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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 15-18, 20, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu; Taiquing T. et al. (US 20070137794 A1) in view of Takagi; Kosuke et al. (US 20180274098 A1). Qiu teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) installed so as to surround a boat (106; Figure 20) and provided with an exhaust hole (254; Figure 28) through which a gas is exhausted along a direction orthogonal to an arrangement direction of substrates in the boat (106; Figure 20); a buffer structure (262; Figure 20-30-Applicant’s 204a; Figure 2) protruding outward from a cylindrical portion of the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2); a first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) extending to a first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) through a second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) from a third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) in the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) comprising first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) arranged within the first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) and configured to discharge the first mixed gas of the two process gases, none of the first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) being arranged within the second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) or the third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment); a second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) disposed along and adjacent to the first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) in the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) and extending from the third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) to the second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) comprising second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) arranged within the second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), which is lower than the first zone and configured to discharge the second mixed gas of the two process gases; none of the second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) being arranged within the first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) or the third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), and a third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) disposed along and adjacent to the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) in the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) and comprising third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) arranged within a third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) and configured to discharge the third mixed gas of the two process gases; and the second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) and the third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) are directed to (α,β; Figure 30) respective parts of an inner wall (232; Figure 20-30) of the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2), and wherein a first angle (0º<α<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) between a direction of the first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) and a direction of an imaginary line connecting a center of the first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and a center of the substrates (Figure 29), when viewed from above, a second angle (0º<β<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) between a direction of the second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) and a direction of an imaginary line connecting a center of the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and the center of the substrates (Figure 29), when viewed from above, and a third angle (0º<angle of not shown third nozzle <180º; Figure 29) between a direction of the third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) and a direction of an imaginary line connecting a center of the third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) and the center of the substrates (Figure 29), when viewed from above are set to fall within a range greater than 90º and less than 270º, wherein a wall of the buffer structure (262; Figure 20-30-Applicant’s 204a; Figure 2) comprises a radially outward wall portion and side wall portions extending between both outer sides of the radially outward wall portion, wherein the first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and the third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) are sequentially arranged in the buffer structure (262; Figure 20-30-Applicant’s 204a; Figure 2) in aforementioned order, and wherein the first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) and the second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) are directed to (α,β; Figure 30) one of the side wall portions so that the mixed gases tend to collide vertically with an inner lateral face of the buffer structure (262; Figure 20-30-Applicant’s 204a; Figure 2) without colliding with the other nozzles - claim 1. The above and below italicized claim text is considered intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims. For example, the claimed “substrate arrangement region” depends on how substrates are loaded into the claimed apparatus and is thus not a structural limitation for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Further, Applicant’s claim requirement of “…so that the mixed gas tends to collide vertically with an inner lateral face of the buffer structure without colliding with other nozzles” is met by the claimed apparatus. Notably, the Examiner’s cited equivalents Qiu’s for Qui’s nozzles each having the capacity to rotate along each axis creating angular injection profiles (α,β; Figure 30). For example, Qui’s nozzles can be rotated such that each nozzle’s corresponding injection holes can face each other. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Qiu further teaches:
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 , wherein an interval of the first and second and third discharge holes (252, 252’, third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is different from an arrangement interval of the substrates, and wherein a discharge direction of each of the first, second and third discharge holes (252, 252’, third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is substantially orthogonal to the arrangement direction of the substrates, as claimed by claim 2
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrates are arranged along a vertical direction, and wherein the first, second and third zones (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) are provided by dividing the substrate arrangement region in the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) along the arrangement direction of the substrates, and the first, second and third nozzles (251,251’,not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) are provided respectively for the first, second and third zones (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), as claimed by claim 8
wherein Qiu’s first, second and third zones (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) are provided by dividing the substrate arrangement region in Qiu’s reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) along Qiu’s arrangement direction of Qiu’s substrates, Qiu’s first, second and third nozzles (251, 251’, not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) are provided respectively for Qiu’s first, second and third zones (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), and a length of Qiu’s third supply pipe is set to be long enough for Qiu’s first gas and Qiu’s second gas to be uniformly mixed when Qiu’s first gas and Qiu’s second gas are supplied into Qiu’s substrate arrangement region through Qiu’s first and second nozzles (251, 251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) corresponding to Qiu’s first gas and Qiu’s second gas, respectively – claim 16
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the process gases comprise a halosilane-based gas and a hydrogen nitride-based gas, a silicon-rich silicon nitride film is formed on the substrates exposed to the mixed gas, and the process gases are capable of reacting with a solid by-product in the reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 20
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a diameter of each of the first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28), the second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) and the third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is sufficiently large to reduce an internal pressure in each of the first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and the third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) to a level at which a reaction of each of the first, second, and third mixed gases is suppressed, as claimed by claim 24.
