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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. Specifically, the applicant’s specification does not mention the bypass inlet being specifically in contact with the bypass outlet, only that they are coupled to each other. It's also unclear in the drawings, as Fig. 7 of the instant application seems to show a gap between the bypass outlet 648 and the bypass inlet 633 (it is unclear if the valve 655b merely fluidly couples the bypass inlet 633 and bypass outlet 648 together, or if the bypass outlet and inlet are directly contact with each other inside the valve 655b) [IA - Fig. 7 & 0056].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) in view of Davis et al. (US 20020144706) and Rajagopalan et al. (US 6274058), with Fox et al. (US 20180305814) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kalsekar teaches a semiconductor processing system (chamber system 300), comprising: a lid plate (second lid plate 510); a remote plasma unit (remote plasma unit 515) supported atop the lid plate (second lid plate 510), the remote plasma unit comprising an inlet and an outlet (the remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512, so an inlet and an outlet for the remote plasma unit 515 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 5 & 0048], wherein the inlet is coupled with the RPS outlet of a gas feed line (it can be reasonably inferred that the remote plasma unit 515 is coupled to an outlet of a gas source; a gas source with an outlet coupled to the inlet of the RPS is necessary to perform the function of an RPS); a center manifold having an RPS inlet (the RPS inlet is shown in the annotated drawings below) that is contact with the outlet of the remote plasma unit (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the RPS inlet is in contact with an outlet of the remote plasma unit 515), the center manifold comprising a plurality of outlet ports (the plurality of outlet ports, as shown in the drawings below) [Fig. 5 & 0048]; a plurality of side manifolds (structures connecting the center manifold to the isolation valves 520 and apertures 512) that are each fluidly coupled with one of the plurality of outlet ports of the center manifold, wherein each of the plurality of side manifolds defines a gas lumen (the remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512, wherein each fluid line can be controlled by isolation valves 520; the fluid line can be reasonably inferred to define a gas lumen as the different structures are in fluid communication) [Fig. 5 & 0048]; and a plurality of output manifolds (structure where each aperture 512 is disposed in) seated on the lid plate (second lid plate 510), wherein each of the plurality of output manifolds is fluidly coupled with the gas lumen of one of the plurality of side manifolds (he remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512) [Fig. 5 & 0048].
PNG
media_image1.png
640
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is also noted that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
Kalsekar does not specifically disclose a gas feed line comprising an RPS outlet and a bypass outlet; a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line, an RPS valve proximate the RPS outlet of the gas feed line and a bypass valve proximate the bypass outlet of the gas feed line.
Davis teaches a gas feed line comprising an RPS outlet and a bypass outlet; and a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line (as shown in the annotated drawings below, the bypass inlet and bypass outlet are in contact with each other in a manner similar to that disclosed in Fig. 7 of the instant application; the bypass inlet and outlets are in contact via valve 38b) [Fig. 2 & 0049, 0051], an RPS valve proximate the RPS outlet of the gas feed line (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the RPS valve is proximate the RPS outlet) and a bypass valve proximate the bypass outlet of the gas feed line (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the bypass valve is proximate the bypass outlet) [Fig. 2 & 0049, 0051].
PNG
media_image3.png
595
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kalsekar and Davis are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Kalsekar to have a bypass, as in Davis, to provide further control over material flows into a chamber by providing selective fluid communication [Davis - 0032-0033].
Furthermore, Fox states that a bypass can be used to supply both an RPS plasma and a gas (to be activated in-situ) simultaneously, thereby improving etch rate and minimizing chamber clean time [Fox - Fig. 1 & 0004, 0021, 0042]. The apparatus of Kalsekar can perform local plasma generation [Kalsekar - 0054].
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose a gas feed line coupled with a gas source comprising a cleaning gas source and a purge gas source.
Rajagopalan teaches a gas feed line (piping 78) coupled with a gas source comprising a cleaning gas source (gas supply 84) and a purge gas source (gas supply 86) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 45-64].
Modified Kalsekar and Rajagopalan are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Modified Rajagopalan to further include a gas source comprising cleaning gas and purge gas, as in Rajagopalan, to aid in the removal of deposits in a chamber, and to increase gas residence time in a chamber [Rajagopalan - Col. 7 lines 1-12].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein: the RPS valve is configured to be opened and the bypass valve is configured to be closed when flowing a cleaning gas from the cleaning gas source to the remote plasma unit; and the RPS valve is configured to be closed and the bypass valve is configured to be opened when flowing a purge gas from the purge gas source to the center manifold;” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that valves 38b and 38c of Davis can be open/closed to let gas pass through [Davis - Fig. 2 & 0032]. Rajagopalan discloses both a purge gas source and a cleaning gas source [Rajagopalan - Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 45-64]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of opening/closing RPS/bypass valves to let purge and/or cleaning gas through. Lastly, Davis states that gas source 138 may be one or more gas sources [Davis - 0046].
Regarding Claim 7:
Kalsekar teaches a plurality of isolation valves (isolation valves 520), wherein each of the plurality of isolation valves is fluidly coupled between one of the plurality of side manifolds and a respective one of the plurality of output manifolds (isolation valves 520 may be included along each fluid line to provide fluid control to each individual processing region 504) [Fig. 5, 6 & 0048].
Regarding Claim 8:
Kalsekar teaches a plurality of processing chambers (chambers of processing regions 504a and 504b) positioned below the lid plate (second lid plate 510), wherein each processing chamber defines a processing region (chambers of processing regions 504a and 504b) that is fluidly coupled with one of the plurality of output manifolds (as evidenced by Fig. 5 and 6, apertures 512 are fluidly coupled with each of the processing regions 504) [Fig. 5, 6 & 0048, 0051].
Regarding Claim 9:
Kalsekar teaches a support structure (the support structure, as shown in the annotated drawings below) that elevates the remote plasma unit and the center manifold above a top surface of the lid plate [Fig. 6 & 0048].
PNG
media_image4.png
675
742
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10:
Kalsekar does not specifically disclose an inlet of the gas feed line is coupled with a cleaning gas source.
Davis teaches an inlet of the gas feed line is coupled with a cleaning gas source (gas source 38 can be a gas comprising NF3; reactor 10 performs a cleaning process using remote plasma source 38 so a cleaning gas must be used) [Fig. 2 & 0033, 0035].
Kalsekar and Davis are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Kalsekar to have a bypass, as in Davis, to provide further control over material flows into a chamber by providing selective fluid communication [Davis - 0032-0033].
Furthermore, Fox states that a bypass can be used to supply both an RPS plasma and a gas (to be activated in-situ) simultaneously, thereby improving etch rate and minimizing chamber clean time [Fox - Fig. 1 & 0004, 0021, 0042]. The apparatus of Kalsekar can perform local plasma generation [Kalsekar - 0054].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) in view of Davis et al. (US 20020144706) and Rajagopalan et al. (US 6274058), with Fox et al. (US 20180305814) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Riordon et al. (US 20200217423).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose the center manifold defines at least one cooling channel that is fluidly coupled with a coolant source.
Riordon teaches the center manifold (isolation device 300) defines at least one cooling channel (cooling channel 416) that is fluidly coupled with a coolant source (cooling channels 416 are coupled to an unshown fluid source) [Fig. 2, 3B, 4B & 0030].
Modified Kalsekar and Riordon are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center manifold of Modified Kalsekar to have cooling channels, as in Riordon, to maintain a desired temperature range, which can help protect internal components from degradation [Riordon - 0036].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose the at least one cooling channel comprises an upper cooling channel and a lower cooling channel that are vertically spaced apart.
Riordon teaches the at least one cooling channel comprises an upper cooling channel (the cooling channel 416 that is disposed on flap 312) and a lower cooling channel (the cooling channel 416 that is disposed on flap 314) that are vertically spaced apart (as evidenced by Fig. 3B, flaps 314 and 312 are vertically spaced apart) [Fig. 2, 3B, 4B & 0036].
Modified Kalsekar and Riordon are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center manifold of Modified Kalsekar to have upper and lower cooling channels, as in Riordon, to maintain a desired temperature range, which can help protect internal components from degradation [Riordon - 0036].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) in view of Davis et al. (US 20020144706) and Rajagopalan et al. (US 6274058), with Fox et al. (US 20180305814) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Shaji et al. (US 20090320677).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of outlet ports is angled relative to the RPS inlet and to an inlet end of the gas lumen of a respective one of the plurality of side manifolds.
Shaji teaches the outlet port (outlet 155) is angled relative to the RPS inlet and to an inlet end of a gas lumen (outlet 155 is indirectly coupled to the chamber inlet 160 by, for example, a conduit or other suitable structure) [Fig. 3, 4 & 0036].
