DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/7/2025.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Claims 13-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
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.
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 1-12 and 21 (all pending, non-withdrawn claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (US Pub. 2015/0072537) in view of Segi (US Patent 6,158,382) and White (US Pub. 2013/0068161).
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate support configured to support at least one substrate ([0027] and Fig. 1, wafers #200 stacked in a boat #217); a reaction tube configured to accommodate the substrate support and process the at least one substrate ([0027] and Fig. 1, reaction tube #203); and an inert gas supply system configured to supply an inert gas into the reaction tube ([0029] and Fig. 1, N2 sources #242g-j) and including a flow rate controller configured to control a flow rate of the inert gas ([0054] and Fig. 1, MFCs 241g-j), wherein the inert gas supply system includes a nozzle including at least one first ejection hole configured to eject the inert gas toward a center of the at least one substrate ([0054] and Fig. 2, nozzle #249b with gas supply holes #250b).
Noda does not teach wherein the nozzle comprises at least one second ejection hole configured to eject the inert gas toward an inner wall of the reaction tube.
However, Segi teaches this limitation (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, opposing ejecting holes #104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Modified Noda does not explicitly teach wherein the inert gas supply system is configured such that a flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the at least one first ejection hole is larger than a flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the at least one second ejection hole. (Examiner’s note: the limitation above is construed in light of the instant disclosure to mean wherein the number and diameter of the first ejection holes are larger than those of the second ejection holes- see par. [0068] of the instant PG-Pub).
While White does not explicitly teach wherein the inert gas supply system is configured such that a flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the at least one first ejection hole is larger than a flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the at least one second ejection hole, White does teach wherein the specific arrangement of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the vertical positions of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of expertise in a variety of disciplines. As such, the teachings of White would appear to convey to a PHOSITA that selection of the size, number, position, spacing, and shape of gas holes would be obvious.
As concurrent and supplementary rationales for the obviousness case made herein, the Examiner respectfully submits that: presented with an apparatus similar to Noda modified by Segi, the Examiner respectfully submits that arranging the first/second ejection holes in the claimed arrangement would amount to an obvious matter of 1) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and/or 2) applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 2, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Segi teaches wherein the at least one first ejection hole and the at least one second ejection hole are formed at positions opposite to each other (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, holes #104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Regarding claim 3, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Segi teaches wherein the at least one second ejection hole is formed at the same height as the at least one first ejection hole with respect to a height direction of the nozzle (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, holes #104 pictured in the same horizontal plane).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Regarding claim 4, modified Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While White does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one first ejection hole and the at least one second ejection hole are formed at positions different from each other in height with respect to a height direction of the nozzle, White does teach wherein the positions of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the vertical positions of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Segi teaches wherein the at least one second ejection hole includes a plurality of second ejection holes, and wherein the plurality of second ejection holes have different ejection directions (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, left hole #104 can have a different angle than the right hole #104; see “Example 2-1” in C16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Regarding claim 6, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, teaches wherein angles of the different ejection directions of the plurality of second ejection holes fall within a range of 45 to 90 degrees (Segi – C10, L39).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Regarding claim 7, Noda teaches wherein the at least one first ejection hole includes a plurality of first ejection holes, wherein the plurality of first ejection holes are formed at first predetermined intervals with respect to a height direction of the nozzle ([0054] and Figs. 1-2, nozzle #249b with spaced gas supply holes #250b).
Noda does not teach wherein the at least one second ejection hole includes a plurality of second ejection holes, and wherein the plurality of second ejection holes are formed at second predetermined intervals.
However, Segi teaches wherein the at least one second ejection hole includes a plurality of second ejection holes, wherein the plurality of second ejection holes are formed at second predetermined intervals (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, spaced holes #104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Modified Segi does not teach wherein the second predetermined intervals are wider than each of the first predetermined intervals, with respect to the height direction of the nozzle.
While White does not explicitly teach the limitation above, White does teach wherein the positions of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the vertical positions of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Noda teaches wherein the at least one first ejection hole includes a plurality of first ejection holes ([0054] and Fig. 2, nozzle #249b with gas supply holes #250b).
Modified Noda does not teach wherein each of the at least one second ejection hole is formed between two of the plurality of first ejection holes with respect to a height direction of the nozzle.
While White does not explicitly teach the limitation above, White does teach wherein the positions of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the vertical positions of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Noda teaches wherein the at least one substrate includes a plurality of substrates ([0027] and Fig. 1, plurality of wafers #200), and the at least one first ejection hole includes a plurality of first ejection holes ([0111] and Fig. 1, holes #250b), wherein the substrate support is further configured to hold the plurality of substrates in multiple stages in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of first ejection holes are formed to eject the inert gas to each of the plurality of substrates ([0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Noda teaches wherein the at least one first ejection hole includes a plurality of first ejection holes ([0054] and Fig. 2, nozzle #249b with gas supply holes #250b), wherein the plurality of first ejection holes are formed in the nozzle from a lower portion to an upper portion of the reaction tube (see Figs. 1-2).
Noda does not teach wherein the at least one second ejection hole includes a plurality of second ejection holes, wherein the plurality of second ejection holes are formed in the nozzle from a lower portion to an upper portion of the reaction tube respectively.
However, Segi teaches the limitation above (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, opposing ejecting holes #104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Modified Noda does not teach wherein the number of the plurality of first ejection holes is larger than the number of the plurality of second ejection holes.
While White does not explicitly teach the limitation above, White does teach wherein the numbers of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the number of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, modified Segi does not teach wherein an opening diameter of the at least one first ejection hole is larger than an opening diameter of the at least one second ejection hole.
While White does not explicitly teach the limitation above, White does teach wherein the sizes of ejection holes are a result-effective variable. Particularly, White teaches wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the sizes of the first/second ejection holes of modified Noda through routine experimentation in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Segi teaches wherein shapes of openings of the at least one first ejection hole and the at least one second ejection hole are circular (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, holes #104 appear circular).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Regarding claim 21, Noda does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Segi teaches wherein the at least one second ejection hole is opened to be opposite to the at least one first ejection hole (Segi – C10, L22-30 and Figs. 3-4, holes #104 opposite a central plane).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the nozzle of Noda to comprise a first and second ejection hole according to Segi in order to suitably and effectively direct gas flow (Segi – C9, L25-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The claims are rejected under §103 over Noda in view of Segi and White on substantially the same grounds as the last Office Action (using White to reject the newly added limitations of claim 1, previously cited to teach aspects of other dependent claims).
First, Applicant asserts (Remarks, pg. 10-11) that the Examiner’s previous interpretation of aspects of claim 1 was “inadequate”. As was previously stated by the Examiner: “[a] recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” The Examiner notes Applicant has amended claim 1 to positively recite a flow rate controller (mass flow controller), which has been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 presented herein. In accordance, this argument is moot.
Second, Applicant argues (Remarks, pgs. 11-14) that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Noda and Segi is improper, mainly due to the allegation that Segi teaches a nozzle for a raw material gas and Noda allegedly teaches a nozzle for an inert gas.
In rebuttal, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Examiner’s previous arguments (Final Office Action pg. 13) are still relevant to this discussion, and are reproduced below for convenience:
“In rebuttal, the Examiner submits that while Segi does appear to discuss raw material gas processes as a “best mode”, the disclosure as a whole would lead a PHOSITA to conclude that the nozzle designs disclosed therein could be applied to other processes as well.
Segi (col. 7, lines 38-45) specifically states: “[f]or the gas feed pipe having a plurality of gas ejecting holes which is used for introducing a gas (typically, a film-forming raw material gas) into the reaction chamber (or the deposition chamber)”. Thus Segi appears to provide sufficient secondary support for alternative modes of operation, namely using a non-film-forming raw material gas (see “typically”) and a non-deposition process (see “or the deposition chamber”).
Additionally, Segi explicitly describes a situation where an inert carrier gas can be ejected from the disclosed nozzles (Segi – C12, L37-39; C13, L43-45: helium).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the motivation to combine as supplied by Segi is not dependent on the type of gases ejected or the processes performed and, in view of all the above, is proper.”
In addition to the above, the Examiner notes Applicant merely concludes that: “Segi discloses dedicated components for specific gas types, contradicting any suggestion that components can be arbitrarily interchanged” (Remarks, pg. 13) without sufficient logical underpinnings.
Particularly, the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence from Segi that a PHOSITA would be deterred from using its teachings in the combination proposed by the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments amount to mere attorney allegations, which the courts have held is insufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness where factual evidence is required. See MPEP 2145(I).
In addition to the portions of Segi as cited previously by the Examiner (reproduced above), Segi states (C7, L5) that an object of the disclosure is to: “provide a plasma treating apparatus comprising…a gas feed pipe for introducing a gas into the reaction chamber” (emphasis added). The broad recitation of “a gas” is considered to be further basis for the Examiner’s conclusion that Segi is not so limited to only film-formation gases.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument that: “Segi discloses dedicated components for specific gas types” (Remarks, pg. 13) is an improper extension of the specific teachings of Segi. The word “dedicated” does not appear in Segi, nor does the disclosure appear to provide any explicit teaching that components can’t be interchanged or used for another purpose.
Regarding Applicant’s discussion of the portion of Segi talking about helium (Remarks, pg. 13-14), the Examiner merely cited that portion of Segi to demonstrate that in terms of chemical compatibility, the Segi nozzle would be capable of providing for inert gases as disclosed in Noda.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the film formation example as disclosed by Segi does not appear to constitute an express teaching that the nozzle disclosed therein can only be used for a film formation process, contrary to Applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of expertise in a variety of disciplines. By logical extension, the Examiner respectfully submits that the high level of skill of a PHOSITA in the CVD arts would naturally lend itself to creative applications of the prior art beyond any exemplary processes explicitly disclosed in the reference.
The courts have held that: “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141(II)(C).
In response to applicant's argument that the instant invention contemplates inert gas purging for preventing reaction by-product adherence (Remarks, pg. 14), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Third, Applicant alleges (Remarks, pgs. 15-17) that none of Noda, Segi, or White teach the features of amended claim 1 relating to the flow rates of the first/second ejection holes. Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees.
As stated in the body of the rejection of claim 1, the limitation in question is construed in light of the disclosure as requiring where the number/diameter of the first ejection holes is larger than those of the second ejection holes (par. [0068], instant PG-Pub). In accordance, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s requirement of explicit disclosure of this flow rate relationship is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as read in light of the instant disclosure.
As stated herein, White does not appear to explicitly teach the added limitations of claim 1 (relative flow rates of first/second gas holes), but does teach wherein the position, spacing, shape, size, and number of gas injection holes may vary as desired depending on the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of expertise in a variety of disciplines. As such, the straightforward teachings of White would appear to reasonably convey to a PHOSITA that selection of the size, number, position, spacing, and shape of gas holes would be obvious in order to compensate for the configuration of the tubes, the processing chamber, and the process being performed (White – [0048]).
Presented with an apparatus similar to Noda modified by Segi, the Examiner respectfully submits that arranging the first/second ejection holes in the claimed arrangement would amount to an obvious matter of 1) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and/or 2) applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718