wherein at least one of Qiu’s first, second, and third nozzles (251,252,not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is further configured to react Qiu’s first gas partially but not completely with Qiu’s second gas therein and discharge Qiu’s mixed gases with a mixing degree not suitable for Qiu’s substrate processing - claim 25
wherein Qiu’s process gases comprise a silicon source gas – claim 26
If the claimed limitation “configured to discharge a mixed gas” is considered a structural feature for the pending claims then Qiu does not teach equivalent structures for the use.
Qiu further does not teach the relative heights of Qiu’s nozzles (251,252,not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) as shown in Applicant’s Figure 10. As a result, Qiu does not teach:
Qiu’s first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) and Qiu’s second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) are directed to (α,β; Figure 30) one of the side wall portions across a space above Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”); three mixing structures (Applicant’s T-union 233a-c; Figure 2; [0038]) configured to generate a first, second and third mixed gases, respectively, outside Qiu’s reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2) by mixing two process gases for forming a film on the substrates, wherein the process gases react with each other; Qiu’s second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) arranged within a second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) lower than the first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) in the arrangement direction; wherein a top end (Applicant’s Figure 10) of Qiu’s second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) is positioned lower than the first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) such that all of Qiu’s first discharge holes (252; Figure 26-28) are located higher than the top end (Applicant’s Figure 10) of Qiu’s second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements); Qiu’s third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) arranged within a third zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) lower than Qiu’s second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) in the arrangement direction; none of Qiu’s third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) being arranged within Qiu’s first zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) or Qiu’s second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), wherein a top end (Applicant’s Figure 10) of Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is positioned lower than Qiu’s second zone (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment) such that all of Qiu’s second discharge holes (252’; Figure 26-28) are located higher than Qiu’s top end (Applicant’s Figure 10) of Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) – claim 1
Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein Qiu’s two process gases react with one another at an inner temperature of Qiu’s reaction tube (101+232; Figure 20,28-Applicant’s 210; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 23
Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 23 , further comprising: at least one gas supplier comprising: a first supply pipe connected to a supply source of a first gas among Qiu’s process gases; a second supply pipe connected to a supply source of a second gas among Qiu’s process gases; and a third supply pipe configured to fluidically communicate with one of the three mixing structures (Applicant’s T-union 233a-c; Figure 2; [0038]) and one of Qiu’s first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), Qiu’s second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”), wherein the mixing structure comprises a confluent portion at which the first supply pipe joins Qiu’s second supply pipe, as claimed by claim 12
Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, wherein a nominal diameter of each of Qiu’s first supply pipe and Qiu’s second supply pipe is half of a nominal diameter of Qiu’s third supply pipe, as claimed by claim 15
Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 12 , wherein the at least one gas supplier comprises a first gas supplier, a second gas supplier and a third gas supplier corresponding respectively to Qiu’s first nozzle (251; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), Qiu’s second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”), each of the first gas supplier, the second gas supplier and the third gas supplier comprises: a first flow controller disposed at the first supply pipe and configured to adjust a flow rate of the first gas; and a second flow controller disposed at the second supply pipe and configured to adjust a flow rate of the second gas, as claimed by claim 17
Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 17 , further comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
3
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller configured to control the first flow controller and the second flow controller of each of the first gas supplier, the second gas supplier and the third gas supplier so as to improve a uniformity of films between the first, second and third zones, as claimed by claim 18
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first angle (0º<α<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) and the second angle (0º<β<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) are substantially the same, as claimed by claim 27.
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 27, wherein the first angle (0º<α<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) and the second angle (0º<β<180º; [0029]; Figure 29) range from 90° to 270°, as claimed by claim 28. Claim 27+28 require claim 28’s range and claim 27’s “substantially same”
Takagi also teaches a vertically orientated reactor system (Figure 1,2,5) including nozzles (249a,b; Figure 7B,C,D) with variable zones (hole zones in 249a,b; Figure 7B,C,D; [0089]) and heights for the gas nozzles (249a,b; Figure 7B,C,D) and equivalent mixing structures (plural piping “ T ”; Figure 2-Applicant’s T-union 233a-c; Figure 2; [0038]) “configured to discharge a mixed gas”.
Takagi further teaches:
at least one gas supplier (all piping upstream of 210; Figure 2) comprising: a first supply pipe (piping feeding 249a; Figure 2) connected to a supply source of a first gas (232d,a; Figure 2) among Takagi’s process gases; a second supply pipe (piping feeding 249c; Figure 2) connected to a supply source of a second gas (232c,f; Figure 2) among Takagi’s process gases; and a third supply pipe (piping feeding 249b; Figure 2) configured to fluidically communicate with one of Takagi’s three mixing structures (“T” fittings; Figure 2) and one of Takagi’s first nozzle (249a; Figure 2,7A-E-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), Takagi’s second nozzle (249c; Figure 2,7A-E-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and Takagi’s third nozzle (249b; Figure 2,7A-E), wherein the mixing structure (“T” fittings; Figure 2) comprises a confluent portion (“T” fittings; Figure 2) at which the first supply pipe (piping feeding 249a; Figure 2) joins Takagi’s second supply pipe (piping feeding 249c; Figure 2) - claim 12
Takagi’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 12 , wherein Takagi’s at least one gas supplier (all piping upstream of 210; Figure 2) comprises a first gas supplier (piping upstream of 249a; Figure 2), a second gas supplier (piping upstream of 249c; Figure 2) and a third gas supplier (piping upstream of 249b; Figure 2) corresponding respectively to Takagi’s first nozzle (249a; Figure 2,7A-E-Applicant’s 249a; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements), Takagi’s second nozzle (249c; Figure 2,7A-E-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) and Takagi’s third nozzle (249b; Figure 2,7A-E), each of Takagi’s first gas supplier (piping upstream of 249a; Figure 2), Takagi’s second gas supplier (piping upstream of 249c; Figure 2) and Takagi’s third gas supplier (piping upstream of 249b; Figure 2) comprises: a first flow controller (241d,241a; Figure 2) installed at Takagi’s first supply pipe (piping feeding 249a; Figure 2) and configured to adjust a flow rate of Takagi’s first gas (232d,a; Figure 2); and a second flow controller (241c,241f; Figure 2) installed at Takagi’s second supply pipe (piping feeding 249c; Figure 2) and configured to adjust a flow rate of Takagi’s second gas (232c,f; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 17
Takagi’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 17, further comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
3
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller (121; Figure 1) configured to control Takagi’s first flow controller (241d,241a; Figure 2) and Takagi’s second flow controller (241c,241f; Figure 2) of each of Takagi’s first gas supplier (piping upstream of 249a; Figure 2), Takagi’s second gas supplier (piping upstream of 249c; Figure 2) and Takagi’s third gas supplier (piping upstream of 249b; Figure 2) so as to improve a uniformity of films between Takagi’s first, second and third zones (see Applicant’s 10/6/25 Figure 10 amendment), as claimed by claim 18
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Qiu to optimize Qiu’s relative nozzle heights and/or zones, including Qiu’s angles α,β, and for Qiu to add Takagi’s gas supplier (all piping upstream of 210; Figure 2) and controllers (121; Figure 1; 241a,d,c,f; Figure 2).
Motivation for Qiu to optimize Qiu’s relative nozzle heights and/or zones is at least for controlling “inter-wafer film thickness distribution” as taught by Takagi ([0087]-[0089]).
Motivation for Qiu to add Takagi’s gas supplier (all piping upstream of 210; Figure 2) and controllers (121; Figure 1; 241a,d,c,f; Figure 2) is for conducting process control recipes as taught by Takagi ([0035]-[0039]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu; Taiquing T. et al. (US 20070137794 A1) and Takagi; Kosuke et al. (US 20180274098 A1) in view of Fujino; Toshiki et al. (US 20170232457 A1). Qiu and Takagi are discussed above. Qiu and Takagi do not teach:
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the arrangement interval of the substrates is set to be constant, and wherein a maximum interval of the first, second and third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is set to be greater than the arrangement interval of the substrates, as claimed by claim 4
Fujino also teaches a vertically orientated reactor system (Figure 2) including nozzles (Figures 4, 7-17) with optimized discharge hole intervals and diameters as result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Qiu to optimize Qiu’s discharge hole intervals and diameters as taught by Fujino.
Motivation for Qiu to optimize Qiu’s discharge hole intervals and diameters as taught by Fujino is for at least “uniformize the flow rate” as taught by Fujino ([0035]-[0036]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu; Taiquing T. et al. (US 20070137794 A1) and Takagi; Kosuke et al. (US 20180274098 A1) in view of Fujikawa; Makoto et al. (US 20180264516 A1). Qiu and Takagi are discussed above.
Takagi’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 13, further comprising a port (350; Figure 1) provided at an end of Takagi’s third supply pipe (310c; Figure 1) located opposite to Takagi’s confluent portion (“T” fittings; Figure 2) and through which Takagi’s first gas (232d,a; Figure 2) and Takagi’s second gas (232c,f; Figure 2) merged with each other is introduced into a process furnace - claim 14
Qiu and Takagi do not teach Qiu’s substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a heater configured to heat at least a part of the third supply pipe to a predetermined temperature or higher, as claimed by claim 13
Qiu and Takagi further do not teach wherein the heater comprises a port heater configured to heat the port, as claimed by claim 14
Fujikawa was discussed in a prior action. Fujikawa further teaches Fujikawa’s substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,2,7; [0045]) comprising Fujikawa’s port heater (24; Figure 1) configured to heat at least a part of Fujikawa’s third supply pipe (44; Figure 1) to a predetermined temperature or higher – claim 13,14
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Qiu to add Fujikawa’s heater (24; Figure 1).
Motivation for Qiu to add Fujikawa’s heater (24; Figure 1) is for establishing a process temperature as taught by Fujikawa ([0042]).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu; Taiquing T. et al. (US 20070137794 A1) and Takagi; Kosuke et al. (US 20180274098 A1) in view of Hiramatsu; Hiroaki et al. (US 20200407851 A1). Qiu and Takagi do not teach the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) is a return nozzle comprising a tube with a down-turned portion, and the third discharge holes (third discharge holes of not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”) are provided at the down-turned portion, as claimed by claim 22
Hiramatsu was discussed in the prior action and further teaches the third nozzle (404c; Figure 7B) is a return nozzle comprising a tube with a down-turned portion, and the third discharge holes (232c; Figure 7B) are provided at the down-turned portion - claim 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Qiu to add Hiramatsu’s return nozzle as taught by Hiramatsu.
Motivation for Qiu to add Hiramatsu’s return nozzle as taught by Hiramatsu is for controlling film thickness uniformity along the stacking direction as taught by Hiramatsu ([0134]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Qiu only discloses nozzles that all have the same length as shown in FIGS. 22, 26 and 27. It neither teaches nor suggests arranging nozzles of different lengths together within a buffer structure. Qiu teaches injectors 251 and 251' to have the same length as depicted in FIGS. 22, 26 and 27. Regarding a third nozzle/injector, paragraph [0136] of Qiu states:"a third or more injectors are readily accommodated within individual bulging sections within a liner 332."Paragraph [0136] refers to FIGS. 37-39 that depict the injectors 251 and 251' shown in FIGS. 26 and 27. This infers that the third or more injectors of Qiu are each constructed similar to injectors 251 and 251', having the same length as injectors 251 and 251'.