Modified Kalsekar and Shaji are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of Modified Kalsekar to be angled, as in Shaji, to minimize the introduction of defects and unwanted particles, and reduce downtime [Shaji - 0004-0005].
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose an angle of each of the plurality of outlet ports is between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the lid plate.
Shaji teaches an angle of the outlet port is between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the lid plate (the angle of the gas channel 445 can range from 45 degrees to 135 degrees) [Fig. 4 & 0051].
Modified Kalsekar and Shaji are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of Modified Kalsekar to be angled, as in Shaji, to minimize the introduction of defects and unwanted particles, and reduce downtime [Shaji - 0004-0005].
PNG
media_image5.png
530
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) in view of Davis et al. (US 20020144706) and Rajagopalan et al. (US 6274058), with Fox et al. (US 20180305814) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Otani et al. (US 5556474).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kalsekar teaches the gas lumen of each of the plurality of side manifolds comprises a horizontal section proximate a respective one of the outlet ports of the center manifold (as evidenced by Fig. 5, 6, and the provided annotated drawings, each of the side manifolds comprises a horizontal section proximate a respective one of the outlet ports of the center manifold) [Kalsekar - Fig. 5, 6 & 0048].
PNG
media_image6.png
574
691
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose a curved section proximate a respective one of the plurality of output manifolds.
Otani teaches a curved section (outer wall portion 806) proximate an output (duct opening 81) [Fig. 6A & Col. 9 lines 50-58].
Modified Kalsekar and Otani are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side manifolds of Modified Kalsekar to have a curved section proximate the plurality of output manifolds since the curved geometry of Otani allows for particles to be smoothly discharged [Otani - Col. 9 lines 50-58].
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) in view of Davis et al. (US 20020144706), Rajagopalan et al. (US 6274058), Shaji et al. (US 20090320677), and Riordon et al. (US 20200217423), with Fox et al. (US 20180305814) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 11:
Kalsekar teaches a semiconductor processing system (chamber system 300), comprising: a lid plate (second lid plate 510); a remote plasma unit (remote plasma unit 515) supported atop the lid plate (second lid plate 510), the remote plasma unit comprising an inlet and an outlet (the remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512, so an inlet and an outlet for the remote plasma unit 515 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 5 & 0048], wherein the inlet is coupled with the RPS outlet of a gas feed line (it can be reasonably inferred that the remote plasma unit 515 is coupled to an outlet of a gas source; a gas source with an outlet coupled to the inlet of the RPS is necessary to perform the function of an RPS); a center manifold having an RPS inlet (the RPS inlet is shown in the annotated drawings below) that is contact with the outlet of the remote plasma unit (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the RPS inlet is in contact with an outlet of the remote plasma unit 515), the center manifold comprising a plurality of outlet ports (the plurality of outlet ports, as shown in the drawings below) [Fig. 5 & 0048]; a plurality of side manifolds (structures connecting the center manifold to the isolation valves 520 and apertures 512) that are each fluidly coupled with one of the plurality of outlet ports of the center manifold, wherein each of the plurality of side manifolds defines a gas lumen (the remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512, wherein each fluid line can be controlled by isolation valves 520; the fluid line can be reasonably inferred to define a gas lumen as the different structures are in fluid communication) [Fig. 5 & 0048]; and a plurality of output manifolds (structure where each aperture 512 is disposed in) seated on the lid plate (second lid plate 510), wherein each of the plurality of output manifolds is fluidly coupled with the gas lumen of one of the plurality of side manifolds (he remote plasma unit 515 is fluidly coupled with each aperture 512) [Fig. 5 & 0048].
It is also noted that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
PNG
media_image1.png
640
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kalsekar does not specifically disclose a gas feed line comprising an RPS outlet and a bypass outlet; and a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line; an RPS valve proximate the RPS outlet of the gas feed line and a bypass valve proximate the bypass outlet of the gas feed line.
Davis teaches the gas feed line comprising an RPS outlet and a bypass outlet; and a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line (as shown in the annotated drawings below, the bypass inlet and bypass outlet are in contact with each other in a manner similar to that disclosed in Fig. 7 of the instant application; the bypass inlet and outlets are in contact via valve 38b) [Fig. 2 & 0049, 0051], an RPS valve proximate the RPS outlet of the gas feed line (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the RPS valve is proximate the RPS outlet) and a bypass valve proximate the bypass outlet of the gas feed line (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the bypass valve is proximate the bypass outlet) [Fig. 2 & 0032].
PNG
media_image3.png
595
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kalsekar and Davis are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Kalsekar to have a bypass, as in Davis, to provide further control over material flows into a chamber by providing selective fluid communication [Davis - 0032-0033].
Furthermore, Fox states that a bypass can be used to supply both an RPS plasma and a gas (to be activated in-situ) simultaneously, thereby improving etch rate and minimizing chamber clean time [Fox - Fig. 1 & 0004, 0021, 0042]. The apparatus of Kalsekar can perform local plasma generation [Kalsekar - 0054].
Modified Kalsekar does not specifically disclose a gas feed line coupled with a gas source comprising a cleaning gas source and a purge gas source.
Rajagopalan teaches a gas feed line (piping 78) coupled with a gas source comprising a cleaning gas source (gas supply 84) and a purge gas source (gas supply 86) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 45-64].
Modified Kalsekar and Rajagopalan are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Modified Rajagopalan to further include a gas source comprising cleaning gas and purge gas, as in Rajagopalan, to aid in the removal of deposits in a chamber, and to increase gas residence time in a chamber [Rajagopalan - Col. 7 lines 1-12].
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Davis and Rajagopalan) does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of outlet ports is at an angle of between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the lid plate.
Shaji teaches the outlet port is between about 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the lid plate (the angle of the gas channel 445 can range from 45 degrees to 135 degrees) [Fig. 4 & 0051]. Modified Kalsekar and Shaji are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of Modified Kalsekar to be angled, as in Shaji, to minimize the introduction of defects and unwanted particles, and reduce downtime [Shaji - 0004-0005].
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Kalsekar modified by Davis, Rajagopalan, and Shaji) does not specifically disclose the center manifold defines at least one cooling channel that is fluidly coupled with a coolant source.
Riordon teaches the center manifold (isolation device 300) defines at least one cooling channel (cooling channel 416) that is fluidly coupled with a coolant source (cooling channels 416 are coupled to an unshown fluid source) [Fig. 2, 3B, 4B & 0030].
Modified Kalsekar and Riordon are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center manifold of Modified Kalsekar to have cooling channels, as in Riordon, to maintain a desired temperature range, which can help protect internal components from degradation [Riordon - 0036].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein: the RPS valve is configured to be opened and the bypass valve is configured to be closed when flowing a cleaning gas from the cleaning gas source to the remote plasma unit; and the RPS valve is configured to be closed and the bypass valve is configured to be opened when flowing a purge gas from the purge gas source to the center manifold;” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that valves 38c and 38b of Davis can be open/closed to let gas pass through [Davis - Fig. 2 & 0032]. Rajagopalan discloses both a purge gas source and a cleaning gas source [Rajagopalan - Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 45-64]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of opening/closing RPS/bypass valves to let purge and/or cleaning gas through. Lastly, Davis states that gas source 138 may be one or more gas sources [Davis - 0046].
Regarding Claim 12:
Kalsekar does not specifically disclose the bypass inlet is fluidly coupled with the plurality of outlet ports.
Fox teaches the bypass inlet is fluidly coupled with the plurality of outlet ports (as evidenced by the annotated drawing above, the bypass inlet is fluidly coupled to nozzle 44; nozzle 44 may be one of a plurality of nozzles spaced about processing chamber 112) [Fig. 2 & 0007].
Kalsekar and Davis are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the RPS of Kalsekar to have a bypass, as in Davis, to provide further control over material flows into a chamber by providing selective fluid communication [Davis - 0032-0033].
Furthermore, Fox et al. (US 20180305814) states that a bypass can be used to supply both an RPS plasma and a gas (to be activated in-situ) simultaneously, thereby improving etch rate and minimizing chamber clean time [Fox - Fig. 1 & 0004, 0021, 0042]. The apparatus of Kalsekar can perform local plasma generation [Kalsekar - 0054]. It's further noted that if the RPS of Kalsekar were to be modified to utilize the bypass arrangement of Davis, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably connect a common gas source to the remote plasma unit inlet and the remote plasma unit outlet (the center manifold) of Kalsekar, since Davis provides motivation for connecting a common gas source to an RPS inlet and an RPS outlet. As such, Kalsekar modified by Davis would have a bypass inlet fluidly connected to the plurality of outlet ports of the center manifold.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Davis) does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of outlet ports is at an angle of between about 120 degrees and 150 degrees relative to the RPS inlet.
Shaji teaches the outlet port is at an angle of between about 120 degrees and 150 degrees relative to the RPS inlet (the angle of the gas channel 445 can range from 45 degrees to 135 degrees) [Fig. 4 & 0051].
Modified Kalsekar and Shaji are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of Modified Kalsekar to be angled, as in Shaji, to minimize the introduction of defects and unwanted particles, and reduce downtime [Shaji - 0004-0005].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Davis and Rajagopalan) does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of outlet ports is at an angle of between about 120 degrees and 150 degrees relative to the gas lumen of a respective one of the plurality of side manifolds.
Shaji teaches degrees and 150 degrees relative to a gas lumen (the angle of the gas channel 445 can range from 45 degrees to 135 degrees; outlet 155 is indirectly coupled to the chamber inlet 160 by, for example, a conduit or other suitable structure) [Fig. 4 & 0051].
Modified Kalsekar and Shaji are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of Modified Kalsekar to be angled, as in Shaji, to minimize the introduction of defects and unwanted particles, and reduce downtime [Shaji - 0004-0005].
PNG
media_image5.png
530
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Davis, Rajagopalan, and Shaji) does not specifically disclose the at least one cooling channel comprises an upper cooling channel and a lower cooling channel that are vertically spaced apart.
Riordon teaches the at least one cooling channel comprises an upper cooling channel (the cooling channel 416 that is disposed on flap 312) and a lower cooling channel (the cooling channel 416 that is disposed on flap 314) that are vertically spaced apart (as evidenced by Fig. 3B, flaps 314 and 312 are vertically spaced apart) [Fig. 2, 3B, 4B & 0036].
Modified Kalsekar and Riordon are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center manifold of Modified Kalsekar to have upper and lower cooling channels, as in Riordon, to maintain a desired temperature range, which can help protect internal components from degradation [Riordon - 0036].
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Kalsekar (Kalsekar modified by Davis, Rajagopalan, and Shaji) does not specifically disclose a medial cooling channel segment that fluidly couples the upper cooling channel with the lower cooling channel.
Riordon teaches a medial cooling channel (the cooling channel connecting the respective cooling channels of flaps 312 and 314) segment that fluidly couples the upper cooling channel with the lower cooling channel (as evidenced by Fig. 3B, 4B, and 5, cooling channels 416 form one fluid path that connect the respective cooling channels of flaps 312 and 314) [Fig. 5 & 0036].
Modified Kalsekar and Riordon are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center manifold of Modified Kalsekar to have upper and lower cooling channels, as in Riordon, to maintain a desired temperature range, which can help protect internal components from degradation [Riordon - 0036].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the objection of the specification has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been fully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112b has been fully withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 112a has been set forth herein.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a center manifold having an RPS inlet that is contact with the outlet of the remote plasma unit and a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, as shown in the annotated drawings below, the Kalsekar et al. (US 20210013069) explicitly shows that its RPS inlet is in contact with the outlet of the remote plasma unit 515) [Kalsekar - Fig. 5 & 0048]. As such, the combination of references would disclose “a center manifold having an RPS inlet that is contact with the outlet of the remote plasma unit.”
PNG
media_image2.png
597
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Secondly, the examiner would like to note that the limitation “a bypass inlet that is in contact with the bypass outlet of the gas feed line,” constitutes new matter. Specifically, the applicant’s specification does not mention the bypass inlet 633 being specifically in contact with the bypass outlet 648, only that they are coupled to each other. It's also unclear in the drawings, as Fig. 7 of the instant application seems to show a gap between the bypass outlet 648 and the bypass inlet 633 (it is unclear if the valve 655b merely fluidly couples the bypass inlet 633 and bypass outlet 648 together, or if the bypass outlet and inlet are directly contact with each other inside the valve 655b) [IA - Fig. 7 & 0056]. As shown in the annotated drawings below, the bypass inlet and bypass outlet of Davis et al. (US 20020144706) are in contact with each other in a manner similar to that disclosed in Fig. 7 of the instant application; the bypass inlet and outlets are in contact via valve 38b [Davis - Fig. 2 & 0049, 0051]. Therefore, the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
595
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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 (571) 272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718