DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15-17 is/are amended; claim(s) 3, 10-11 was/were cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 2-3, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 15, 17 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20050045105 to Choi.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Supporting unit (any structure that supports a substrate, includes at least one mounting member, para. [0027-0028], [0030]) in claims 1-16.
Gas injection unit (injection module, injection body or module body, sealing member, injections holes, para. [0033], [0034], [0036], [0051]) in claims 1-16.
Mounting member (any structure that includes a mounting groove, para. [0028]) in claims 9, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Protrusion member (appears to be a structure that protrudes, but no recited structure in the specification, para. [0083]) in claims 10-12.
Module body (appears to be a body of an injection module, but no recited structure in the specification, para. [0051]) in claim 5.
Injection body (appears to be a body of an injection module, but no recited structure in the specification, para. [0034]) in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160153086 to Kwak in view of KR 20140033659A to Lee, US 20130012029 to Vermeer, US 20050045105 to Choi.
Claim 1: Kwak discloses an apparatus for processing substrate, the apparatus comprising: a supporting unit (interpreted as 110 [substrate supporter], Fig. 1) for supporting a substrate; a lid (130 [chamber lid]) disposed apart from the supporting unit (110) in an upward direction (Fig. 1);
a first gas injection unit (144 [first gas distributing means]) coupled to the lid (130) to inject a first gas into a first region (para. [0046]); a second gas injection unit (146 [second gas distributing means]) coupled to the lid to inject a second gas into a second region (para. [0052]); a purge gas unit (142 [space separating means]) coupled to the lid (130) to inject a purge gas into a third region disposed between the first region and the second region (para. [0042]); and
However Kwak does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) a bottom surface of the second gas injection unit is disposed apart from the supporting unit by a distance which is 3 to 15 times a distance by which the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit is apart from the supporting unit (claim 2) wherein the bottom surface of the second gas injection unit is disposed apart from a bottom surface of the lid in the upward direction, and the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit is disposed apart from the bottom surface of the lid in a downward direction opposite to the upward direction;
(claim 4) wherein the first gas injection unit injects the first gas into the first region having a less volume than a volume of the second region into which the second gas injection unit injects the second gas; (claim 7) wherein a bottom surface of the purge gas unit is disposed apart from the supporting unit by a shorter distance than a distance by which the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit is apart from the supporting unit; (claim 8) wherein a bottom surface of the purge gas unit and the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit are disposed apart from the supporting unit by the same distance.
However, Lee teaches that the bottom surface (bottom of 414 [sidewalls], Fig. 6) of the various gas injection module frames (402-408) may have different heights from the lower surface of the chamber for the purpose of having different distances from the substrates (para. [0076]). It is noted that Lee also teaches that the height distances between the substrate temperature control modules (adjacent the injection modules, Fig. 6, 15-18) and the substrates are set differently for the purpose of minimizing the temperature non-uniformity of the substrate (para. [0130]), which bolsters the obviousness of having differing height for various structures above the substrate. Additionally, the courts have held that “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept teaching of Lee with motivation to have different distances from the substrates, which is bolstered by Lee teaching various structures can have different height different from the substrates with motivation to minimize the temperature non-uniformity of the substrate.
The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee discloses (Claim 1) the first gas injection unit (144, Fig. 9, Kwak) injects a precursor constituting a source material of a thin film deposited on the substrate as the first gas into the first region (para. [0046]), the second gas injection unit (146) injects a reactant gas as the second gas into the second region.
However the apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee does not disclose first region is disposed between the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit and the supporting unit, the second region is disposed between the bottom surface of the second gas injection unit and the supporting unit.
Vermeer discloses the first region (18 [deposition cavity], Fig. 5) is disposed between the bottom surface of the first gas injection unit (bottom of 104 [apparatus head] by 18) and the supporting unit (41 [substrate table]), the second region (18’ [deposition cavity]) is disposed between the bottom surface of the second gas injection unit (bottom of 104 by 18’) and the supporting unit (41), for the purpose of having efficient values (para. [0148]), and securing an optimal working height of the head to the substrate (para. [0095]).
It is noted that Vermeer teaches that the plasma/reactant section (18’) can have a similar height to the precursor section (18) or it can be different (larger or smaller than) from the height of the precursor section (18, para. [0148]) which is a results effective variable teaching. The courts have held that “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of heights of the two sections as taught by Vermeer with motivation to have efficient values, and securing an optimal working height of the head to the substrate.
However the apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer does not disclose a protrusion member is disposed in the third region to protrude from a top surface of the supporting unit in the upward direction, and wherein the protrusion member comprises a first gas groove provided between the first region and a third region, and a second gas groove provided between the second region and the third region.
Choi discloses a protrusion member (14 [partition], Fig. 3-5) is disposed in the third region (central regions and regions between first and second regions) to protrude from a top surface of the supporting unit (top of 10 [main substrate holder]) in the upward direction (Fig. 3), and wherein the protrusion member (14) comprises a first gas groove (first gas groove is area between sidewall of 14 facing front/first region 11’s [secondary substrate holders] and central region) provided between the first region and a third region, and a second gas groove (second gas groove is area between sidewall of 14 facing back/second region 11’s [secondary substrate holders] and central region, Fig. 3) provided between the second region and the third region, for the purpose of independently performing different processes on the respective substrates (para. [0030]). It is noted that 11’s are raised as well, thus a groove exists between respective 14 and 11’s (Fig. 1b, 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the protrusion member with gas groove portions as taught by Choi with motivation to independently perform different processes on the respective substrates.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi discloses wherein the first gas injection unit (144, Fig. 9, Kwak) comprises: a module body (210/230 [housing]/[gas distribution pattern member]) coupled to the lid (130); and a plurality of first injection holes (232 [gas distribution pattern of holes]) provided in the module body to inject the first gas into the first region (para. [0092-0093], and
wherein the second gas injection unit (146) comprises: a first electrode (320 [second electrode frame]) where a plurality of second injection holes (327 [gas distributing holes]) injecting the second gas are formed, the first electrode (320) being coupled to a plurality of protrusion electrodes (PE [protruding electrodes]); and a second electrode (310 [first electrode frame]) where a plurality of openings (EIP [electrode inserting portions]) are provided at positions corresponding to the plurality of protrusion electrodes (PE, para. [0109]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi discloses wherein the second gas injection unit (146, Fig. 11, Kwak) injects the second gas into a separation space (323 [gas supply flow path]) between the first electrode (320) and the second electrode (310, para. [0109]).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee discloses wherein the purge gas unit (142, Fig. 1, Kwak) comprises a purge body (142) disposed apart from the third region in the upward direction and coupled to the lid (130), the purge body (142) comprises a first purge body (142b [second purge gas distributing frame]) disposed to correspond to a center region of the third region (Fig. 1), and a second purge body (142a [first purge gas distributing frame]) disposed in one region of the third region through which the substrate (10) passes in moving from the first region to the second region (Fig. 1, para. [0044]).
Claim 15: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi discloses wherein the supporting unit (120, Fig. 1, Kwak) is rotatable (para. [0037], Kwak).
However the apparatus does not explicitly discloses the supporting unit is rotatable at a fixed rotation angle with respect to a rotation shaft of the supporting unit in moving the substrate from the first region to the second region and rotates the supporting unit at a variable rotation angle differing from the fixed rotation angle in moving the substrate from the second region to the first region.
Yet Kwak teaches the substrate supporter (120) is rotated to a predetermined direction, and moved in accordance with a predetermined order for the purpose of the substrate being sequentially exposed to the process gases respectively distributed from the gas distributing parts to the first and second reaction spaces (112 and 114, para. [0039]). Further as noted above in claim 1, the rotation would necessarily start and stop as needed before, during, and after deposition, which is an obvious feature and intended use of the system. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 17: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee discloses wherein the supporting unit is rotatable, so that the substrate is moved between the first region and the second region (para. [0037], Kwak),
Regarding the limitation, and stops the rotation of the supporting unit while a processing using the first gas is being performed in the first region and a processing using the second gas is being performed in the second region, the apparatus of Kwak teaches rotating the supporter in a predetermined direction by rotation of the rotation axis, and the rotation would necessarily start and stop as needed before, during, and after deposition (para. [0039], [0057] for example), which is an obvious feature and intended use of the system. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15, 17 above, and further in view of US 20130213300 to Sung.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee does not disclose wherein the supporting unit comprises a mounting member protruding from a top surface of the supporting unit in the upward direction, for placing a top surface of the substrate at a position apart from the top surface of the supporting unit.
Sung discloses wherein the supporting unit (400/200A/B [wafer carrier], Fig. 1-8) comprises a mounting member (300 [pockets]) protruding from a top surface of the supporting unit (top of 400 [carrier body]) in the upward direction (see Fig. 4-5), for placing a top surface of the substrate (500 [wafer]) at a position apart from the top surface of the supporting unit (400) for the purpose of having different structures according to the positions of the pockets, thus achieving uniform growth of a material on the surface of wafers (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mounting member as taught by Sung with motivation to have different structures according to the positions of the pockets, thus achieving uniform growth of a material on the surface of wafers.
Claims 10-11: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15, 17 above, and further in view of US 20130213300 to Sung, US 20090324828 to Kato.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee does not disclose further comprising a protrusion member disposed in the third region to protrude from a top surface of the supporting unit in the upward direction, wherein the supporting unit comprises a mounting member disposed apart from the protrusion member to protrude from the top surface of the supporting unit in the upward direction, and the protrusion member and the mounting member each comprise an outer surface facing the first gas grooves and the second gas groove.
Sung discloses wherein the supporting unit (400/200A/B [wafer carrier], Fig. 1-8) comprises a mounting member (300 [pockets]) protruding from a top surface of the supporting unit (top of 400 [carrier body]) in the upward direction (see Fig. 4-5) for the purpose of having different structures according to the positions of the pockets, thus achieving uniform growth of a material on the surface of wafers (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mounting member as taught by Sung with motivation to have different structures according to the positions of the pockets, thus achieving uniform growth of a material on the surface of wafers.
Kato discloses further comprising a protrusion member (21) disposed in the third region to protrude from a top surface of the supporting unit (top of 2) in the upward direction, wherein the supporting unit (2), for the purpose of allowing separation gas to flow through, thus reactions gases cannot be mixed through the center of the supporting unit (para. [0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the components above as taught by Kato with motivation to allow separation gas to flow through, thus reactions gases cannot be mixed through the center of the supporting unit.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15, 17 above, and further in view of US 20060073276 to Antonissen.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee discloses wherein the purge gas unit (142, Fig. 1, Kwak) comprises a purge body (142) disposed apart from the third region in the upward direction and coupled to the lid (130), the purge body (142) comprises a first purge body (142b [second purge gas distributing frame]) disposed to correspond to a center region of the third region (Fig. 1), and a third purge body (142a [first purge gas distributing frame]) disposed in the other region of the third region through which the substrate (10) passes in moving from the second region to the first region (Fig. 1, para. [0044]).
However the apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee does not disclose and a window for measuring a temperature of the substrate passing through the other region is coupled to the third purge body.
Antonissen teaches that the apparatus can be designed to include a measurement window or other monitoring devices for the purpose of making optical measurements, such as optical pyrometry to monitor the wafer (para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the window as taught by Antonissen with motivation to make optical measurements, such as optical pyrometry to monitor the wafer.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Lee, Vermeer, Choi as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15, 17 above, and further in view of KR20170131318A to Han.
Claim 16: The apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee discloses wherein the first gas injection unit (140, Fig. 1, Kwak) comprises: a plurality of first injection modules (144a/144b) injecting the first gas into the first region where a plurality of substrates are disposed (para. [0046-0048); a first injection body (140) coupled to the plurality of first injection modules (144);
However the apparatus of Kwak in view of Lee does not disclose wherein a gap between the first injection body and the lid is sealed around outer portions of the plurality of first injection modules.
Han discloses wherein a gap between the first injection body (141 [injection frame]) and the lid (130 [chamber lid]) is sealed around (para. [0057]) outer portions of the plurality of first injection modules (141), for the purpose of serving to seal between the gas injection frame and the chamber lid (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sealing as taught by Han with motivation to serve to seal between the gas injection frame and the chamber lid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210193501 discloses a protruding member (8, Fig. 17-18) and a mounting member (2 [supporting parts]) which have a groove (SD [second distance]) between them (para. [0095]); same assignee. US 20150211124 discloses (fig. 1) where a plasma reaction space (space of 22) is visibly larger in height than a precursor space (space of 12), but not explicitly stated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights