DETAILED ACTION
Status
The response filed 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 24-26 are pending. In the response filed 04/13/2026, claims 1, 9, 13, 21, and 25-26 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 31 of the claim, the text includes “73 FIG. 3C” which should be deleted from the text. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “along the one or more sidewalls”, in claim 1, 13, and 26 and the claims dependent therefrom, is interpreted consistent with [0039] of the instant specification to include the structure “may be located in a sidewall or horizontally abutting or adjacent to the sidewall, or located in an outer periphery region of the chamber lid or an outer periphery region of the chamber bottom”.
In claim 13 and the claims dependent therefrom, “wide” and “narrow” are interpreted as relative to each other such that the “wide set” is wider than the “narrow set” and the “narrow set” is narrower than the “wide set”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 24-26 are 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 26 were amended to recite “sensors distributed throughout the chamber” (line 11 of claim 1 and 13 and line 9 of claim 26). It is unclear what is meant by “throughout the chamber” because the specification does not clarify what locations are considered “throughout the chamber” and the drawings appears to show sensors 131 merely on a ceiling of the chamber. It is unclear if “throughout the chamber” is intended to require every chamber surface, a certain number of sensors within a specific volume or surface area, or more than one sensor with the sensors provided at different locations in the chamber. Consistent with the demonstration in the drawings (Fig 1B), the limitation is interpreted inclusive of more than one sensor with the sensors provided at different locations in the chamber.
Claims 1, 13, and 26 were amended to recite “sequentially using the plurality of gas injector arrays to inject one or more gas flows in a direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece in a plurality of rotational phases” (line 20-22 of claim 1 and 13, line 18-20 of claim 26). This limitation is unclear because the remainder of the claim for each claim describes one phase of the rotational phases, as understood by review of the instant specification ([0061-0063], [0071-0075] inter alia) because claims 1 and 26 recite “during each of the plurality of rotational phases, injecting a first gas flow from a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays to etch the material on the workpiece” and claim 13 recites “during each of the plurality of rotational phases, injecting a first gas flow from the selected wide set or the narrow set the individual gas injectors” The recitation to “a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays” in claim 1 and 16 or “the selected wide set or the narrow set the individual gas injectors” if repeated would refer to the same first or wide/narrow set (i.e. not a different set of injectors located at a different location along the periphery). The claims do not clarify that the remaining steps should be repeated with a new, different subset of the gas injectors such that a complete rotation is performed (as shown in Fig 3A-D, 3G inter alia) or if the limitation is intended to merely clarify the intended use or capability of the apparatus but not requiring the controller to be configured to do the sequential rotational phases to perform a full gas rotation along the chamber (i.e. the full set of phases). It is further unclear if applicant intends to claim the controller merely to perform one phase of the multiple rotational phases (e.g. just the first phase) but sequentially perform it more than once (on the same wafer or a plurality of wafers in a batch). Because the claims were also amended to recite that the controller is configured to control the plasma treatment chamber to provide a multiphase rotating modulated gas crossflow for an etch application, the claims will be examined with an interpretation inclusive of the remaining steps should be repeated with a new, different subset of the gas injectors such that a complete rotation is performed (as shown in Fig 3A-D, 3G inter alia). Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims for clarity such as by claiming each phase of the multiphase rotating gas flow or otherwise clarifying that subsequent rotational phases use a different subset of individual gas injectors.
Claims 1 and 26 use language regarding “a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays” in line 24-25 of claim 1 and line 22-23 of claim 16. The current claim language does not provide clear antecedent basis for “adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays” because the only prior reference is that each of the plurality of gas injector arrays comprise “multiple individual gas injectors” and there is no indication that there are “adjacent ones” of such individual gas injectors among different gas injector arrays. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claims are being examined as referring back to at least a subset of the “multiple individual gas injectors”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims to refer to ““adjacent
Claim 9 has unclear antecedent basis for “the plurality of gas injectors” because claim 1 was amended to refer to “plurality of gas injector arrays” and “multiple individual gas injectors”. It is unclear to which of these the use of “plurality of gas injectors” is intended to refer. For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the claims are being examined inclusive of “the plurality of gas injectors” in claim 9 refers to the “plurality of gas injector[[s]] arrays”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 9 for clarity.
Claim 18 has unclear antecedent basis for “the array of individual gas injectors” because claim 13 was amended to refer to “plurality of gas injector arrays” and “multiple individual gas injectors”. It is unclear to which of these the use of “the array of individual gas injectors” is intended to refer. For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the claims are being examined inclusive of “the array of individual gas injectors” in claim 18 refers to the “plurality of gas injector arrays”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 18 for clarity.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington (prev. presented US2008/0099450) in view of Anderson (prev. presented US 5269847), Yonemura (prev. presented JP 2001-110728 citing machine translation provided 02/01/2024), and Chen (prev. presented US 2013/0157387).
Regarding claim 1 and 26, Lewington teaches a plasma treatment chamber (chamber 10 Fig 1, 25 [0065]), comprising: one or more sidewalls (12 Fig 1, 25 [0065]); a support (pedestal 16 Fig 1, 25 and [0065]) within the one or more sidewalls (shown in Fig 1, 25 as within chamber 10 [0065]) configured to hold a workpiece (semiconductor wafer W Fig 1, 25 and [0057]) in a fixed position without rotation ([0067], note no teaching of rotating the workpiece and Fig 1, 2A, 25 does not show any rotation structure and shows the substrate support 16 contacting fixed portions of the chamber); a plurality of gas injectors (32, 34 Fig 1, 25 injection nozzles [0066]) distributed about a periphery of the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1, 25 and Fig 28-30D which demonstrate nozzles 32 around the periphery) without an injector injecting a top-down gas flow on the workpiece (Fig. 1 note no top-down gas flow injector, see also Fig 8, 14-18, 25 showing no injector injecting a top-down gas flow); a pump port (flow pipe with unnumbered valve connected to pump 15 Fig 1, 25 and the area around pedestal 16 between the pedestal and the sidewall 12 Fig 1, 25 is the exhaust port which [0065] discloses as connected to a vacuum pump) along the one or more sidewalls to eject gas from the plasma treatment chamber(along sidewall by being located at the perimeter of the chamber bottom, see Fig 1, 25 and claim interpretation above); sensors (322,326 Fig 25 [0087]) distributed throughout the chamber (Fig 25 and 26 demonstrate an array throughout the chamber from the lower end and substrate support, of the chamber, see also [0088]) and configured to monitor chamber conditions [0087-0088]; and a controller (60 Fig 1,25) configured to control the plasma treatment chamber [0067], [0073-0074], wherein the controller is coupled to the sensors and is configured to correlate the chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify an area of etch rate nonuniformity [0087], wherein an etch rate uniformity of a material on the workpiece is tuned or controlled [0070], [0087], [0090-0096] by: using the plurality of gas injector arrays to inject one or more gas flows in a direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece[0066], [0090-0096] (see also Fig 28-30D); injecting a first gas flow from a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors [0090-0096] (see also Fig 28-30D) to etch the material on the workpiece. Lewington fails to explicitly teach: a plurality of gas injector arrays comprising the multiple individual gas injectors, a plurality of pump ports; the controller configured to provide a multiphase rotating modulated gas crossflow for an etch application; the controller configured to sequentially use the plurality of gas injector arrays to inject one or more gas flows in a direction generally parallel to and across a surface of the workpiece in a plurality of rotational phases; the injecting a first gas flow from a first set of adjacent ones of the individual gas injectors is adjacent gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays; the control configured to cause modulating the individual gas injectors within the first set to provide a non-uniform center and edge gas injection across the at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays where a flow rate from center ones of the individual gas injectors within the first set is greater than a flow rate from edge ones of the individual gas injectors within the first set; and simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of remaining ones of the plurality of gas injector arrays to target the identified area, wherein the second gas flow is used to i) dilute the first gas flow to reduce an area on the workpiece having a faster etch rate; or ii) act as an additional etchant to increase the etch rate in the area of the workpiece having the faster etch rate, wherein the controller is configured to control the non-uniform center and edge gas injection over time to control etch rate uniformity.
In the same field of endeavor of substrate (wafer) processing apparatuses (abstract), Anderson teaches a gas injector array (31 Fig 5, 6) with independent gas flow control to each gas outlet (col 4, ln 35-62) and simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of a remaining set of the individual gas injectors (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10, taught as injecting two gases in a controllable manner to vary the concentration which inclusive of some injectors having no amount of one of the gases and all of the other of the gases), wherein the second gas flow is used to i) dilute the first gas flow to reduce an area on the workpiece having a faster etch rate (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 taught as a carrier gas which is an inert gas and therefore dilutes the reactant gas); or ii) act as an additional etchant to increase the etch rate in the area of the workpiece having the faster etch rate (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10 taught as a different “multiple” reactant gas which is inclusive of a gas with a higher etch rate) (see also Fig 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington to include the arrangement of Anderson to provide multiple gases of independent concentration mixtures to each outlet of an array of outlets (note this is inclusive of all of one gas in one outlet and all of another gas in a different outlet simultaneously) because Anderson teaches this allows for improved control of the reaction process across the substrate surface (col 5, ln 5-10 and col 1, ln 50-65) and Lewington is concerned with improving etch rate uniformity via gas control [0090-0096]. Note that Lewington teaches etching and therefore in the combination the gases will be etching gases and that the specific gases are directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Also note that Lewington as cited has taught a controller to modify the flow of gas through the outlets to address and change etch rate distribution to target an identified area [0070], [0087], [0090-0096]. Anderson as cited has taught using different gases (or different ratios of two or more gasses), and thus controlling different concentration ratios to each outlet (injector) to control the processing rate. Therefore the combination as applied renders obvious the controller to tune or control the etch rate by simultaneously injecting a second gas flow. Therefore, the combination as applied herein renders obvious the controller is configured to control a concentration ratio between the first gas flow and the second gas flow to tune the etch rate uniformity by adjusting which individual gas injectors inject the first gas flow versus the second gas flow. The controller as claimed is not claimed as sensing the specific gases used or otherwise confirming the specific gases being applied and is instead described throughout the specification as controlling based on set flow rate or pressure (see instant specification [0081], [0088], [0102]). Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations is a controller to control the flow rates of two different gases to the nozzles simultaneously based on user input set points and that the controller will function the same (i.e. supply two different source gases at set flow rates) regardless of whether different gases are connected to the gas supply line. Further, Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Further, as noted below, Lewington teaches an etching gas [0084] and teaches a dilution gas (Ar [0084]) or an additive gas [0085] (O2 [0085]) which is disclosed as the IGI mixture (see claim 7 and 8). Anderson further teaches modulating the individual gas injectors within the first set to provide a non-uniform center and edge gas injection across the at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays where a flow rate from center ones of the individual gas injectors within the first set is greater than a flow rate from edge ones of the individual gas injectors within the first set (col 2, ln 55-67). Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington to include different flow rates for the gas for center vs edge of an array of nozzles because Anderson teaches this for targeting the center vs. edge of the substrate to improve processing uniformity. Regarding a plurality of gas injector arrays, Lewington teaches a plurality of nozzles which may be considered grouped into arrays. Further Anderson demonstrates (Fig 3 and 5) an array of gas inlet nozzles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzles of Lewington to include groups of arrays around the perimeter because Lewington teaches nozzles around the perimeter and Anderson demonstrates using a nozzle array to arrange a plurality of adjacent nozzles. In the combination as applied the injection of gas from adjacent injectors includes adjacent gas injectors within at least one of the plurality of gas injector arrays.
Regarding the multiphase modulated gas and sequentially using arrays in a rotational phase such that the nozzles to which the etching gas is applied are changed to form a rotation around the substrate (see claim interpretation applied under the rejections applied above regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), it is noted that the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson includes the structural capability of gas flow rotation by the individual control of the gas injectors but doesn’t teach the controller performs this gas rotation operation. In the same field of endeavor of apparatus for uniformly processing substrates [0001], Yonemura teaches rotating the gas flow (Fig 9) by injecting in different phases (Fig 9) [0057-0067] to achieve radial uniformity [0067]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington and the combination to include the rotating gas flow control as taught by Yonemura because Yonemura teaches this improves uniformity [0077]. Also note that Yonemura teaches gas injection from three different directions which further renders obvious the use of a plurality of the nozzle arrays of Anderson. This combination results in multiphase rotating modulated gas flow with sequentially applied plurality of rotational phases.
Regarding the plurality of pump ports, Yonemura teaches a plurality of pump ports (13a-c Fig 9) to coordinate with the change in the processing gas direction to provide the crossflow [0070-0071]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington and the combination to include a plurality of pump ports because Yonemura teaches this enables the exhaustion of gas (i.e. functional alternative) and that it allows for the directed flow [0070] as part of the improving uniformity [0077].
Regarding the sensors distributed throughout the chamber to detect chamber conditions, Examiner notes that Lewington as cited above teaches sensors and that the detection of the etching rate is considered a chamber condition. However, in the event applicant can persuasively argue that the etching rate is not a chamber condition or that different sensors would result in different control programming, it is additionally noted that addressing the same problem of etching non-uniformities within a chamber (abstract), Chen teaches an advanced process control unit (controller) connected to a multi-zone endpoint detection system [0067] which is inclusive of sensors 310, 312, including 312a, 312b, 312c, and 312d, and 314, including 314a, 314b, 314c, 314d (Fig 3a-b and [0033-0034]) distributed throughout the chamber (Fig 3b [0034]) and the advanced process control unit (controller) is configured to monitor the chamber conditions [0033-0034] and correlate the chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify an area of etch rate non-uniformity [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], target the identified area with gas flow adjustment and control [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], and the advanced process control unit (controller) is configured to control a concentration ratio between a first and second gas flow to tune the etch rate uniformity by adjusting gas flow to individual regions [0015],[0035], [0022], [0031], [0044], [0058], [0062]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Lewington to include being configured to receive feedback from multiple sensors distributed throughout the chamber, monitor chamber conditions, correlate chamber conditions to overall process performances to identify areas of etching nonuniformity, target the area of etch nonuniformity with gas flow control, and control a concentration ratio between the gas flows to tune the etch rate by adjusting the gas flow ratios because Chen teaches this results in improved etching uniformity within the chamber [0035]. Regarding specifically control of which gas injectors inject which gas, this is controlled by Lewington as taught by control of individual gas injectors and by Lewington in view of Anderson which renders obvious individual control of different outlets to have different gases or gas ratios.
Regarding claim 2, 7, 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lewington teaches an etching gas [0084] and teaches a dilution gas (Ar [0084]) or an additive gas [0085] (O2 [0085]) which is disclosed as the IGI mixture (see claim 7 and 8). Additionally, Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewington teaches the angle of the gas flow injection may be changed (see Fig 30C, 30D) by closing valves. Further, Anderson teaches the control of the gas injectors includes controlling the flow to change the flow through the injectors including having a variation in which no gas is flowed through the outer injectors or gas is flowed through the outer injectors (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller and apparatus of Lewington to include the controller is configured to change the gas flow injection angle by controlling the flow of each gas through each individual injector because Anderson teaches this control of the gas flow allows for testing and optimizing the uniformity of the processing (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. The combination including Yonemura teaches gas flow rotation to achieve radial etch rate uniformity as explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewington teaches other etching gasses may be used including CHF3, CF4 [0084-0085] . Further, Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lewington teaches the array of individual gas injectors (32 Fig 1) is located in one or more openings in the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lewington in view of Anderson, Yonemura, and Chen remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 and 26 above. Lewington teaches the angle of the gas flow injection may be changed (see Fig 30C, 30D) by closing valves and thereby selecting between a wideset of adjacent individual gas injectors and a narrow set (Fig 30C and 30D and [0095]). Further Anderson teaches simultaneously injecting a second gas flow from at least a portion of a remaining set of the individual gas injectors (col 4, ln 35 to col 5, ln 10, taught as injecting two gases in a controllable manner to vary the concentration which inclusive of some injectors having no amount of one of the gases and all of the other of the gases). Anderson teaches the control of the gas injectors includes controlling the flow to change the flow through the injectors including having a variation in which no gas is flowed through the outer injectors or gas is flowed through the outer injectors (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller and apparatus of Lewington to include the controller is configured to change the gas flow injection angle, prior to or during processing, by controlling the flow of each gas through each individual injector because Anderson teaches this control of the gas flow allows for testing and optimizing the uniformity of the processing (col 5, ln 25 to col 6 ln 15). In the combination as applied, a wide set of adjacent individual injectors results in a wider angle (e.g. 4-6 of the injectors of Lewington) and a narrower set (e.g. 1-3 of the injectors of Lewington) results in a narrower (decreased) gas injection angle. Yonemura remains as applied above to teach including a set of rotational phases in addition to the changes in injection width.
Regarding claim 11 and 20, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson and Yonemura remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 above. Yonemura teaches the gas flow control includes turning on and off the gas flows to control gas flow rotation [0057-0067].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claims 1 and 26 above.
Regarding claim 12 and 21, the combination of Lewington in view of Anderson remains as applied to claim 1-2, 13, and 16 above. Yonemura teaches a modulating function applied to the gas flows and the outlets (note Yonemura teaches a plurality of outlets exhaust pipes 13a-c Fig 9) [0057-0067] as part of the gas flow rotation.
Regarding claim 17, this limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used. The prior art teaches all of the claimed structures and is therefore capable of achieving the same outcome with the same etching gases and substrate unless applicant is relying on an essential limitation that has not been claimed. It has been held that claims directed to 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). Also, 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 above. Lewington teaches the array of individual gas injectors is located in one or more openings in the one or more sidewalls (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson, Yonemura, and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava (prev. presented US 6,531,069).
Regarding claim 24, the combination as applied to claim 1 renders obvious more than one pump port but Lewington fails to teach the pressure control valves and actuators. In the same field of endeavor of plasma etching apparatuses (abstract, Fig 8), Srivastava teaches a first pump port and a second pump port (each of OH Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15), and teaches a first pressure control valve (one of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50-67) coupled to the first pump port (Fig 8); a first actuator (electromechanical means col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the first pressure control valve to raise and lower the first pressure control valve within the first pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15); a second pressure control valve (different of V1-V25 Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15) coupled to the second pump port (Fig 8); a second actuator coupled to the second pressure control valve to raise and lower the second pressure control valve within the second pump port (Fig 8 and col 8, ln 50 to col 9, ln 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewington and the combination to include the plurality of pump ports and valves with actuators as taught by Srivastava because Srivastava teaches this allows control of the angle of the open valves and allows rotation to reduce the gas shadowing to improve uniformity (col 9, ln 1-15).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewington in view of Anderson, Yonemura, and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guha (prev. presented US 2018/0082826).
Regarding claim 25, Lewington teaches a controller (60 Fig 1) coupled to the chamber (Fig 1) the controller includes one or more processors (processor 132 [0074], [0078-0079]). Lewington teaches the controller may be coupled with a network or other system to examine history, change parameters, and examine trends [0080]. Examiner notes that this instruction for parameters based on past operations and trends suggest machine learning. However Lewington does not explicitly state that the process is inclusive of machine learning. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing (abstract), Guha teaches for multivariate processing, using machine learning to make adjustments [0010] and improve processing over time [0012]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller processor of Lewington including the system to query history and change parameters to include machine learning because machine learning allows for improving settings to refine the model and improve the process over time [0012]. Regarding specifically the timing of the gas flow, Lewington has taught timing as one of the recipe parameters which can be controlled by the controller [0090-0096].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p14-15) the that prior art fails to teach the amended limitations regarding the modulated non-uniform center and edge flow rates with the rotational phases. As explained above, the claims are unclear as to whether the claims actually require the rotation described in the different phases or are merely directed to a single phase. Regardless, the combination including Yonemura teaches rotating the primary direction of the process gas flow in phases as explained in the rejection above. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the patentability of the instant claims. Regarding the argument that Examiner chose specific teachings to apply the combination, applicant has not addressed the rationale presented for the obviousness. Further regarding the arguments regarding hindsight (reply p15), In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the patentability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0281084 demonstrates a nozzle array with individual flow control for center to edge (Fig 9). US 6,449,871 teaches sets of nozzle arrays for around the perimeter of the chamber (Fig 2a,2b). US 2006/0042754 teaches four nozzle arrays for applying gas to a substrate positioned around the chamber (Fig 3).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights