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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 December 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 6 January 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn. Rejoinder will be considered if and when appropriate. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 “central manifold” must be shown (and numbered) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “central manifold” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 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: remote plasma unit in claim 1, wherein no specific structure has been located in the specification.
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: a support structure in claims 17.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not mentioned specifically is rejected based on its dependence.
As discussed above, claim 1 recitation of a remote plasma unit invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of a remote plasma unit in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Regardless, the claims have been interpreted as written. Examiner notes that the specification discloses that a base of the remote plasma unit is coupled to the central manifold, not that the central manifold or side manifold are features of the remote plasma unit. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written, wherein any feature capable of performing the recited function has been considered readable on the feature at issue.
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 1-6 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. Any claim not mentioned specifically is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim limitation “remote plasma unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see recommendation above);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0226178 to Tsuji et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0032982 to Drewery et al. and U.S. Patent No. 5,725,675 to Fong et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0263248 to Rocha-Alvarez et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Fig. 1, e.g., Tsuji et al. disclose a semiconductor processing system comprising: a plurality of processing chambers (formed by 22 and 2) each processing chamber defining a processing region (20); a lid plate (11) positioned above the plurality of processing chambers; a gas splitter (33) seated on the lid plate, the gas splitter comprising a top surface (top of 31b) and a plurality of side surfaces (e.g., circumferential surface and bottom surface), wherein the gas splitter defines: a single gas inlet (see annotation below), one or more gas outlets (see annotation below), and one or more gas lumens (see annotation below) that extend between and fluidly couple the single gas inlet with each of the one or more gas outlets; a primary gas weldment that extends and fluidly couples to the single gas inlet, wherein the primary gas weldment delivers a mixture of process gases to the plurality of processing chambers; and one or more secondary gas weldments extending between and fluidly coupling the each of the one or more process gas outlets with a respective one of the plurality processing chambers.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
1164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Tsuji et al. fail to disclose at least one gas mixing valve having a first valve inlet, a second valve inlet, and a valve outlet, wherein the valve outlet is coupled with an inlet of the primary gas weldment, rather gases are fed directly into the primary gas weldment.
In Figs. 2 and 4, e.g., Drewery et al. disclose providing at least one gas mixing valve (34) having a first valve inlet (e.g., 62-1), a second valve inlet (62-2), and a valve outlet (see outlet leading towards gas splitter (38) in Fig. 2), wherein the gas delivery system comprising the aforementioned features allows different mixtures of main process gas and tuning gas to be provided to two or more zones in a processing chamber while allowing the use of single mass flow controllers to supply the same gas to more than one of the zones (without duplicating the gas source). This configuration allows the gas mixtures to be provided to the zones with reduced cost and complexity. See, e.g., para. 51.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one gas mixing valve having a first valve inlet, a second valve inlet, and a valve outlet in Tsuji et al., wherein the gas delivery system comprising the aforementioned features allows different mixtures of main process gas and tuning gas to be provided to two or more zones in a processing chamber while allowing the use of single mass flow controllers to supply the same gas to more than one of the zones (without duplicating the gas source). The configuration allows the gas mixtures to be provided to the zones with reduced cost and complexity as taught by Drewery et al.
Although Tsuji et al. disclose the apparatus further comprises a plurality of output manifolds (11a) seated on the lid plate, wherein each of the one or more secondary gas weldments are fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of output manifolds. The modified Tsuji et al. fail to explicitly disclose the plurality of output manifolds seated on a top surface of the lid plate.
Fong et al. disclose an output manifold (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 16) seated on a lid plate, wherein a gas source is fluidly coupled with the output manifold for the purpose of receiving gases from the gas source and introducing the gases into a chamber (see, e.g., column 3, rows 12-25). The modified Tsuji et al. fail to explicitly disclose the plurality of output manifolds seated on a top surface of the lid plate.
Notably, the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); and that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Tsuji et al. a plurality of output manifolds seated on the lid plate, wherein each of the one or more secondary gas weldments are fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of output manifolds in order to receive gases from a gas source and respective one of the one or more secondary gas weldments and introduce the gases into the processing chamber as taught by Fong et al.
Modified Tsuji et al. fail to disclose a remote plasma unit having (i.e. connected to) a central manifold and one or more side manifolds, the one or more side manifolds extending between and fluidly coupling each of the output manifolds with the central manifold, wherein each side manifold defines a separate flow path from the one or more secondary gas weldments.
Rocha-Alvarez et al. disclose a remote plasma unit (200), provided separately from a gas panel (112), the remote plasma unit having (i.e. connected to) a central manifold (202) and one or more side manifolds (204), the one or more side manifolds extending between and fluidly coupling output manifolds (230) (associated with a plurality of processing chambers e.g., 102 and 104) with the central manifold, wherein each side manifold defines a separate flow path from one or more secondary gas weldments (corresponding to 220) for the purpose of separately delivering “processing gases” and “cleaning gases” to the plurality of processing chambers (see, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and paras., 9-10 and 23-26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modfied Tsuji et al., a remote plasma unit separate from a gas panel for delivering “processing gases”), the remote plasma unit having (i.e. connected to) a central manifold and one or more side manifolds, the one or more side manifolds extending between and fluidly coupling the output manifolds (associated with a plurality of processing chambers) with the central manifold, wherein each side manifold defines a separate flow path from the one or more secondary gas weldments in order to separately deliver “processing gases” and “cleaning gases”, from the gas panel and the remote plasma unit, to the plurality of processing chambers as taught by Rocha-Alvarez et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Tsuji et al., Drewery et al. further disclose a gas panel (Fig. 3, 20) comprising a first gas source (e.g., 50-1) fluidly coupled with the first valve inlet and a second gas source (e.g., 50-2) fluidly coupled with the second valve inlet.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Tsuji et al., Drewery et al. further disclose a divert weldment (e.g., Fig. 2, 46 and or 48 and/or Fig. 3, 63-1, 63-2, 63M) in fluid communication with the primary gas weldment proximate a gas panel (Fig. 3, 20).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tsuji et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0298207 to Woelk et al.
Modified Tsuji et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Tsuji et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising a gas heater disposed upstream of the at least one mixing valve, wherein the gas heater is operable to preheat at least one gas of the mixture of process gases; and/or between one and six heater jackets surrounding the primary gas weldment.
Woelk et al. teach providing a gas heater/heating jacket surrounding various features of a gas delivery system of a semiconductor processing system for the purpose maintaining the same at an elevated temperature, thus permitting uniform delivery of a precursory vapor and avoiding condensation on surfaces of the gas delivery system (see, e.g., para. 52 and 97).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a gas heater/heating jacket surrounding various features of a gas delivery system of the semiconductor processing system of modified Tsuji et al. in order to maintain the same at an elevated temperature, thus permitting uniform delivery of a precursory vapor and avoid condensation on surfaces of the gas delivery system as taught by Woelk et al.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tsuji et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0265951 to Xu et al.
Modified Tsuji et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above, including one or more orifices (e.g., a cross-section of 22 in Figs. 17A-b) of the processing chambers disposed between the one or more gas lumens and the one or more secondary gas weldments and the processing chambers.
However, modified Tsuji et al. fail to explicitly disclose the one or more orifices comprise an internal diameter less than an internal diameter of the one or more gas lumens and the internal diameter of the one or more secondary gas weldments.
Xu al. teach determining and optimizing inner diameters of various features of a gas delivery system of a semiconductor processing system for the purpose of meeting process requirements for intended/desired process to be performed thereby (see, e.g., para. 71).
Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the one or more orifices comprise an internal diameter less than an internal diameter of the one or more gas lumens and the internal diameter of the one or more secondary gas weldments of the gas delivery system of the semiconductor processing system of modified Tsuji et al. in order to meet process requirements for a intended/desired process to be performed thereby as taught by Xu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2022/0189793 disclose optimizing diameters in order to enable variable flow rates and providing a remote plasma flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716