DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 24, 2026, has been entered.
After further consideration of Applicant’s specification, the examiner no longer believes the language of “inserted within” is supported by the original disclosure. This diction implies that the liner has been separately fabricated at an external site and subsequently applied to the inner wall of the already constructed processing chamber. Conversely, Applicant’s specification explicitly states that the liner is “coated” on the first layer (122) of the chamber body [0054]. Every description of the claimed liner (124), in fact, is consistent with the understanding that the SiC layer is applied either in-situ or applied to each wall of the chamber body prior to its full construction rather than the liner being fabricated externally and then “inserted within” the already constructed chamber body. Ultimately, the matter is now moot, as the “inserted within” language was drafted to circumvent the Office’s position that an operator can simply deploy Tomura’s system to fabricate the claimed coating, even without an express suggestion to do so. The examiner has withdrawn those grounds of rejection in view of new art that explicitly applies a silicon carbide coating to the internal body of a chamber.
Lastly, as indicated in the Advisory Action of 4/10/26, the examiner understands the limitation, “pre-fabricated structural component” to be consistent with the in-situ application of an SiC coating to the chamber body prior to the initiation of substrate processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to stipulate that the previously claimed liner is “inserted within” the chamber, but this diction is not supported by the specification and constitutes new matter. Nevertheless, to expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as written.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-7, 19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al., US 2016/0064247in view of Deacon, US 2009/0159005.
Claims 1, 21, 24, 27: Tomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (12) [0019];
A substrate support (14) disposed in the chamber (Fig. 2);
A gas distributor (36b) embedded inside the body of the chamber and connected to a gas supply source (40) [0029];
A high-frequency RF power supply (62) configured to form a plasma from a reaction gas supplied to the chamber [0033];
An upper electrode (30) facing the substrate support (14) and disposed on an inner surface of the chamber [0027];
Wherein a portion (34) of the chamber body is exposed to the plasma and comprises a conductive silicon-containing material [0027].
Those limitations drawn to the type of gas supplied constitute intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). Tomura’s gas source container is capable of accommodating the gases enumerated by this claim.
Lastly, Tomura does not disclose a liner comprising a “conductive silicon-containing material.” In supplementation, Deacon discloses a substrate processing chamber (120) for executing a process like etching which exposes its internal components to corrosive gases [0020, 0022]. To protect the chamber’s internal components, including the chamber walls, Deacon prescribes the application of silicon carbide (220) to the wall (210) of the chamber, whereby this layer of SiC may be taken as the claimed “liner” [0023]. The liner is “detachable” in the sense that it can be removed either manually or chemically, e.g., it can be etched away. It would have been obvious to apply a liner of this type to the interior walls of Tomura’s chamber body to prevent corrosion.
Claim 2: An operator can achieve the claimed volumetric flow rate by strategically manipulating the valves and flow rate controllers – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 5: The upper electrode (30) comprises a top plate (34) having a plurality of gas discharge holes (34a) for supplying a reaction gas to the chamber [0028]. The top plate contains silicon which, being a metalloid, is inherently conductive [0027]. Deacon suggests applying the SiC layer “all interior surfaces of…[the] gas flow apparatus,” which the Office understands to apply to something like an upper electrode [0023].
Claims 6-7: Tomura teaches a power source (70) for supplying a negative DC voltage [0037].
Claim 19: The chamber wall may be taken as the “first layer,” and the SiC coating may be taken as the “second layer.”
Claim 22: Deacon coats the second layer with a carbon layer [0039].
Claim 23: The type of fluid accommodated by the gas source is a matter of intended use, as the operator can simply charge the source with the claimed fluid – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claim 25: Tomura provides a shield (46) along an inner wall surface of the chamber [0031]. As elaborated above, the operator can avail the apparatus to sputter a silicon material upon the shield.
Claim 26: Tomura locates a baffle plate (48) between a support (PD) and a side wall of the chamber [0032]. As elaborated above, the operator can avail the apparatus to sputter a silicon material upon the shield.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Deacon, and in further view of Allen et al., US 2011/0226739.
Deacon does not disclose a liner thickness of between 5-50 mm, although the reference does assert that it may be any “desired thickness” [0007]. Remedying the deficiency is Allen, who discloses a silicon liner for use within a plasma chamber of ¼” inches in thickness, which exceeds six millimeters [0025, 0028]. Given this demonstration of suitability, it would have been obvious to establish the thickness of the liner at this threshold, since applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Kudo et al., US 2017/0372916. Kudo discloses a processing apparatus comprising a chamber (10), a substrate support (20), a gas supply (15), and a plasma-generator (32) (Fig. 1; [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights