DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 06/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Group II, method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/06/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first gas supply plate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-15 recite “a plurality of partitions;” should be “a plurality of partition plates.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-15 recite “first gas supply plate;” should be “first gas dispersing plate.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “wherein one ends of the partitions are in contact with the first gas supply plate; another ends of the partitions are in contact with the first electrode;” should be “wherein one end of each of the partition plates are in contact with the first gas supply plate; another end of each of the partition plates are in contact with the first electrode.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas introducing part (any structure that introduces gas, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0036]) in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Holder (carrier ring, para. [0035]) in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190145001 to Park in view of US 20090107403 to Moshtagh.
Claim 1: Park discloses a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: a processing container (5 [process chamber], Fig. 6); a holder (40 [support structure], Fig. 1) provided in the processing container (5) and capable of holding a substrate (W [wafer]); a gas introducing part (30 [lower showerhead]) provided on a side of a first face of the substrate (WB) and configured to introduce a process gas into the processing container (para. [0027]);
a second electrode (10 [upper showerhead], Fig. 6) provided on a side of a second face of the substrate (WF) opposite to the first face (WB) and applying an electric field to the process gas between the first and second electrodes (para. [0022], [0028]).
However Park does not disclose a first gas supply plate provided between the substrate and the gas introducing part and having a plurality of first holes allowing the process gas to pass; a first electrode provided between the substrate and the first gas supply plate and having a plurality of second holes supplying the process gas to the first face of the substrate; and a plurality of partition plates provided between the first electrode and the first gas supply plate, extending substantially linearly in a first direction substantially parallel to the first face, and dividing a space between the first electrode and the first gas supply plate into a plurality of regions.
Regarding the “electrode,” Examiner interprets the “electrode” to be a plate capable of receiving power from a high frequency power source, however as a power source is not claimed, the electrode is interpreted as necessarily a plate. Additionally, it is well known in the prior art for showerhead plates to receive high frequency power.
Moshtagh discloses a first gas supply plate (29 [outside cover], Fig. 1, 9) provided between the substrate (15 [wafer]) and the gas introducing part (24-27 [gas inlets]) and having a plurality of first holes (holes of 29, Fig. 8) allowing the process gas to pass (para. [0054]); a first electrode (30 [inside cover]) provided between the substrate (15) and the first gas supply plate (29) and having a plurality of second holes (92 [apertures]) supplying the process gas to the first face of the substrate (15); and a plurality of partition plates (31-33 [partitions], Fig. 9) provided between the first electrode (30) and the first gas supply plate (29), extending substantially linearly in a first direction substantially parallel to the first face (Fig. 9), and dividing a space between the first electrode (30) and the first gas supply plate (29) into a plurality of regions (42-45 [zones]). Moshtagh discloses the above limitations for the purpose of facilitating the injection of different reactant gasses and/or different concentrations of reactant gasses into the CVD chamber (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above limitations as taught by Moshtagh with motivation to facilitate the injection of different reactant gasses and/or different concentrations of reactant gasses into the CVD chamber.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the partition plates (31-33, Fig. 9, Moshtagh) extend substantially in parallel to each other in the first direction (Fig. 9).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein one end of the plurality of partition plates (one end of 31-33, Fig. 9, Moshtagh) are in contact with the first gas supply plate (29, Fig. 9); another end of the plurality of partition plates (another end of 31-33) are in contact with the first electrode (30, Fig. 9), and the partition plates (31-33) separate the process gases in the regions from each other (para. [0055-0056]).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the gas introducing part (24-27, Fig. 1, 8, Moshtagh) comprises a plurality of inlets (24-27) introducing the process gas into the regions (42-45), respectively (para. [0054]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the process gas from the inlets of the gas introducing part is introduced to associated ones of the regions, respectively, through associated ones of the first holes of the first gas supply plate, and the process gas respectively introduced into the regions is supplied to the first face of the substrate through associated ones of the second holes of the first electrode (para. [0055-0057], Moshtagh). It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises lines of a conductive material on the second face, and the first direction in which the partitions extend is substantially parallel to an extending direction of the lines.
However, the limitations are drawn to the recitations tie the structure of the apparatus to a substrate that may be worked upon by the apparatus, but is notably not part of the apparatus; and therefore cannot be used to define over the prior art apparatus. The courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the second holes (92, Fig. 9, Moshtagh) are arrayed in a matrix (92) to correspond to each of the regions on the first electrode.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the first electrode (30 or 30, Park or Moshtagh) has a substantially circular shape having a diameter equal to or larger than a diameter of the substrate as viewed from a perpendicular direction to the first face (Fig. 2, Park, or Fig. 1, Moshtagh).
Claims 13-14: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh does not explicitly (claim 13) disclose wherein the gas introducing part introduces a gas including SiH4a and N2O as the process gas into the processing container when a center of the substrate held by the holder is farther from the first electrode than is an end portion of the substrate; (claim 14) wherein the gas introducing part introduces a gas including SiH4 and NH3 as the process gas into the processing container when a center of the substrate held by the holder is closer to the first electrode than is an end portion of the substrate.
Moshtagh teaches that a gas introducing part (24-27, Fig. 1, 9) introduces different reactants or varying concentrations of metalorganic gases for example, to the center and/or edge of the substrate held by the holder (16, para. [0055-0057]) for the purpose of facilitating the formation of desired materials thereon according to the chemical vapor deposition process (para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of gasses to different locations as taught by Moshtagh with motivation to facilitate the formation of desired materials thereon according to the chemical vapor deposition process.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh discloses wherein the second electrode (10, Fig. 6, Park) has a plurality of third holes (14 [upper holes]) supplying an inert gas to the second face of the substrate (para. [0030]).
Claims 16-20: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Moshtagh as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 above, and further in view of US 20210217609 to Kagaya.
Claims 6-7: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh does not explicitly disclose (claim 6) further comprising a controller configured to control a flow rate or an introducing time of the process gas to be introduced into each of the regions; (claim 7) wherein the controller increases the flow rate or the introducing time of the process gas to be introduced into a first region among the regions, corresponding to a central portion of the substrate, to be higher or longer than that in a second region corresponding to an end portion of the substrate.
Kagaya discloses explicitly (claim 6) further comprising a controller (10 [controller], Fig. 1-2) configured to control a flow rate or an introducing time of the process gas to be introduced into each of the regions (para. [0055]); (claim 7) wherein the controller (10) increases the flow rate or the introducing time of the process gas to be introduced into a first region among the regions, corresponding to a central portion of the substrate, to be higher or longer than that in a second region corresponding to an end portion of the substrate (para. [0055]). Kagaya discloses the above limitations for the purpose of adjusting the ejection time of the precursor to be shorter than the time required for the absorbed amount of the precursor on the wafer to reach saturation (para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Kagaya with motivation to adjust the ejection time of the precursor to be shorter than the time required for the absorbed amount of the precursor on the wafer to reach saturation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Moshtagh as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 above, and further in view of US 20190177851 to Ivanov.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh does not disclose wherein the first electrode has a substantially quadrangular shape having four sides equal to or larger than a diameter of the substrate as viewed from a perpendicular direction to the first face.
Ivanov teaches that the major face of the electrode (32 [hollow plate], Fig. 2) may have a shape and size that is matched to and may be equal to the shape and size of the substrate (para. [0033], [0126]) for the purpose of simultaneously depositing material from two flow paths, thereby doing it in an efficient way, eliminating or reducing turbulences (para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape optimization requirements as taught by Ivanov with motivation to simultaneously deposit material from two flow paths, thereby doing it in an efficient way, eliminating or reducing turbulences.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Moshtagh as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 above, and further in view of US 20130052804 to Song.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Park in view of Moshtagh does not disclose wherein the second holes are arrayed on the first electrode radially from a center of the first electrode.
Song discloses second holes (281 [gas conduits], Fig. 4C) are arrayed on the first electrode (283 [showerhead face]) radially from a center of the first electrode (283, para. [0049]), for the purpose of being advantageously used in substrate processing, especially metal organic chemical vapor depositions or hydride vapor phase epitaxy processes (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the array configuration as taught by Song with motivation to be advantageously used in substrate processing, especially metal organic chemical vapor depositions or hydride vapor phase epitaxy processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718