DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 9/10/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 16 is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh (US Pub. 2007/0269983) in view of Shero (US Pub. 2005/0241176).
Regarding claim 1, Sneh teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 5, entirety), comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 5, reactor vessel #800’) comprising a substrate support (Fig. 5, wafer chuck #205), enclosing a substrate processing space (Fig. 5, space above substrate #204) and a chemical exit space (Fig. 5, spaces below #206) having a first gas expansion volume (annotated Fig. 5 below, region B) and a second gas expansion volume (annotated Fig. 5 below, region D), wherein at least one gas expansion volume of the chemical exit space narrows in diameter towards an exhaust pump (Fig. 5, space #808 to #210 gets narrower in diameter); and
the apparatus being configured to direct a chemical flow into the substrate processing space ([0080]), to expose a substrate supported by the substrate support to surface reactions ([0080]), therefrom via a first flow restriction region (annotated Fig. 5 below, region A) into the first expansion volume of the chemical exit space (annotated Fig. 5 below, region B), and therefrom via a second flow restriction region (annotated Fig. 5 below, region C) towards the exhaust pump (see Fig. 5, towards pump below #210), the apparatus being configured to provide the chemical flow with a choked flow effect in at least one of the first and second regions having a cross section allowing the choked flow effect (annotated Fig. 5 below, reduced opening size of A and C would constrict/choke the flow of gas therethrough and they both possess a cross section).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sneh does not explicitly teach, in the same way as shown in the instant Fig. 1, that at least one gas expansion volume progressively narrows.
However, Shero teaches wherein a plurality of gas expansion volumes progressively narrow (Shero – Fig. 4: sloped surfaces #170 leading to a restriction #160, sloped surface #172 leads to a restriction around #128, restrictions #121 sloped to another restricted region).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Sneh apparatus to comprise the progressively narrowing structures/expansion volumes of Shero in order to accelerate the flow of gas, increase effectiveness of barriers, prevent gas loss, and increase conductance through the exhaust ducts, as well as decreasing the required size of the exhaust pump (Shero – [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Sneh teaches where the apparatus is configured to direct the chemical flow from the first gas expansion volume via the second flow restriction region into the second gas expansion volume (see Fig. 5, gaps as identified in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sneh teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to remove the chemical flow from the reaction chamber into a reaction chamber outlet channel (Fig. 5, vacuum port #210 and related piping therebelow).
Regarding claim 4, Sneh teaches wherein the substrate support is rotationally symmetric about its rotational axis (Fig. 5, #204 appears to be symmetric about a central vertical axis; Examiner notes the claim does not require the substrate to rotate, merely that it be rotationally symmetric).
Regarding claim 5, Sneh teaches wherein the vertical position of the substrate support is adjustable (Fig. 5, each and every component is “vertically adjustable” by simply moving the support, even by hand; Examiner notes the claim does not require additional structure to enact such a movement), and wherein adjusting the vertical position of the substrate support adjusts at least one of the first and second flow restriction regions (Fig. 5, if the substrate support were moved in the up/down direction, the flow restriction regions would be “adjusted” based upon their movement away/towards the exhaust pump).
Regarding claim 6, Sneh teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to provide a chemical flow route into a volume in between the substrate support and an inner surface of the reaction chamber, the inner surface of the reaction chamber and the substrate support delimiting a space forming at least one of the first expansion volume and the second expansion volume ([0080], with the gaps and volumes as identified in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sneh teaches wherein at least one of the first and second flow restriction regions is formed in between the substrate support and the reaction chamber inner surface (annotated Fig. 5 as in claim 1, B and D formed between substrate support structure and wall #802).
Regarding claim 8, Sneh teaches wherein the first flow restriction region is configured to provide the chemical flow with a choked flow effect (annotated Fig. 5 as in claim 1, reduced opening size of A would constrict/choke the flow of gas therethrough).
Regarding claim 9, Sneh teaches wherein both first and second flow restriction regions are configured to provide the chemical flow with a choked flow effect (annotated Fig. 5 as in claim 1, reduced opening size of A and C would constrict/choke the flow of gas therethrough).
Regarding claim 10, Sneh teaches at least one circular chemical feed inlet configured to inject inert and/or reactive chemical into the chemical exit space ([0078] and Fig. 5, inlet #830 provides gas to #820 downstream of #206).
Regarding claim 11, Sneh teaches the at least one chemical feed inlet to prevent backflow of chemicals in the chemical exit space ([0078] and Fig. 5, inlet #830 provides gas to DGIC #820; [0079] and Fig. 5, reactive gas provided via line #840 into plenum #842).
Sneh does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one chemical feed inlet is arranged immediately downstream from one of the first and second gaps (as identified herein).
However, Sneh teaches wherein the particular placement of said chemical feed inlet(s) could be reasonably determined by a PHOSITA (Sneh – [0079]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the position of the gas inlets of Sneh to different locations in the exhaust pathway as an obvious matter of substitution to obtain a predictable result (Sneh – [0079]: creating uniform radial flow distribution; [0080]: preventing backflow).
Additionally, such a difference amounts to a mere rearrangement of the chemical feed inlet of Sneh. The courts have held that shifting the position of a constituent member is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 15, Sneh teaches wherein the substrate support is arranged to cut off the chemical flow towards the exhaust pump (Fig. 5, reduced opening size around #205 from top to bottom would constrict/choke the flow of gas from #809 to #210, gaps and volumes as identified in claim 1).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Sneh does not explicitly teach, in the same way as shown in the instant Fig. 1, wherein each of the first and second gas expansion volumes of the chemical exit space progressively/continuously narrow in diameter towards an exhaust pump/outlet channel.
However, Shero teaches wherein a plurality of gas expansion volumes progressively narrow (Shero – Fig. 4: sloped surfaces #170 leading to a restriction #160, sloped surface #172 leads to a restriction around #128, restrictions #121 sloped to another restricted region).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Sneh apparatus to comprise the progressively narrowing structures/expansion volumes of Shero in order to accelerate the flow of gas, increase effectiveness of barriers, prevent gas loss, and increase conductance through the exhaust ducts, as well as decreasing the required size of the exhaust pump (Shero – [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Sneh teaches wherein an aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 2:1 of gas expansion volume width: flow restriction region width exists in at least one of: the interface of the first flow restriction region and the first gas expansion volume; and the interface of the second flow restriction region and the second gas expansion volume (see Fig. 5, the width of A is substantially smaller than the width of B and the width of C is substantially smaller than the width of D). See further explanation in the Response to Arguments section.
PNG
media_image1.png
822
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Sneh teaches wherein the vertical position of the substrate support is configured to be adjusted (Fig. 5, each and every component is “vertically adjustable” by simply moving the support, even by hand; Examiner notes the claim does not require additional structure to enact such a movement).
For clarity, the limitation: “to induce alterations in the structure of the chemical exit space” is regarded as an intended use, and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). If the substrate support of Sneh were to be moved vertically, it would naturally alter the chemical exit space (see Fig. 5), thus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh (US Pub. 2007/0269983) and Shero (US Pub. 2005/0241176), as applied to claims 1-11, 15, and 17-20 above, further in view of Lee (US 2003/0066483).
The limitations of claims 1-11, 15, and 17-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sneh does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lee teaches where a reaction chamber outlet channel comprises two separate branches, the apparatus comprising a pump in each of the two separate branches of the outlet channel, to exhaust gases from the reaction chamber (Lee – [0035] and Fig. 6, branches #160 and #170 with pumps #180 and #190).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust of modified Sneh to comprise multiple branches/pumps according to Lee in order to provide pumps specific for certain processing steps (Lee – [0035]) to avoid exhaust turbulence, which may disrupt film deposition (Lee – [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sneh does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lee teaches a valve in the reaction chamber outlet channel, configured to control flow of chemicals into the two separate branches (Lee – [0051] and Fig. 6, valve #210).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust of modified Sneh to comprise multiple branches/pumps according to Lee in order to provide pumps specific for certain processing steps (Lee – [0035]) to avoid exhaust turbulence, which may disrupt film deposition (Lee – [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sneh modified by Lee does not teach a vacuum pump in one of the separate branches of the reaction chamber outlet channel, downstream from the two pumps, or comprising a vacuum pump in each separate branch of the outlet channel, downstream from the respective pump (Lee teaches only one pump per branch – see Fig. 6: #180 and #190).
However, the difference between modified Sneh (particularly, Lee) and the claimed invention is merely the addition of a second pump to each exhaust line. As such, the difference amounts to a mere duplication of the pumps #180 and #190 of modified Sneh (particularly, Lee).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to duplicate the pumps of modified Sneh so as to comprise two pumps per line since the courts have held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning Sneh and Shero have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the “teaching away” allegation (Remarks, pg. 6), the Examiner submits that Applicant has not properly considered the structure of the Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner notes that Sneh teaches nearly all of the limitations of claim 1 (including the “choked flow effect”) except for the “progressively narrows” limitation (see instant Fig. 1 – acutely angled sidewall features). Sneh appears to teach right-angled features, thus the Examiner turns to Shero to show a similar apparatus with acutely angled sidewall features.
The focus of the Examiner’s rejection is to change the right-angled features of Sneh to be acutely angled similar to Shero, not to completely replace the structures of Sneh (as alleged).
The portions of Shero cited by Applicant relate to the operation of the Shero apparatus as a whole and are not directed to the acutely angled sidewall features of the rejection. The arguments, therefore, are not commensurate with the rejection because they improperly draw details from the reference that are not drawn specifically to the features incorporated by the Examiner.
Regarding the teachings of Shero as combined with Sneh (Remarks, pgs. 7-8), Applicant argues that the motivations cited by the Examiner are not drawn to the shape of the restriction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the shape of the restrictions of Shero are an essential feature of the invention disclosed therein. As the restrictions of Shero are exceedingly simple in design, the Examiner believes them to have two major elements: 1) a narrow diameter section, and 2) angled sidewalls leading to the narrow diameter section.
Without either of those elements, the Examiner respectfully submits that the restrictions of Shero would not provide the stated advantages of accelerating the flow of gas, increasing effectiveness of barriers, preventing gas loss, and increasing conductance through the exhaust ducts, as well as decreasing the required size of the exhaust pump (Shero – [0042]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant is only looking for a recitation in Shero similar to “the angled sidewalls of the restriction feature unilaterally provides this benefit”. This is far too narrow of a reading of Shero. The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would recognize that performing the modification as proposed by the Examiner would yield at least some of the stated advantages cited by the Examiner, thus the combination is proper.
Regarding claim 18 (Remarks, pgs. 8-9), the Examiner respectfully submits the arguments are moot because Shero is not relied upon to teach this feature.
In the interest of clarity of the record, however, the Examiner submits that Applicant’s reading of MPEP 2125 is overly narrow.
Section I importantly states: “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added) In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
Additionally, section II states: “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). The Examiner submits par. [0077] of Sneh describes the element #209 of Fig. 5 as a “draw-control FRE baffle”. Par. [0016] of Sneh defines “draw” as “the flow of gas out of a chamber”. As such, Sneh appears to reasonably teach where the features identified by the Examiner control the flow of gas out of a chamber via restriction in diameter based upon the disclosure and the drawings.
The Examiner is not using exact measurements taken from the figures of Sneh to meet the limitations of the claim – this would be improper given the guidance in MPEP 2125. The Examiner has evaluated the figures of Sneh for what they reasonably disclose and/or suggest to a PHOSITA. Notably, the Examiner respectfully submits that the apparent difference in width of the regions surrounding #824 are significantly larger than 2:1.
In accordance, the Examiner posits that a PHOSITA would recognize Sneh meets the limitation because the depicted ratio, even if not to scale, is so much larger than 2:1 that even a moderate difference in depicted dimensions in either direction would still meet the limitations of the claim.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant is improperly ignoring the actual depiction of the prior art and broadly asserting that all interpretations of relative sizes therein are irrelevant. The Examiner posits that under this assertion, Applicant appears to insinuate that all figures are useless beyond basic schematic drawings (such as Sneh Fig. 15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons above.
Regarding claim 3 (Remarks, pg. 9), the Examiner does not understand how the stated remarks disprove the Examiner’s rejection.
First, both Sneh and Shero teach where the disclosed structures are part of a gas exhaust pathway in the same way as the instant application (see Fig. 1, drawing gas from #50 to #160). Sneh teaches providing gas from #809 to #203 to #210. Shero teaches providing gas from #144 to #106 to #122. The references, therefore, teach the limitations of the claim either as a single reference (Sneh) and as a combination (Sneh with Shero), since the modification proposed by the Examiner does not change the operation of the Sneh apparatus.
Second, the claim recites a function of the apparatus, not a structurally limiting feature. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
As the claim recites no additional structural elements, and the disclosure does not explicitly describe where additional structural elements are needed to perform the claimed function, the claim is only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing it. The references are not held to the standard of explicit disclosure of the claimed function under this interpretation.
The Examiner has specifically pointed out how the prior art device(s) would be capable of performing this function, thus the Examiner respectfully submits the rejection is proper.
Regarding claims 5 and 19 (Remarks, pg. 10), Applicant argues the “vertically adjustable” limitation is not met by Sneh. The Examiner disagrees.
Similar to the previous section, the limitations of claims 5 and 19 recite functions of the apparatus, not structurally limiting features. As the claim recites no additional structural elements (noted by the Examiner in the body of the rejection), and the disclosure does not explicitly describe where additional structural elements are needed to perform the claimed function, the claim is only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing it. The references are not held to the standard of explicit disclosure of the claimed function under this interpretation.
The Examiner has specifically pointed out how the prior art device(s) would be capable of performing the functions, thus the Examiner respectfully submits the rejections are proper.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 15 (Remarks, pgs. 10), Applicant argues the claims are not met by the prior art due to an alleged misinterpretation by the Examiner of the BRI of the phrases “choked flow” (claims 8 and 9) and “cut off” (claim 15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Applicant has incorrectly identified the BRI of the term “choked flow” even in light of the specification. Pars. [0005]-[0006] of the instant PG-Pub provide the following: “[c]hoked flow of a gas takes place when the gas at a certain pressure and temperature flows through a restrictor in a passageway and enters a space with decreased pressure” and “the pressure changes downstream from the restrictor do not influence the flow rate of the gases above the restrictor. In certain embodiments, the backflow of chemicals into unwanted directions can also be prevented” (emphasis added).
Par. [0087], cited by Applicant as evidence of a particular definition, supports the passages cited by the Examiner above and further states: “the apparatus 100 shown in the preceding figures is configured to provide the chemical flow with a choked flow effect in at least one of the gaps 126, 127.” Thus in terms of “choked flow”, the Examiner respectfully submits that the BRI as applied by the Examiner in light of the disclosure is appropriate and all limitations of claims 8 and 9 are reasonably met.
Second, Applicant is too narrowly construing the metes and bounds of claim 15, particularly the “arranged to cut off the chemical flow” limitation. Applicant remarks that Fig. 4 of the publication shows where the chemical flow is prevented “entirely” (pg. 10).
However, the claim is not so limited to the word “entirely”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner submits that the BRI of the phrase: “cut off”, even in light of the specification, cannot be narrowed to only mean “entirely cut off” – a significant partial obstruction to gas flow can reasonably be understood as “cut off” given its plain and ordinary meaning.
If Applicant intends to particularly claim the state of the apparatus in Fig. 4, the Examiner suggests adding further limitations to the claim similar to “entirely cut off the chemical flow”.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
