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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 5-7 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 are currently amended.
Claim 20 remains withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2020044885 A1, using previously attached English machine translation) in view of Taylor (US 20150024582 A1) and Namba (US 20130171831 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 2, L323, substrate processing apparatus 1), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1, L338-341, each processing unit 2 includes a chamber 4);
a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate horizontally and rotate the substrate (Fig. 2, L348-350, spin chuck 5 rotates substrate W while holding substrate W horizontally);
a processing liquid supply (Fig. 5C, L603, lower nozzle 13) configured to supply a processing liquid toward a first surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder (Fig. 5C, L592-595, heat medium is discharged via discharge port 13a towards lower surface of substrate W from below); and
a cover unit configured to face a second surface of the substrate (Fig. 10, L1110-1112, facing member 6 faces top surface of substrate W), the second surface being opposite to the first surface (Fig. 10, top surface of substrate W and lower surface of substrate W are opposing),
wherein the cover unit comprises a heater configured to heat the substrate (Fig. 10, L1110, heater 150 is disposed in facing member 6),
wherein the cover unit is provided with an opening at a position corresponding to a central portion of the substrate (Fig. 10, L1150-1151, gas flow path 65 through facing member 6 is located at center of substrate W), and
wherein a supply amount of at least some of the gas is adjusted based on a rotation speed of the substrate (Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, and spin motor 23),
Kato fails to teach wherein the cover unit is also provided with, at an outer peripheral side than the opening, multiple gas supply openings through which a gas is supplied toward the second surface of the substrate,
wherein the gas is heated by the heater,
wherein the multiple gas supply openings include: a first gas supply opening provided near the opening;
a second gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening and the first gas supply opening; and
a third gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening,
wherein the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening each include a discharge passage having a central axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second surface of the substrate,
wherein the third gas supply opening includes a discharge passage having a central axis inclined in an inclined direction and wherein the inclined direction is defined as a direction inclined from an inside to an outside in a diametrical direction of the substrate.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the cover unit is also provided with, at an outer peripheral side than the opening, multiple gas supply openings through which a gas is supplied toward the second surface of the substrate (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas distribution assembly 500 has multiple gas outlet holes 526 in a radial direction away from the center of the structure, directing gas downward),
wherein the gas is heated by the heater (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas plenums 550a-c are integrated into thermal control plate 510),
wherein the multiple gas supply openings include: a first gas supply opening provided near the opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 in communication with central plenum 550a);
a second gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening and the first gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 in communication with first outer annular plenum 550b); and
a third gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 are in communication with second outer annular plenum 550c, which is located outside of plenum 550b and is near edge of gas distribution member 500), and
wherein the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening each include a discharge passage having a central axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second surface of the substrate (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 in communication with plenums 550a – 550c run in a vertical direction).
Taylor is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Modified Kato fails to teach wherein the third gas supply opening includes a discharge passage having a central axis inclined in an inclined direction and wherein the inclined direction is defined as a direction inclined from an inside to an outside in a diametrical direction of the substrate.
However, Namba teaches wherein the third gas supply opening includes a discharge passage having a central axis inclined in an inclined direction and wherein the inclined direction is defined as a direction inclined from an inside to an outside in a diametrical direction of the substrate (Namba, Fig. 8, [0071], first gas ejection port 304 is inclined towards the peripheral edge of wafer W).
Namba is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the outermost gas ejection port as taught by Namba into the apparatus of modified Kato as doing so would, in conjunction with the center air flow opening, allow one to rapidly control the temperature of the peripheral portion of a wafer to an optimal temperature depending on processing (Namba, [0071]-[0076]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “a supply amount of at least some of the gas is adjusted based on a rotation speed of the substrate“, and “the gas is heated by the heater” are merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The controller of Kato controls all components of the apparatus such as the gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, and spin motor 23 (as outlined above) and thereby would be capable of meeting the claim limitation. The gas plenums of Taylor are integrated into a thermal control plate, whereby the gas is capable of being heated when in contact with a heating element, such as the heater of Kato (as outlined above). 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).
