DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 9/9/2025.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 16 is withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are new.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 11 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation: “the second expanding volume” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites: “a second gas expansion volume”, rendering the claim indefinite in scope. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the instant claim as reciting the “expansion” volume.
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, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh (US Pub. 2007/0269983) in view of Sugawara (US Pub. 2008/0240905).
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 gaps (annotated Fig. 5 below, reduced opening size of A and C would constrict/choke the flow of gas therethrough).
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, Sugawara teaches wherein a plurality of gas expansion volumes41 progressively narrow (Sugawara – [0087] and Fig. 2B, shielding unit members #41a-c form progressively narrowing spaces).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the right-angled structures of Sneh to comprise angled structures similar to Sugawara in order to prevent particulates from falling down into a pump as well as preventing particulates generated from the pump from reaching the process chamber (Sugawara – [0101]).
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).
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, Sugawara teaches wherein a plurality of gas expansion volumes41 progressively narrow (Sugawara – [0087] and Fig. 2B, shielding unit members #41a-c form progressively narrowing spaces).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the right-angled structures of Sneh to comprise angled structures similar to Sugawara in order to prevent particulates from falling down into a pump as well as preventing particulates generated from the pump from reaching the process chamber (Sugawara – [0101]).
.
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 Sugawara (US Pub. 2008/0240905), as applied to claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Lee (US 2003/0066483).
The limitations of claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh (US Pub. 2007/0269983) and Sugawara (US Pub. 2008/0240905), as applied to claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Wang (US Pub. 2013/0153149).
The limitations of claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, modified Sneh does not teach wherein an aspect ratio of at least 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.
While Wang does not explicitly teach the limitation above, Wang does teach wherein the width of an exhaust opening and expansion volume can be selectively tuned and/or set to achieve a desired processing result (Wang – [0024]-[0026]). Additionally, the Examiner notes that Wang Fig. 1 appears to depict where such a ratio is met, even considering that the drawings are not necessarily to scale.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to adjust the with of the flow restriction region of modified Sneh in order to tune gas flow across a substrate to achieve a desired processing result (Wang – [0024]-[0026]). The Examiner notes that adjustment of the width of the flow restriction region(s) of Sneh would naturally encompass the claimed ratio of 2:1.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-2 have been amended to correct minor informalities, thus the objections are withdrawn. Claim 6 has not been corrected and is now rejected under §112(b) for improper antecedent basis.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Sneh have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Sugawara and/or Wang remedy any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
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