In addition, Qiu mentions a "third injector" in claim 19, as "each of said third series of axially aligned orifices is in alignment with one of said plurality of wafer support positions." This is described in the same manner as the other nozzles in claims 1 and 2 of Qiu; therefore, these nozzles are interpreted as having the same length.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states:
“
Takagi also fails to disclose first, second and third nozzles having different lengths from one another within the reaction tube.
“
In response, Applicant is only partially correct because Takagi clearly illustrates pairs of nozzles in Figures 7c,d having unequal heights.
Applicant states:
“
As a mere example, both Qiu and Takagi fail to disclose a second nozzle having an intermediate length and supplying gas only to the second zone.
As noted above, a prima facie case of obviousness can only be established upon there being a comparison that includes all of the limitations of the subject claim(s). For reason that fewer than all of the limitations of claim 1 being individually or collectively found in Qiu and Takagi, claim 1 and each claim depending cannot be considered obvious in view of the cited references and is therefore patentable over the cited references.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states:
“
The structure disclosed in Qiu is not substantially identical to the structure recited in claim 21. Qiu fails to disclose first, second and third nozzles residing in a common buffer structure. Instead, Qiu teaches first, second and third or more injectors to reside within individual spaced- apart bulging sections. Qiu also fails to disclose the requirement that the first discharge holes and the second discharge holes be directed to one of the side wall portions across a space above the third nozzle. Because of these distinctions, Qiu cannot be considered to inherently disclose a result in which:"mixed gases tend to collide vertically with an inner lateral face of the buffer structure without colliding with the other nozzles".
“
In response, the Examiner reasserts the Examiner’s position that Applicant’s claim requirement of “…so that the mixed gas tends to collide vertically with an inner lateral face of the buffer structure without colliding with other nozzles” is met by the claimed apparatus. Notably, the Examiner’s cited equivalents Qiu’s for Qui’s nozzles each having the capacity to rotate along each axis creating angular injection profiles (α,β; Figure 30). For example, Qui’s nozzles can be rotated such that each nozzle’s corresponding injection holes can face each other. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant states:
“
It is also noteworthy that claim 1 recites the second nozzle is disposed along and adjacent to the first nozzle in the reaction tube, and that the third nozzle is disposed along and adjacent to the second nozzle in the reaction tube. Neither Qiu nor Takagi disclose such a feature. Takagi's nozzles 249c and 249b are intentionally spaced apart and are not adjacent to each other. As noted above, and with reference to paragraph [0136] of Qiu, in embodiments of Qiu possessing three or more injectors, the injectors reside in spaced-apart individual bulging sections within a liner 332.
“
In response, the Examiner again cites Qiu’s third nozzle (not shown 251/251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]-”third or more injectors..”; [0147]-”third injector”). Although not shown, how else would Qiu’s third nozzle be installed if shown other than “along and adjacent to” the second nozzle (251’; Figure 20-30; [0136]; [0147]-Applicant’s 249a3; Figure 10,11; 5/23/24 statements) in the reaction tube?
Applicant states:
“
Regarding Claim 12, the Office states that Takagi teaches three mixing structures. However, the three mixing structures of Takagi do not mix the same process gases. Specifically, the mixing structures corresponding to nozzles 249a and 249b mix a halosilane source gas with N2 gas, whereas the mixing structure corresponding to nozzle 249c mixes an oxygen-containing gas with N2 gas.
“
In response, the argued features are identified as intended use claims. See above.
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
In the Amendment filed January 12, 2026, there exists an error in claim 28. The claim fails to take into account that it indirectly depends from claim 2, which recites a discharge direction of each of the first, second and third discharge holes is substantially orthogonal to the arrangement direction of the substrates. Regarding claim 28, this requires the first angle and the second angle to be about 900or 2700. For this reason, claim 28 has been amended accordingly.
“
In response, the amendment is accounted for in the above grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art illustrates further vertically stacked reactors with plural injectors including SHIMADA; Hironori et al. (US 20190360098 Al), OHNO; Mikio et al. (US 20190256974 A1), and ASAT; Masayuki (US 20110065289 A1).
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716