Regarding claim 2, Kato fails to teach wherein the cover unit is provided with a reservoir in which the gas supplied from a gas source is stored,
the reservoir is formed at least either above or below the heater, and
the gas stored in the reservoir is heated by the heater.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the cover unit is provided with a reservoir in which the gas supplied from a gas source is stored (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas plenums 550a-c are integrated into thermal control plate 510),
the reservoir is formed at least either above or below the heater (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas plenums 550a-c are integrated into the lower portion of thermal control plate 510), and
the gas stored in the reservoir is heated by the heater (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas plenums 550a-c are integrated into thermal control plate 510).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “a reservoir in which the gas supplied from a gas source is stored“, and “the gas stored in the reservoir is heated by the heater” are merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas plenums of Taylor are annular in shape and empty cavities, thereby being capable of acting as a gas reservoir. The gas plenums of Taylor are integrated into a thermal control plate, whereby the gas is capable of being heated when in contact with a heating element, such as the heater of Kato (as outlined above). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Kato fails to teach wherein the reservoir includes:
a first reservoir provided near the opening, and configured to supply the gas to the first gas supply opening; and
a second reservoir provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening and the first reservoir, and configured to supply the gas into the second gas supply opening.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the reservoir includes:
a first reservoir provided near the opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], central plenum 550a), and configured to supply the gas to the first gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 in communication with central plenum 550a); and
a second reservoir provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening and the first reservoir (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], first outer annular plenum 550b, located closer to edge of plate 510 than plenum 550a), and configured to supply the gas into the second gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 in communication with first outer annular plenum 550b).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Kato fails to teach wherein the first reservoir and the second reservoir are curved gas flow paths.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the first reservoir and the second reservoir are curved gas flow paths (Taylor, [0014], plenums 550a,b are annular).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Kato fails to teach wherein the reservoir further includes a third reservoir provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first reservoir and the second reservoir, and configured to supply the gas to the third gas supply opening, and the gas stored in the third reservoir is heated by the heater.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the reservoir further includes a third reservoir provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first reservoir and the second reservoir (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], second outer annular plenum 550c, located closer to edge of plate 510 than plenums 550a and 550b), and configured to supply the gas to the third gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas outlet holes 526 are in communication with second outer annular plenum 550), and the gas stored in the third reservoir is heated by the heater (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], gas plenums 550a-c are integrated into thermal control plate 510).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the gas stored in the third reservoir is heated by the heater” 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 gas plenums of Taylor are integrated into a thermal control plate, whereby the gas is capable of being heated when in contact with a heating element, such as the heater of Kato. 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).
Regarding claim 9, Kato fails to teach wherein the third reservoir is a curved gas flow path.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the third reservoir is a curved gas flow path (Taylor, [0014], plenum 550c is annular).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Kato fails to teach wherein the second reservoir is configured to supply the gas to the third gas supply opening.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the second reservoir is configured to supply the gas to the third gas supply opening (Taylor, [0014], channels can be provided in the integral walls 520 such that the channels allow for gaseous communication between two or more plenums formed in thermal control plate 510).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Kato fails to teach wherein the multiple gas supply openings include a third gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the multiple gas supply openings include a third gas supply opening provided at an outer peripheral side than the opening, the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening (Taylor, Fig. 2, [0014], second outer annular plenum 550c, located closer to edge of plate 510 than plenums 550a and 550b).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the gas distribution assembly and associated gas distribution channels of Taylor onto the heated facing member of Kato as doing so would allow for different process gas chemistries and/or flow rates to be applied to one or more zones across the substrate being processed (Taylor, [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kato fails to teach wherein the third gas supply opening is configured to supply the gas toward an end portion of the substrate in an inclined direction, and the inclined direction is a direction inclined from an inside to an outside in a diametrical direction of the substrate.
However, Namba teaches wherein the third gas supply opening is configured to supply the gas toward an end portion of the substrate in an inclined direction, and the inclined direction is a direction inclined from an inside to an outside in a diametrical direction of the substrate (Namba, Fig. 8, [0071], first gas ejection port 304 is inclined towards the peripheral edge of wafer W).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the outermost gas ejection port as taught by Namba into the apparatus of modified Kato as doing so would, in conjunction with the center air flow opening, allow one to rapidly control the temperature of the peripheral portion of a wafer to an optimal temperature depending on processing (Namba, [0071]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Kato teaches a control device configured to control a flow rate of the gas based on the rotation speed of the substrate (Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, and spin motor 23).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured to control a flow rate of the gas based on the rotation speed of the substrate” 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 controller of Kato controls all components of the apparatus such as the gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, and spin motor 23, and thereby would be capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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).
Regarding claim 15, Kato teaches wherein the control device is configured to control the flow rate of the gas based on a flow rate of the processing liquid, a temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate (Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, liquid nozzle 50, heater 150, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit where the liquid medium must be maintained at a set temperature range, L603-608).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured to control the flow rate of the gas based on a flow rate of the processing liquid, a temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate” 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 controller of Kato controls all components of the apparatus such as the gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, liquid nozzle 50, heater 150, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit, and thereby would be capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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).
Regarding claim 16, Kato teaches wherein the control device is configured to control a temperature of the heater based on a flow rate of the processing liquid, a temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate (Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls heater 150, liquid nozzle 50, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit where the liquid medium must be maintained at a set temperature range, L603-608).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured to control a temperature of the heater based on a flow rate of the processing liquid, a temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate” 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 controller of Kato controls all components of the apparatus such as the gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, liquid nozzle 50, heater 150, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit, and thereby would be capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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).
Regarding claim 19, Kato teaches wherein the control device is configured to control a temperature of the heater based on the flow rate of the processing liquid, the temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate (Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls heater 150, liquid nozzle 50, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit where the liquid medium must be maintained at a set temperature range, L603-608).
To clarify the record, the limitation “configured to control a temperature of the heater based on a flow rate of the processing liquid, a temperature of the processing liquid, and the rotation speed of the substrate” 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 controller of Kato controls all components of the apparatus such as the gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, liquid nozzle 50, heater 150, spin motor 23, heat medium supply unit, and thereby would be capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2020044885 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20150024582 A1) and Namba (US 20130171831 A1), as applied in claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19, and further in view of Scholz (US 20200123653 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Kato fails to teach wherein the third gas supply opening is configured to supply the gas toward an end portion of the substrate in an inclined direction, and the inclined direction is a direction inclined toward a rotation direction of the substrate.
However, Namba teaches wherein the third gas supply opening is configured to supply the gas toward an end portion of the substrate in an inclined direction (Namba, Fig. 8, [0071], first gas ejection port 304 is inclined towards the peripheral edge of wafer W).
It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the outermost gas ejection port as taught by Namba into the apparatus of modified Kato as doing so would, in conjunction with the center air flow opening, allow one to rapidly control the temperature of the peripheral portion of a wafer to an optimal temperature depending on processing (Namba, [0071]-[0076]).
Modified Kato fails to teach wherein the inclined direction is a direction inclined toward a rotation direction of the substrate.
However, Scholz teaches wherein the inclined direction is a direction inclined toward a rotation direction of the substrate (Scholz, Fig. 1, [0027]-[0029], angled gas inlets 26 are angled relative to the stage by tangential component, and induce rotation of plasma 70 about symmetry axis Z).
Scholz is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the inclined gas passage orientation design of Scholz to tilt the third gas passage openings of modified Kato in the direction of the rotation of the spin motor as doing so creates a swirling flow of gas, creating improved uniformity conditions (Scholz, [0037]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2020044885 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20150024582 A1) and Namba (US 20130171831 A1), as applied in claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19, and further in view of Aoyama (US 20190267262 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kato fails to teach a sensor configured to detect an inflow state of the gas from the opening into a gap between the substrate and the cover unit, wherein the control device is configured to stop a processing on the substrate when the inflow state does not satisfy a given flow condition.
However, Aoyama teaches a sensor configured to detect an inflow state of the gas from the opening into a gap between the substrate and the cover unit (Aoyama, Fig. 1, [0052], pressure gauge 180 measures pressure and is located in between wafer W and gas supply opening 81), wherein the control device is configured to stop a processing on the substrate when the inflow state does not satisfy a given flow condition (Aoyama, [0080], controller 3 controls the operating mechanisms of apparatus 1, including receiving and acting upon pressure information from gauge 180, [0087]).
Aoyama is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the pressure sensor and associated controller inputs/outputs of Aoyama into the facing member of modified Kato and as doing so would enable active pressure monitoring and pressure control of the processing space (Aoyama, [0052]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “configured to detect an inflow state of the gas from the opening into a gap between the substrate and the cover unit”, and “configured to stop a processing on the substrate when the inflow state does not satisfy a given flow condition” are merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The sensor of Aoyama measures pressure and provides/receives feedback from the overall system controller of Aoyama, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2020044885 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20150024582 A1) and Namba (US 20130171831 A1), as applied in claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19, and further in view of Verbaas (US 20190040529 A1)
The limitations of claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Kato teaches wherein the control device is configured to stop a processing on the substrate when the temperature of the processing liquid does not satisfy a given temperature condition (Kato, Fig. 3, L618-623, controller 3 controls gas valves 54/55, gas flow adjustment valve 58, liquid nozzle 50, heater 150, and spin motor 23).
Modified Kato fails to teach multiple temperature sensors each configured to detect a temperature of the processing liquid on a surface of the substrate.
However, Verbaas teaches multiple temperature sensors each configured to detect a temperature of the processing liquid on a surface of the substrate (Verbaas, Fig. 5, [0060], thermocouples 534 may be installed on gas distribution assembly 502 to provide temperature monitoring and control).
Verbaas is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the temperature sensors and associated input/outputs of Verbaas onto the facing member of modified Kato as doing so would provide active temperature monitoring feedback to the controller, enabling for system adjustments (Verbaas, [0060]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “configured to stop a processing on the substrate when the temperature of the processing liquid does not satisfy a given temperature condition”, and “configured to detect a temperature of the processing liquid on a surface of the substrate” are merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The sensors of Verbaas are capable of measuring temperature of a surface upon which they are mounted and provide said measurements back to a controller. The controller of Kato receives feedback from the various subsystems of the apparatus and controls them based on said feedback. Therefore, the combination of the previously stated elements are capable of meeting the claim limitations. 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).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 03/16/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Carpenter, teach the claim limitations “a first gas supply opening, a second gas supply opening, and a third gas supply opening are provided sequentially from the central portion toward the outer peripheral portion, the central axes of the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening extend substantially perpendicular to the substrate, whereas only the third gas supply opening has a central axis inclined from the inside toward the outside in the diametrical direction of the substrate” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights