DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 17-25, and 27-30 are pending and examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The objection to specification is withdrawn.
The claim objections are withdrawn except for that of Claim 8. The verb “are” in line 5 should be changed to “is” because the subject is “a first carrier gas stream.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 10/26/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered. Applicant contends that the prior art of record fails to teach certain limitations (e.g., the passage branches are arranged in “an interwoven honeycomb pattern”) of the claims as amended (See Remarks at 11-12). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC § 103 rejections below.
The Examiner notes that an interwoven honeycomb pattern is already known in the prior art nozzle structures. See SEMMELROCK cited in the 35 USC 103 rejections below; see also ZHOU, TSUJI, JUNG, and WANG cited in the "Relevant Prior Art" section.
Claim Objections
In Claim 8 line 5, the verb “are” should be made singular because the subject is “first carrier gas stream.” In other words, the claim language should be:
. . . such that a first carrier gas stream . . . [[are]] is vertically aligned with . . .
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites “the at least one elongated fluid passage branch” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 21 has been amended to recite “multiple elongated fluid passage branches.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites that the gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in the nozzle to form “an interweaving pattern,” but Claim 17 already recites that the gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in “an interwoven honeycomb pattern.” Therefore, Claim 20 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 17.
Claim 28 recites that the gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in the nozzle to form “an interweaving pattern,” but Claim 21 already recites that the gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in “an interwoven honeycomb pattern.” Therefore, Claim 28 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 21.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 1-2, 7-8, 17, 20-22, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0020520), in view of SEMMELROCK et al. (US PGPUB 20140026926) and NGUYEN et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0072526).
Regarding Claim 1, KIM teaches a semiconductor cleaning apparatus (wafer cleaning apparatus 10 comprising a treatment member 202, see abstract, Figs. 1-4, ¶ 0044).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KIM’s semiconductor cleaning apparatus comprises a carrier gas source (see annotated Fig. 4 above) configured to provide a carrier gas (N2 gas supplied to line 272, see, e.g., ¶¶ 0063, 0065, 0097). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the N2 gas supplied to line 272 comes from a source of that N2 gas.
KIM’s apparatus comprises a nozzle structure (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) in communication with the carrier gas source (see id.) and configured to receive the carrier gas (N2 gas, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0063, 0065, 0097);
a second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive one or more fluids (cleaning solution, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0053, 0065, 0095);
a first nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4) connected with the first inlet and a second nozzle (see id.) connected with the second inlet, the first nozzle being configured to spray the carrier gas onto a substrate of a semiconductor device (see Figs. 2 & 4, ¶ 0061) and the second nozzle being configured to spray the one or more fluids onto the substrate of the semiconductor device (see Figs. 2 & 4, ¶ 0060);
a gas passageway (main passage 218 and passage branches 214) connected to the first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) and a fluid passageway (main passage 216 and passage branch 212) connected to the second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the gas passageway comprises multiple elongated gas passage branches (passage branches 214) including a first elongated gas passage branch and a second elongated gas passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4), each elongated gas passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas passage (main passage 218) and a second end connected to a gas opening (see id.);
wherein the fluid passageway comprises multiple elongated fluid passage branches (passage branches 212) including a first elongated fluid passage branch and a second elongated fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4), each of the multiple elongated fluid passage branches has a first end connected to a main fluid passage (main passage 216) and a second end connected to a fluid opening (see id.).
PNG
media_image2.png
720
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KIM teaches that:
the multiple elongated gas passage branches (gas passage branches 214) and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (fluid passage branches 212) are arranged in an interwoven pattern (see KIM at annotated Fig. 3);
the first elongated gas passage branch is closer to a center of the first nozzle than the second elongated gas passage branch (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above); and
each elongated gas/fluid passage branch has a diameter (see annotated Figs. 3-4).
KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “the carrier gas and the one or more fluids are sprayed simultaneously onto the substrate so that the carrier gas pushes the one or more fluids outwards on the substrate.” As explained above, KIM’s apparatus comprises the first nozzle (and the corresponding gas passage branches) for spraying the carrier gas onto the substrate and the second nozzle (and the corresponding fluid passage branches) for spraying the one or more fluids onto the substrate, wherein the branches are arranged alternately in an interweaving pattern (see Figs. 3-4 of KIM), just like the structures disclosed for the present invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that, when the carrier gas lands on the substrate, the gas spreads outwardly from its landing point and comes into contact with the fluid(s) that are also being supplied to the substrate. Thus, KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of simultaneously supplying the carrier gas and the fluid(s) onto the substrate so that the carrier gas pushes the fluid(s) outwards on the substrate.
A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). 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.
KIM teaches that various changes can be made to its invention (¶ 0129).
KIM does not explicitly teach:
The gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in an interwoven “honeycomb” pattern;
“wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to arrange passage branches in a honeycomb pattern. See SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084. In particular, SEMMELROCK teaches a nozzle structure (showerhead 40, see Figs. 1-2) having multiple passage branches (holes 41) arranged in a honeycomb pattern (see Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to arrange the passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 and fluid passage branches 212) in a honeycomb pattern, with reasonable expectation of supplying gas/liquid from the nozzle structure. First, it’s already known in the prior art to arrange passage branches in a honeycomb pattern (see SEMMELROCK). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. Second, it’s considered obvious to rearrange parts. See MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C. In this case, KIM’s passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 and fluid passage branches 212) arranged in a honeycomb pattern would still perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying gas/liquid from the nozzle structure), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK: the gas passage branches 214 and the fluid passage branches 212 would be in an interwoven pattern (see annotated Fig. 3 of KIM), specifically an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C).
The combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK does not explicitly teach: “wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch.”
NGUYEN teaches a nozzle (support member 212) for supplying a fluid—“fluid” means a liquid or a gas—to a substrate 250 placed in a chamber 200 (see Fig. 2-3), just like the present application. NGUYEN teaches a gas/fluid passageway comprises multiple elongated gas/fluid passage branches (elongated holes 306) including a first elongated passage branch (an elongated hole 306 closer toward the center, see Fig. 5) and a second elongated passage branch (an elongated hole 306 farther away from the center, see Fig. 5), each elongated passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas/fluid passage (volume 310) and a second end connected to a gas/fluid opening (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0028-29). NGUYEN teaches that elongated passage branches (holes 306) closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and elongated passage branches (holes 306) farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters (see Fig. 5, ¶ 0034), so as to generate an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate (see ¶ 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK such that elongated gas passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 of KIM) closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and elongated gas passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, with reasonable expectation of generating an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate, for several reasons.
First, by using different diameters for the passage branches based each passage branch’s position relative to the nozzle’s center, it’s possible to generate an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to configure gas passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center with smaller diameters and gas passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center with larger diameters.
Second, changes in size/proportion are considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.) and after changing their diameters, the gas passage branches would still perform the same function as before (e.g., supply a gas/liquid to the substrate), thus yielding predictable results.
Third, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, C. Here, both KIM and NGUYEN teach a nozzle with elongated passage branches arranged radially from the nozzle’s center to the nozzle’s peripheral, and applying NGUYEN’s teachings (regarding relative diameters) to KIM’s nozzle to control the nozzle’s distribution of fluid would likely to be obvious.
Fourth, it’s already known in the prior art for a nozzle to have gas passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center with smaller diameters and gas passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center with larger diameters (see NGUYEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The elongated gas passage branches, with adjusted diameters, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., supply a gas/liquid), thus yielding predictable results.
Fifth, it would’ve been obvious to try changing the diameters of the passage branches, because a person of ordinary skill in the art could choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.E. At the time of the invention, the art recognizes a problem/need regarding uniform distribution of fluid from a nozzle to the substrate (see KIM at ¶¶ 0016-17; see NGUYEN at ¶ 0035). There is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to such problem/need; it’s known to change, e.g., the diameters of the passage branches; the number of passage branches; the gap between passage branches (see NGUYEN at ¶ 0034). Because the nozzle is circular with a plurality of passage branches—arranged in concentric circles around the nozzle’s center—for dispensing a fluid onto a circular substrate (see KIM at Fig. 3; see NGUYEN at Fig. Fig. 5), a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving uniform distribution of fluid on the substrate.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (i.e., fluid passage branches 212 of KIM) such that fluid passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and fluid passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, for the same reasons provided above for modifying the gas passage branches.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 of KIM) and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (i.e., fluid passage branches 212 of KIM) are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion (see KIM at Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first elongated fluid passage branch is closer to a center of the second nozzle than the second elongated fluid passage branch (see annotated Figs. 3-4 of KIM), and wherein a diameter of the first elongated fluid passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated fluid passage branch (as explained above).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein a central elongated gas passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4 of KIM above) of the multiple elongated gas passage branches is vertically aligned with a central elongated fluid passage branch (see id.) of the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (see id.). This means the apparatus as taught by the combination is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “a first carrier gas stream flowing through the central elongated gas passage branch is vertically aligned with a first fluid stream flowing through the central elongated fluid passage branch.” A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art based on structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 17, KIM teaches a nozzle (plate 210) disposed inside a substrate processing chamber 300 of a semiconductor apparatus 10 (see Figs. 1-4; see also annotated Figs. 3-4 of KIM above). As explained above, KIM’s nozzle comprises:
a gas passageway (main passage 218 & branches 214) in communication with a carrier gas source (see annotated Fig. 4 above) of the semiconductor apparatus to receive a carrier gas provided by the carrier gas source and sprayed onto a semiconductor wafer,
wherein the gas passageway comprises multiple elongated gas passage branches (branches 214) including a first elongated gas passage branch and a second elongated gas passage branch, each elongated gas passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas passage (passage 218) and a second end connected to a gas opening;
a fluid passageway (main passage 216 & branches 212) in communication with a fluid source (see annotated Fig. 4 above; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fluid supplied to line 270 comes from a source of such fluid) of the semiconductor apparatus to receive a fluid provided by the fluid source and sprayed onto the semiconductor wafer (as explained above; see also Figs. 2, 4, 17-18, ¶¶ 0053, 0060, 0065, 0095),
wherein the fluid passageway comprises multiple elongated fluid passage branches (branches 212) including a first elongated fluid passage branch and a second elongated fluid passage branch, each elongated fluid passage branch has a first end connected to a main fluid passage (passage 216) and a second end connected to a fluid opening;
wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches are arranged in an interwoven pattern;
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch is arranged neighboring the first elongated fluid passage branch, and the second elongated gas passage branch is arranged neighboring the second elongated fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch is closer to a center of the nozzle than the second elongated gas passage branch (see annotated Figs. 3-4);
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch has a diameter, and the second elongated gas passage branch has a diameter.
As explained above, KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “the carrier gas and the fluid are sprayed simultaneously onto the semiconductor wafer so that the carrier gas pushes the fluid outwards on the semiconductor wafer.” KIM’s apparatus comprises gas passage branches for spraying the carrier gas onto the substrate and fluid passage branches for spraying the one or more fluids onto the substrate, wherein the branches are arranged alternately in an interweaving pattern (see Figs. 3-4 of KIM), just like the structures disclosed for the present invention.
A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). 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.
KIM teaches that various changes can be made to its invention (¶ 0129).
KIM does not explicitly teach:
The gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in an interwoven “honeycomb” pattern;
“wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to arrange passage branches in a honeycomb pattern. See SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084. In particular, SEMMELROCK teaches a nozzle structure (showerhead 40, see Figs. 1-2) having multiple passage branches (holes 41) arranged in a honeycomb pattern (see Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to arrange the passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 and fluid passage branches 212) in a honeycomb pattern, with reasonable expectation of supplying gas/liquid from the nozzle structure.
In the resulting combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK: the gas passage branches 214 and the fluid passage branches 212 would be in an interwoven pattern (see annotated Fig. 3 of KIM), specifically an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C).
The combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK does not explicitly teach: “wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch.”
As explained above, NGUYEN teaches a nozzle (support member 212) for supplying a fluid—“fluid” means a liquid or a gas—to a substrate 250 placed in a chamber 200; wherein the nozzle has a gas/fluid passageway that comprises multiple elongated gas/fluid passage branches (elongated holes 306), each elongated passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas/fluid passage (volume 310) and a second end connected to a gas/fluid opening (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0028-29); wherein elongated passage branches (holes 306) closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and elongated passage branches (holes 306) farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, so as to generate an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0034-35).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multiple elongated gas passage branches (gas passage branches 214 of KIM) such that gas passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and gas passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, with reasonable expectation of generating an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (fluid passage branches 212 of KIM) such that fluid passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and fluid passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, for the same reasons provided above for modifying the gas passage branches.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the nozzle of claim 17. The combination teaches wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches (gas passage branches 214 of KIM) and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (fluid passage branches 212 of KIM) are arranged in the nozzle to form an interweaving pattern (see KIM at Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, KIM teaches a semiconductor apparatus 10 comprising: a chamber 300 configured to receive a semiconductor wafer W during a semiconductor fabrication process; and a semiconductor cleaning apparatus 202 (see Figs. 1-4).
As explained above, KIM’s semiconductor cleaning apparatus comprises:
a carrier gas source configured to provide a carrier gas;
a first inlet in communication with the carrier gas source and configured to receive the carrier gas;
a second inlet configured to receive one or more fluids;
a first nozzle connected with the first inlet and a second nozzle connected with the second inlet, the first nozzle being configured to spray the carrier gas onto the semiconductor wafer and the second nozzle being configured to spray the one or more fluids onto the semiconductor wafer;
a gas passageway connected to the first inlet, and a fluid passageway connected to the second inlet;
wherein the gas passageway comprises multiple elongated gas passage branches including a first elongated gas passage branch and a second elongated gas passage branch, each elongated gas passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas passage and a second end connected to a gas opening;
wherein the fluid passageway comprises multiple elongated fluid passage branch including a first elongated fluid passage branch, each of the multiple elongated fluid passage branch has a first end connected to a main fluid passage and a second end connected to a fluid opening;
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch is arranged neighboring the first elongated fluid passage branch;
wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches are arranged in an interwoven pattern;
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch is closer to a center of the first nozzle than the second elongated gas passage branch;
wherein the first elongated gas passage branch has a diameter and the second elongated gas passage branch has a diameter.
As explained above, KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “the carrier gas and the one or more fluids are sprayed simultaneously onto the semiconductor wafer so that the carrier gas pushes the one or more fluids outwards on the semiconductor wafer.” KIM’s apparatus comprises the first nozzle (and the corresponding gas passage branches) for spraying the carrier gas onto the substrate and the second nozzle (and the corresponding fluid passage branches) for spraying the one or more fluids onto the substrate, wherein the branches are arranged alternately in an interweaving pattern (see Figs. 3-4 of KIM), just like the structures disclosed for the present invention.
A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). 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.
KIM teaches that various changes can be made to its invention (¶ 0129).
KIM does not explicitly teach:
The gas passage branches and the fluid passage branches are arranged in an interwoven “honeycomb” pattern;
“wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to arrange passage branches in a honeycomb pattern. See SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084. In particular, SEMMELROCK teaches a nozzle structure (showerhead 40, see Figs. 1-2) having multiple passage branches (holes 41) arranged in a honeycomb pattern (see Figs. 9B-9C, ¶ 0084).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to arrange the passage branches (i.e., gas passage branches 214 and fluid passage branches 212) in a honeycomb pattern, with reasonable expectation of supplying gas/liquid from the nozzle structure.
In the resulting combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK: the gas passage branches 214 and the fluid passage branches 212 would be in an interwoven pattern (see annotated Fig. 3 of KIM), specifically an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see SEMMELROCK at Figs. 9B-9C).
The combination of KIM and SEMMELROCK does not explicitly teach: “wherein a diameter of the first elongated gas passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated gas passage branch”;
As explained above, NGUYEN teaches a nozzle (support member 212) for supplying a fluid—“fluid” means a liquid or a gas—to a substrate 250 placed in a chamber 200; wherein the nozzle has a gas/fluid passageway that comprises multiple elongated gas/fluid passage branches (elongated holes 306), each elongated passage branch has a first end connected to a main gas/fluid passage (volume 310) and a second end connected to a gas/fluid opening (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0028-29); wherein elongated passage branches (holes 306) closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and elongated passage branches (holes 306) farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, so as to generate an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate (see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0034-35).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multiple elongated gas passage branches (gas passage branches 214 of KIM) such that gas passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and gas passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, with reasonable expectation of generating an uniform distribution of a fluid on the substrate.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multiple elongated fluid passage branches (fluid passage branches 212 of KIM) such that fluid passage branches closer toward the nozzle’s center have smaller diameters and fluid passage branches farther away from the nozzle’s center have larger diameters, for the same reasons provided above for modifying the gas passage branches.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the first elongated fluid passage branch is closer to a center of the second nozzle than the second elongated fluid passage branch, and wherein a diameter of the first elongated fluid passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated fluid passage branch.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches and the multiple elongated fluid passage branch are arranged to form an interweaving pattern.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the nozzle of claim 17. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the first elongated fluid passage branch is closer to the center of the nozzle than the second elongated fluid passage branch, and wherein a diameter of the first elongated fluid passage branch is less than a diameter of the second elongated fluid passage branch.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the nozzle of claim 17. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the multiple elongated gas passage branches and the multiple elongated fluid passage branches are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion.
Claims 3-5, 18-19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN (as applied to Claims 1, 17, and 21 above), in further view of LIU et al. (Chinese Publication CN114367488, as translated by Espacenet, hereinafter “LIU-488”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle includes “a first valve adjustable to cause a non-linear gas distribution on the substrate of the semiconductor device.”
LIU-488 teaches a nozzle with a gas/fluid passageway for dispensing a gas/fluid (e.g., water, EKC solution, IPA, N2 gas, see ¶¶ 0016, 0018) onto a substrate. LIU-488 teaches that the gas/fluid passageway comprises a main passage and multiple elongated passage branches (see annotated Fig. 1 below). LIU-488 teaches that each elongated passage branch has its own valve 8 (see Fig. 1); wherein each valve is independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042); wherein the valves are adjustable to cause a non-linear distribution of a gas/fluid on the substrate (see ¶ 0052, dispensing a gas/fluid on the substrate in a sequential manner from the substrate’s center to the substrate’s peripheral). This has the benefit of pushing contamination and residual fluid off the substrate to enhance cleaning (see ¶¶ 0028, 0055-56).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each elongated gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each elongated fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate. First, by providing a valve for each elongated passage branch, contamination/fluid can be pushed off the substrate to enhance cleaning; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a valve for each elongated gas passage branch 214 and for each elongated fluid passage branch 212. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for each elongated passage branch to have its own valve (see LIU-488). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, NGUYEN, and LIU-488 teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 3. The apparatus as taught by the combination is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “wherein a carrier gas distribution is adjustable based on a pattern density on the substrate of the semiconductor device.” Because each passage branch—configured to dispense a gas/fluid at a particular location on the substrate—has its own valve, the distribution of a gas/fluid on the substrate can be adjusted by independently adjusting each individual valve. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the first elongated gas passage branch comprises a first valve and the first elongated fluid passage branch comprises a second valve, wherein the first valve is controllable independent from the second valve.”
But LIU-488 teaches a nozzle with multiple elongated passage branches, wherein each elongated passage branch has its own valve 8 that’s independently controlled (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042). This has the benefit of pushing contamination/fluid off the substrate to enhance cleaning (see ¶¶ 0028, 0055-56).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each elongated gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each elongated fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the nozzle of claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach “wherein the first elongated gas passage branch and the second elongated gas passage branch are controllable independently such that a flow rate in the first elongated gas passage branch and a flow rate in the second elongated gas passage branch are controllable independently.” But LIU-488 teaches each elongated passage branch has its own valve that’s independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
In the resulting combination: because each elongated gas passage branch has its own valve that’s independently controllable, a flow rate in each elongated gas passage branch also would be independently controllable.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the nozzle of claim 17. The combination does not explicitly teach “wherein the first elongated fluid passage branch comprises a first valve and the second elongated fluid passage branch comprises a second valve, wherein the first valve is controllable independent from the second valve.” But LIU-488 teaches each elongated passage branch has its own valve that’s independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042). As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 21. The combination does not explicitly teach “wherein the first nozzle includes a first valve adjustable to cause a non-linear gas distribution on the semiconductor wafer.” But LIU-488 teaches each elongated passage branch has its own valve that’s independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042). As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, NGUYEN, and LIU-488 teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 23. As explained above, the apparatus as taught by the combination is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “wherein a carrier gas distribution is adjustable based on a pattern density on the semiconductor wafer.” Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN teaches the semiconductor apparatus of claim 21. The combination does not explicitly teach “wherein the first elongated gas passage branch comprises a first valve and the first elongated fluid passage branch comprises a second valve, wherein the first valve is controllable independent from the second valve.” But LIU-488 teaches each elongated passage branch has its own valve that’s independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042). As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KIM, SEMMELROCK, and NGUYEN to incorporate a valve for each elongated passage branch (i.e., for each elongated gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each elongated fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Honeycomb pattern in nozzle structure
ZHOU et al. (Chinese Publication CN112845305A, as translated by Espacenet) teaches a nozzle structure 400 (see Fig. 4A) having a plurality of passage branches arranged in an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see Fig. 4A).
TSUJI et al. (US PGPUB 20050183666) teaches a nozzles structure (e.g., a shower plate) having a plurality of passage branches arranged in an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see Fig. 16, ¶ 0006).
JUNG et al. (US PGPUB 20170316958) teaches a nozzle structure 320 having passage branches arranged in an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see Fig. 7, ¶ 0089).
WANG et al. (US PGPUB 20140273489) teaches a nozzle structure (showerhead 725, showerhead 800) having passage branches arranged in an interwoven honeycomb pattern (see Figs. 7-8, ¶¶ 0115, 0117).
Concentric arrangement of a gas passage branch and a fluid passage branch
MIYA et al. (US PGPUB 20050276921) teaches an elongated gas passage branch 18 and an elongated fluid passage branch 12 arranged concentrically such that the elongated gas passage branch is different from but also vertically aligned with the elongated fluid passage branch (see Figs. 1 & 3).
MIYAZAKI (US PGPUB 20030024553) teaches an elongated gas passage branch (e.g., one of tube 203 or tube 204) and an elongated fluid passage branch (e.g., the other of tube 203 or tube 204) arranged concentrically such that the elongated gas passage branch is different from but also vertically aligned with the elongated fluid passage branch (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0045).
FUJIWARA et al. (US PGPUB 20100313915) teaches an elongated gas passage branch (e.g., tube 95, Fig. 1, ¶ 0043; tube 2702, Fig. 7, ¶ 0058) and an elongated fluid passage branch (e.g., tube 96, Fig. 1, ¶ 0043; tube 2701, Fig. 7, ¶ 0058) arranged concentrically such that the elongated gas passage branch is different from but also vertically aligned with the elongated fluid passage branch (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0058, 0086, 0098).
Nozzle/showerhead having both gas passage branches and fluid passage branches
HIGASHIJIMA et al. (US PGPUB 20120186607) teaches a nozzle 60 for treating a substrate (see Fig. 9, 10A) in a chamber of apparatus 10 (see Fig. 1 & 2A), wherein the nozzle has gas passage branches 62 and fluid passage branches 61 (see Fig. 9, 10A, ¶ 0062), and wherein each supply line has its own valve (73A-73E) under the control of a controller 100 (see Fig. 2A, ¶ 0072).
HWANG (Korean Publication KR20060125315, as translated by Espacenet) teaches a nozzle 600 comprising nozzles 630A, 630B, 630C, 630D for treating a substrate in a chamber 100 (see Fig. 1-3), wherein each of nozzles 630A-630D has its own supply line, flow rate controller, and passageways. Nozzle 630D supplies N2 gas, thus has gas passage branches. Nozzles 630A, 630B, 630C supply different fluids, thus have fluid passage branches.
NAKAGAWA et al. (US PGPUB 20090305178) teaches a spray burner 11 (see Fig. 11-12) comprising gas passage branches 101 and fluid passage branches 14, 22/44 (see id.).
Smaller diameter for a passage branch closer toward the center of the nozzle and larger diameter for a passage branch farther away from the center of the nozzle
ONO et al. (US PGPUB 20020074020) teaches a nozzle 31 for treating a substrate in a chamber (see Fig. 1 & 4C), wherein passage branches of the nozzle have smaller diameter at center and larger diameter at periphery (see Fig. 4C, ¶ 0060).
KANG et al. (US PGPUB 20230384029) teaches a nozzle 650 for treating a substrate in a chamber 404 (see Fig. 4 & 9), wherein passage branches of the nozzle have smaller diameter at center and larger diameter at periphery (see Fig. 9, ¶ 0097).
YOON et al. (US PGPUB 20160298241) teaches a nozzle 210 for treating a substrate in a chamber 200 (see Fig. 3-5), wherein passage branches of the nozzle have smaller diameter at center (¶ 0048, “the size of the hole may be smaller in the central region than in the edge region”).
CHO et al. (US PGPUB 20080041430) teaches a nozzle 200 for treating a substrate (Fig. 1-2), wherein central passage branch 250c has smallest diameter, peripheral passage branch 250n are larger (see Fig. 2, 8, ¶ 0059).
Some typical arrangements of passage branches in a nozzle
ISHIDA et al. (US PGPUB 20060177586) teaches a nozzle 71 with gas branches (connected to inlet 73) and fluid branches (connected to inlet 72) alternately arranged (Fig. 5, ¶ 0039).
HAYASHI et al. (US PGPUB 20100108108) teaches a nozzle with gas branches 150 and fluid branches 152 alternately arranged (Fig. 1, ¶ 0061).
CHOI (Korean Publication KR20170071922, as translated by Espacenet) teaches a nozzle with fluid passage branches 321 and gas passage branches 322 alternately arranged (Fig. 3).
CHIBA et al. (Japanese Publication JP2018065109, as translated by Espacenet) teaches a nozzle 13 with fluid passage branch 13A and gas passage branch 13B alternately arranged (Fig. 1).
TANNOUS et al. (US PGPUB 20050127037) teaches passage branches 121 and passage branches 122 alternately arranged (Fig. 12).
GURER et al. (US PGPUB 20020187442) teaches a nozzle with passage branches 705, passage branches 710, and passage branches 715 arranged in a staggered manner to conserve space (¶ 0055, Fig. 7), wherein passage branches 705, 710, and 715 supply different fluids.
KITANO et al. (US PGPUB 20090285991) teaches that gas passage branches 62A and fluid passage branches 52A are arranged as concentric circles (Fig. 4).
CHEN et al. (US PGPUB 20190311938) teaches a nozzle with gas passage branches 110 and fluid passage branches 109 alternately arranged in concentric circles (Fig. 2).
KIM et al. (Korean Publication KR20210030144, as translated by Espacenet) teaches a nozzle with gas passage branches 14 and fluid passage branches 12 alternately arranged in concentric circles (Fig. 1-2).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714