the showerhead 135 of Severin) because Kikuchi teaches this measurement is used with measurement of the chamber pressure (taught by Severin as part of gauge 145) to regulate the flow of inlet gas (see Kikuchi [0048]). This represents use of known technique (measurement of pressure between the gas inlet and the gas cartridge in a chamber) to improve similar devices (processing chamber of Severin) in the same way (improved pressure and flow control within regions of the processing chamber). In the combination as applied in which a pressure gauge is added to 135 of Severin upstream of the outlet plate, the wafer processing location (111 Fig 3) is laterally between the first pressure gauge and the second pressure gauge. Regarding a second exhaust line coupled to a third location of the lateral side of the chamber, Severin fails to teach this because Severin teaches only one exhaust line. In the same field of endeavor of a processing tool (abstract), Halpin teaches a second exhaust line (one of 26, 28 Fig 3 [0033], [0059], [0063]) coupled to a third location of the lateral side of the chamber (Fig 3) [0063]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Severin to include the second exhaust line as taught by Halpin because Halpin teaches this arrangement allows for control of the gas flow to be spread or narrowed within the chamber to improve gas distribution [0069]. Severin fails to teach a third pressure gauge fluidically coupled to the chamber; a leakage detection sensor; the third pressure gauge and the leakage detection sensor are coupled to the first exhaust line, the third pressure gauge downstream from the second pressure gauge, and the leakage detection sensor between the second pressure gauge and the third pressure gauge.
Regarding the third pressure gauge, In the same field of endeavor of a processing apparatus (abstract), Moriyama teaches a throttle valve on the exhaust line of a processing chamber (12 Fig 1) to control the flow rate of the exhaust gas from the chamber and teaches a pressure gauge upstream of the throttle valve in the exhaust line (14a Fig 1) and a pressure gauge downstream of the throttle valve in the exhaust line (14b Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Severin to include a throttle valve in the exhaust line and a downstream (third) pressure gauge relative to the throttle valve pressure gauges in the exhaust because the Severin already teaches monitoring and control of the pressure in the exhaust line (via 145 [0047), teaches additional pressure sensors for the chamber [0050] and because Moriyama teaches the arrangement of gauges upstream and downstream of the throttle valve, in addition to inclusion of a throttle valve, provides additional pressure control [0015-0016]. This results in the third pressure gauge coupled to the first exhaust line and the third pressure gauge downstream from the second pressure gauge.
Regarding the leakage detection sensor, in the same field of endeavor of a processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 2), Tanaka teaches a leakage detector (60 Fig 2 and [0059]) coupled to the first exhaust line (exhaust line shown in Fig 2), the leakage detection sensor is downstream from a pressure gauge (48 Fig 2) and upstream of the valve (APC Fig 2 and [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Severin to include the leakage detector of Tanaka because Tanaka teaches this enables detection of a leak to determine if the film forming step (i.e. substrate processing step) may be performed [0059-0060] (note chamber leakage will result in errors in film formation or other substrate processing steps). In the combination as applied herein, the leakage detection sensor is between the second pressure gauge and the third pressure gauge because it is down stream of a pressure gauge and upstream of a valve (whereas the third pressure gauge of the combination is downstream of the valve).
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus of Severin is capable of being used to perform a radical oxidation process because Severin provides gas (inclusive of an energized oxygen gas source) and may include plasma [0027]. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Severin has taught an oxygen gas source (132 Fig 3 [0035]) and hydrogen gas source (131 Fig 3 [0035]) and teaches a plurality of gas sources (Fig 3). As noted above, the claim does not currently claim the gas sources as part of the apparatus. Additionally, including additional gas sources in the apparatus increases the number of processes that may be performed by the apparatus and increases the market value of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severin in view of Kikuchi, Halpin, Moriyama, and Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu (prev. presented US 2013/0157460).
Regarding claim 2, Severin fails to teach an array of temperature sensors on a reflector in the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor processing apparatuses (abstract), Fu teaches an array of temperature sensors on a reflector in the chamber [0027]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Severin to include this array because Fu teaches it allows for monitoring of the temperature and temperature gradient of the substrate [0027]. Temperature and temperature gradient of the substrate affects the uniformity of the processing [0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (reply p9-12) that Severin does not teach the limitations regarding the third pressure gauge and leakage detector is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection including Moriyama and Tanaka which does teach the amended limitations regarding the third pressure gauge and leakage detector as explained above. Applicant argued the Severin reference specifically but argued that it does not teach the amended limitation which is taught by Moriyama and Tanaka in the combination. Therefore, this argument is also moot and/or not persuasive.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0204965 teaches pressure sensors (110 Fig 1) upstream and downstream of the pump (112 Fig 1) [0055]. US 2009/0075403 teaches it is known to use optical emission signals for leak detection [0074].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights