DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 2/2/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 and 10-24 are pending.
Claim 6 is withdrawn.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are 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 1-4, 7, 10, 17-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US Pub. 2013/0284213) in view of Kessler (US Patent 4,745,272) and deVilliers (US Pub. 2018/0047563).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Hachiya teaches an apparatus for treating a surface of a substrate ([0039] and Fig. 1, apparatus #10 for wafer W), comprising an injecting assembly ([0041] and Fig. 1, nozzle unit #20) that comprises a nozzle ([0072] and Fig. 12, twin fluid nozzle #134) formed with: a mixture inlet formed at a top surface of the nozzle (Fig. 12, inlet #146 formed in close proximity/”at” a top-most surface of #142 as well as a top peripheral surface higher than #146), a mixture chamber communicating with the mixture inlet (Fig. 12, portion of #144 at the right angle), a mixture channel ([0073] and Fig. 12, liquid flow path #144; [0003] describes SPM fluid as a mixture of sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide); one to three mixture openings communicating with the mixture channel ([0074] and Fig. 12, one to three of the liquid discharging ports #147); a shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, inlet #149); a shaper chamber communicating with the shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, upper part of #145); a shaper channel ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas holes #150 and lower portion of path #145), wherein a width of the shaper chamber is larger than a width of the shaper inlet and the shaper channel (see annotated Fig. 12 below, B larger than A and C); and a shaper opening ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas discharging port #152).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein the mixture inlet is formed through a top surface of the nozzle (Hachiya appears to teach wherein the inlet is formed through a side surface).
However, Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the position of the mixture inlet of Hachiya from a side to a top surface, since Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
For clarity of the record, the claim limitations “configured to pass a mixture of a precursor and a supercritical fluid”, “configured to periodically inject waves of the mixture toward the surface of the substrate”, “configured to pass a shaping fluid”, and “configured to inject a stream of the shaping fluid toward the substrate at a shaper opening of the injecting assembly surrounding the mixture opening to confine the waves and increase a pressure of the waves on the substrate” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Hachiya apparatus is capable of supplying strong chemical agents ([0003]) at high temperature ([0004]) with a gas ([0046]) in the same configuration as the claimed invention (Fig. 12, see [0073]-[0075]) with the same structural features of the nozzle, thus is regarding as capable of utilizing other chemical precursors and supercritical fluids. Hachiya also teaches wherein the nozzle in Fig. 12 generates a substantially similar spray ([0076]), thus would be capable of forming the periodically generated “waves” of the instant claim (see instant Fig. 1, #135).
Modified Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein a width of the mixture inlet across a direction is a first width, a width of the mixture chamber across the same direction is a second width wider than the first width, and a width of the mixture channel across the same first direction is a third width smaller than the second width (as well as the diameter language of claim 24 in view of this limitation).
However, deVilliers teaches this limitation (deVilliers – Fig. 6, inlet #116 and outlet #117 are smaller than central region of #115).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus with the dispensing structure of deVilliers in order to provide specified dispensing rates with digital control (deVilliers – [0005]) that can reduce process defects ([0007]) and gas dissolution ([0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Hachiya teaches an apparatus for treating a surface of a substrate ([0039] and Fig. 1, apparatus #10 for wafer W), comprising an injecting assembly ([0041] and Fig. 1, nozzle unit #20) that comprises a nozzle ([0072] and Fig. 12, twin fluid nozzle #134) formed with: a mixture inlet formed at a top surface of the nozzle (Fig. 12, inlet #146 formed in close proximity/”at” a top-most surface of #142 as well as a top peripheral surface higher than #146), a mixture chamber communicating with the mixture inlet (Fig. 12, portion of #144 at the right angle), a mixture channel ([0073] and Fig. 12, liquid flow path #144; [0003] describes SPM fluid as a mixture of sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide); one to three mixture openings communicating with the mixture channel ([0074] and Fig. 12, three of the liquid discharging ports #147); a shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, inlet #149); a shaper chamber communicating with the shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, upper part of #145); a shaper channel ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas holes #150 and lower portion of path #145), wherein a width of the shaper chamber is larger than a width of the shaper inlet and the shaper channel (see annotated Fig. 12 below, B larger than A and C); and a generator ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas discharging port #152).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein the mixture inlet is formed through a top surface of the nozzle (Hachiya appears to teach wherein the inlet is formed through a side surface).
However, Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the position of the mixture inlet of Hachiya from a side to a top surface, since Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
For clarity of the record, the claim limitations “configured to pass a mixture of a precursor and a supercritical fluid”, “configured to periodically inject waves of the mixture toward the surface of the substrate”, and “configured to inject a reactant precursor toward the substrate, molecules of the reactant precursor reacting with molecules of the precursor that penetrate into the substrate to transform the molecules of the precursor into a solid state” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Hachiya apparatus is capable of supplying strong chemical agents ([0003]) at high temperature ([0004]) with a gas ([0046]) in the same configuration as the claimed invention (Fig. 12, see [0073]-[0075]) with the same structural features of the nozzle, thus is regarding as capable of utilizing other chemical precursors and supercritical fluids. Hachiya also teaches wherein the nozzle in Fig. 12 generates a substantially similar spray ([0076]), thus would be capable of forming the periodically generated “waves” of the instant claim (see instant Fig. 1, #135).
Modified Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein a width of the mixture inlet across a direction is a first width, a width of the mixture chamber across the same direction is a second width wider than the first width, and a width of the mixture channel across the same first direction is a third width smaller than the second width.
However, deVilliers teaches this limitation (deVilliers – Fig. 6, inlet #116 and outlet #117 are smaller than central region of #115).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus with the dispensing structure of deVilliers in order to provide specified dispensing rates with digital control (deVilliers – [0005]) that can reduce process defects ([0007]) and gas dissolution ([0008]).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, to clarify the record, the entire claims are merely an intended use and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The modified Hachiya apparatus would be capable of being “placed under atmospheric pressure” if the apparatus #10 were placed inside a vessel or room at normal pressure. Further, the nozzle would be capable of supplying fluids at atmospheric pressure since Hachiya discloses a similar operational pressure ([0048]: 0.2-0.3 MPa, where ~0.1 MPa is a standard atmosphere).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, to clarify the record, the entire claims are merely an intended use and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The modified Hachiya apparatus would be capable of supplying a first and second fluid at any relative rates (and pressures) due to the flow control valves connecting various fluids to the nozzle ([0048] and Fig. 1, flow control valves #22f-24f).
Regarding claim 4, Hachiya teaches wherein the shaper chamber ([0075] and Fig. 12, upper part of gas flow path #145 above part #151) is connected to the shaper channel (Fig. 12, connected to #150 and lower part of #145), the shaping fluid flowing from the shaper chamber to the shaper opening through the shaper channel ([0075]), the shaper chamber having a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of the shaper channel for decreasing a pressure of the flow of the shaping fluid (see Fig. 12, reduced diameter of holes #150 and decreased cross-section of the lower volume #145).
Regarding claim 7, Hachiya teaches a stream controller that comprises a cap fitting attached on the injecting assembly for shaping the waves of the mixture ([0073] and Fig. 12, cover #143), the stream controller arranged on top of the mixture opening along a flowing direction of the mixture (see Fig. 12, arranged in the same way as #440 in instant Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 10, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The modified Hachiya apparatus would be capable of dispensing any number of chemical species as the shaping fluid- Hachiya merely lists N2 as an example (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Hachiya teaches wherein the nozzle is further formed with: a shaper opening ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas discharging port #152).
For clarity of the record, the claim limitations “configured to pass a shaping fluid” and “configured to inject a stream of the shaping fluid toward the substrate at a shaper opening of the injecting assembly surrounding the one to three mixture openings to confine the waves” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses.
The modified Hachiya apparatus is capable of supplying strong chemical agents ([0003]) at high temperature ([0004]) with a gas ([0046]) in the same configuration as the claimed invention (Fig. 12, see [0073]-[0075]) with the same structural features of the nozzle, thus is regarding as capable of utilizing other chemical precursors and supercritical fluids. Hachiya also teaches wherein the nozzle in Fig. 12 generates a substantially similar spray ([0076]), thus would be capable of forming the periodically generated “waves” of the instant claim (see instant Fig. 1, #135).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, to clarify the record, the entire claims are merely an intended use and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Modified Hachiya would be capable of performing the “or for mixing an additional precursor with the supercritical fluid” portion of the claims since the fluid supplied by the inlet #145 (see Hachiya Fig. 12) is stated to be sulfuric acid/hydrogen peroxide mixture (SPM, see par. [0003]). As such, the “mixture chamber” portion of the line #144 would be capable of mixing any additional chemical species that would be inlet to #146 due to its capability of already passing a mixed chemical species and due to the sharp right-angled turn, which would cause turbulent flow/mixing during the turn.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US Pub. 2013/0284213), Kessler (US Patent 4,756,272), and deVilliers (US Pub. 2018/0047563), as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 10, 17-21, and 23-24 above, further in view of Verhaverbeke (US Pub. 2002/0063169).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 7, 10, 17-21, and 23-24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hachiya does not teach the added limitation of the claim.
However, Verhaverbeke teaches wherein the injecting assembly further comprises one or more additional nozzles, the one or more additional nozzles and the nozzle arranged along a straight line (Verhaverbeke – [0025] and Fig. 3, plurality of nozzles #114).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus to comprise a linear array of nozzles in order to achieve high processing uniformity while reducing chemical consumption (Verhaverbeke – [0024]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US Pub. 2013/0284213), Kessler (US Patent 4,756,272), and deVilliers (US Pub. 2018/0047563), as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 10, 17-21, and 23-24 above, further in view of Girard (US Pub. 2016/0111272).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 7, 10, 17-21, and 23-24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hachiya does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Girard teaches a plasma generator configured to generate plasma radicals (Girard – [0327] and Fig. 17, RF generator #106).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus to include a plasma generator since Girard teaches that it was known in the art for plasma processing to accompany SCF deposition processing for semiconductor manufacturing (Girard – [0255]).
The remainder of the claim: “the plasma radicals reacting with molecules of the precursor that penetrate into the substrate to transform the molecules of the precursor into a solid state” is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus. The modified Hachiya apparatus, particularly the ports #147, would be capable of dispensing any number of chemical species- Hachiya merely lists sulfuric acid as an example of such a species (see [0049]).
Claims 11-13, 15-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US Pub. 2013/0284213) in view of Kessler (US Patent 4,756,272), deVilliers (US Pub. 2018/0047563), and Girard (US Pub. 2016/0111272).
Regarding claim 11, Hachiya teaches an apparatus for treating a surface of a substrate ([0039] and Fig. 1, apparatus #10 for wafer W), comprising: an injecting assembly ([0041] and Fig. 1, nozzle unit #20) that comprises a nozzle ([0072] and Fig. 12, twin fluid nozzle #134) formed with: a mixture inlet formed at a top surface of the nozzle (Fig. 12, inlet #146 formed in close proximity/”at” a top-most surface of #142 as well as a top peripheral surface higher than #146), a mixture chamber communicating with the mixture inlet (Fig. 12, portion of #144 at the right angle), a mixture channel ([0073] and Fig. 12, liquid flow path #144; [0003] describes SPM fluid as a mixture of sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide), and one to three mixture opening communicating with the mixture channel ([0074] and Fig. 12, three of the liquid discharging ports #147); a shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, inlet #149); a shaper chamber communicating with the shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, upper part of #145); a shaper channel ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas holes #150 and lower portion of path #145), wherein a width of the shaper chamber is larger than a width of the shaper inlet and the shaper channel (see annotated Fig. 12 below, B larger than A and C).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein the mixture inlet is formed through a top surface of the nozzle (Hachiya appears to teach wherein the inlet is formed through a side surface).
However, Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the position of the mixture inlet of Hachiya from a side to a top surface, since Kessler teaches wherein the position of a fluid inlet is an obvious matter of design choice (Kessler – C2, L58-61 and Fig. 2, positions of the inlet ports #34 “are left up to the designer”).
Modified Hachiya does not appear to teach wherein a width of the mixture inlet across a direction is a first width, a width of the mixture chamber across the same direction is a second width wider than the first width, and a width of the mixture channel across the same first direction is a third width smaller than the second width.
However, deVilliers teaches this limitation (deVilliers – Fig. 6, inlet #116 and outlet #117 are smaller than central region of #115).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus with the dispensing structure of deVilliers in order to provide specified dispensing rates with digital control (deVilliers – [0005]) that can reduce process defects ([0007]) and gas dissolution ([0008]).
Modified Hachiya does not teach a plasma generator configured to generate plasma radicals, the plasma radicals reacting with molecules of the precursor that penetrate into the substrate to transform the molecules of the precursor into a solid state.
However, Girard teaches a plasma generator configured to generate plasma radicals (Girard – [0327] and Fig. 17, RF generator #106).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus to include a plasma generator since Girard teaches that it was known in the art for plasma processing to accompany SCF deposition processing for semiconductor manufacturing (Girard – [0255]).
For clarity of the record, the claim limitations “configured to pass a mixture of a precursor and a supercritical fluid”, “configured to inject waves of the mixture toward the surface of the substrate”, and “the plasma radicals reacting with molecules of the precursor that penetrate into the substrate to transform the molecules of the precursor into a solid state” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Hachiya apparatus is capable of supplying strong chemical agents ([0003]) at high temperature ([0004]) with a gas ([0046]) in the same configuration as the claimed invention (Fig. 12, see [0073]-[0075]) with the same structural features of the nozzle, thus is regarding as capable of utilizing other chemical precursors and supercritical fluids. Hachiya also teaches wherein the nozzle in Fig. 12 generates a substantially similar spray ([0076]), thus would be capable of forming the periodically generated “waves” of the instant claim (see instant Fig. 1, #135). Additionally, as modified by Girard, the Hachiya apparatus (particularly the ports #147) would be capable of dispensing any number of chemical species including plasma- Hachiya merely lists sulfuric acid as an example of such a species (see [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The modified Hachiya apparatus would be capable of being “placed under atmospheric pressure” if the apparatus #10 were placed inside a vessel or room at normal pressure. Further, the nozzle would be capable of supplying fluids at atmospheric pressure since Hachiya discloses a similar operational pressure ([0048]: 0.2-0.3 MPa, where ~0.1 MPa is a standard atmosphere).
Regarding claim 13, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The modified Hachiya apparatus would be capable of supplying a first and second fluid at any relative rates (and pressures) due to the flow control valves connecting various fluids to the nozzle ([0048] and Fig. 1, flow control valves #22f-24f).
Regarding claim 15, Hachiya teaches wherein the nozzle is further formed with: a shaper opening ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas discharging port #152).
For clarity of the record, the claim limitations “configured to pass a shaping fluid” and “configured to inject a stream of the shaping fluid toward the substrate at a shaper opening of the injecting assembly surrounding the one to three mixture openings to confine the waves” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The modified Hachiya apparatus is capable of supplying strong chemical agents ([0003]) at high temperature ([0004]) with a gas ([0046]) in the same configuration as the claimed invention (Fig. 12, see [0073]-[0075]) with the same structural features of the nozzle, thus is regarding as capable of utilizing other chemical precursors and supercritical fluids. Hachiya also teaches wherein the nozzle in Fig. 12 generates a substantially similar spray ([0076]), thus would be capable of forming the periodically generated “waves” of the instant claim (see instant Fig. 1, #135).
Regarding claim 16, Hachiya teaches a stream controller that comprises a cap fitting attached on the injecting assembly for shaping the waves of the mixture ([0073] and Fig. 12, cover #143), the stream controller arranged on top of the one to three mixture openings along a flowing direction of the mixture (see Fig. 12, arranged in the same way as #440 in instant Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 22, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Modified Hachiya would be capable of performing the “or for mixing an additional precursor with the supercritical fluid” portion of the claims since the fluid supplied by the inlet #145 (see Hachiya Fig. 12) is stated to be sulfuric acid/hydrogen peroxide mixture (SPM, see par. [0003]). As such, the “mixture chamber” portion of the line #144 would be capable of mixing any additional chemical species that would be inlet to #146 due to its capability of already passing a mixed chemical species and due to the sharp right-angled turn, which would cause turbulent flow/mixing during the turn.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US Pub. 2013/0284213), Kessler (US Patent 4,756,272), deVilliers (US Pub. 2018/0047563), and Girard (US Pub. 2016/0111272), as applied to claims 11-13, 15-16, and 22 above, further in view of Verhaverbeke (US Pub. 2002/0063169).
The limitations of claims 11-13, 15-16, and 22 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hachiya does not teach the added limitation of the claim.
However, Verhaverbeke teaches wherein the injecting assembly further comprises one or more additional nozzles, the one or more additional nozzles and the nozzle arranged along a straight line (Verhaverbeke – [0025] and Fig. 3, plurality of nozzles #114).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hachiya apparatus to comprise a linear array of nozzles in order to achieve high processing uniformity while reducing chemical consumption (Verhaverbeke – [0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. All §103 rejections are maintained herein with minor modifications to address the most recent amendments.
Applicant’s only rebuttal to the Examiner’s previous position in light of the most recent amendments is a conclusory statement: “Hachiya does not teach a shaper inlet and a shaper chamber communicating with the shaper inlet, where a width of the shaper chamber is larger than a width of the shaper inlet and the shaper channel” (Remarks, pg. 10). No arguments have been presented to the structure of Hachiya and how they could potentially read on the amended claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion.
In an extension of the Hachiya structure mapped to the “shaper” structures in previous Office actions, the Examiner respectfully submits that Hachiya teaches the following (reproduced from the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 17 herein):
a shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, inlet #149); a shaper chamber communicating with the shaper inlet ([0075] and Fig. 12, upper part of #145); a shaper channel ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas holes #150 and lower portion of path #145), wherein a width of the shaper chamber is larger than a width of the shaper inlet and the shaper channel (see annotated Fig. 12 below, B larger than A and C); and a shaper opening ([0075] and Fig. 12, gas discharging port #152).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, Applicant’s conclusory statement appears to be false and Hachiya appears to meet the added limitations of at least claims 1, 11, and 17.
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
Prosecution Insights