DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 09/24/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2021-155723 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 15-16 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Honda in addition to previously relied on references below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090191718 to Nakashima in view of US 6246586 to Honda.
Claim 1: Nakashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a reaction tube (203 [reaction tube], Fig. 1, 3) in which a substrate support (217 [substrate holding tool or port]) configured to support a substrate (200 [wafers]) is accommodated (para. [0083]); and a gas supply nozzle (230a [gas introduction partition portion]) through which a gas is supplied with respect to the substrate (200) supported by the substrate support (217) accommodated in the reaction tube (203) along a direction substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate (para. [0063]), wherein the gas supply nozzle (230a) is provided with a first gas ejection port (212 [port]) comprising a horizontal edge vicinity portion (horizontal edge of 212) and a horizontal central portion (center of 212, Fig. 33).
However the apparatus of Nakashima does not explicitly disclose wherein the horizontal edge vicinity portion is located closer to a horizontal edge of the first gas ejection port along the horizontal direction substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate than the horizontal central portion, and wherein vertical width of the horizontal edge vicinity portion of the first gas ejection port is greater than a vertical width of the horizontal central portion of the first gas ejection port wherein the vertical width is defined as a width long a vertical orthogonal to the horizontal direction substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate.
Honda teaches multiple options for shapes of a gas ejection port (13 [nozzle holes], Fig. 5, 6, 9, 11, 13) and specifies a dumbbell shape or constricted rectangles (Fig. 13, c. 9, l. 55-65, which reads on the above limitations) for the purpose of forming layering of thin films with small sizes and high performance (c. 2, l. 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the choices of shape of the port(s) as taught by Honda with motivation to form layers of thin films with small sizes and high performance.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses wherein the first gas ejection port (13, Fig. 5, 13, Honda) is configured such that an opening dimension of the first gas ejection port (opening of 13) measured along the horizontal direction parallel to the surface of the substrate is 4 to 10 times an opening dimension of the first gas ejection port measured along the direction orthogonal to the horizontal direction substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate (c. 10, l. 5-45, Honda, where horizontal (“c”) and vertical (“d”) dimensions are disclosed as c = 100 µm [Fig. 13-14] and d is in at least one instance 50 µm which reads on between 4-10 times the orthogonal dimension [e = 400 µm]).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses wherein the first gas ejection port (13, Fig. 5, 13, Honda) is, when viewed from a location of gas ejection, of a rectangular shape whose long sides extend along the direction substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate (see Fig. 13 where the shape is rectangular).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses wherein an opening dimension of the first gas ejection port (212, Fig. 1, 33, Nakashima) is smaller than a diameter of the substrate (see Fig. 33, para. [0191]).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses wherein the substrate support (217, Fig. 1, Nakashima) is configured to support a plurality of substrates (200) comprising the substrate (200), and wherein a plurality of gas supply nozzles (230a-230h) comprising the gas supply nozzle (230a) are provided such that the gas is supplied with respect to the plurality of substrates through the plurality of gas supply nozzles (230a-h), respectively (para. [0061]).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses wherein the plurality of gas supply nozzles (230a-h, Fig. 1, Nakashima) are provided along a direction in which the plurality of substrates (200) are arranged in a multistage manner (para. [0060]).
Claim 14: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda discloses further comprising a heater (206 [cylindrical heater], Fig. 1, Nakashima) provided around the reaction tube (203) and configured to heat the substrate (para. [0060]).
Claim(s) 3, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Honda as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 5788778 to Shang.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Honda does not disclose wherein the gas supply nozzle is provided with a narrow restrictor in a gas flow path communicating with the first gas ejection port.
Shang discloses wherein the gas supply component (57 [pipe, Fig. 1) is provided with a narrow restrictor (59 [flow restrictor]) in a gas flow path (passage of 57) communicating with the first gas ejection port (port of 57), for the purpose of allowing a pressure differential between two chambers (c. 4, l. 46-50). Also, Shang teaches that the slow restrictor can be placed anywhere in the path between two chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flow restrictor to the pipe of Nakashima as taught by Shang with motivation to allow a pressure differential between two chambers.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Honda, Shang discloses wherein the gas supplied through the gas flow path (path of 230a, Fig. 1, Nakashima) comprises a process gas (para. [0068]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Honda, Shang discloses wherein the process gas is a source gas or a reactive gas (para. [0068], [0089], Fig. 1, Nakashima).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Honda as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-14 above, and further in view of US 20040011464 to Shan.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Honda does not disclose wherein the first gas ejection port is, when viewed from a location of gas ejection, configured such that the central portion is narrower than the edge vicinity portion.
Shan teaches that a gas ejection port (434 [gas injection ports], Fig. 5) can be round, or alternate geometries such as square, triangular, hexagonal, or irregular, for the purpose of being formed advantageously (para. [0069]), thereby representing an efficient way to ionize a gas and then mix it with the reactive species (para. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the design choice of choosing any shape as taught by Shan with motivation to be formed advantageously, thereby representing an efficient way to ionize a gas and then mix it with the reactive species.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Honda, Shang as applied to claims 3, 7-8 above, and further in view of US 20160068953 to Li.
Claims 9-11: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Honda, Shang does not disclose (claim 9) wherein the gas supply nozzle is provided with an inert gas flow path through which an inert gas is supplied and different from the gas flow path; (claim 10) wherein the gas supply nozzle is further provided with one or more second gas ejection ports through which the inert gas is ejected; (claim 11) wherein the one or more second gas ejection ports are provided such that the first gas ejection port is interposed between the one or more second gas ejection ports.
Li discloses (claim 9) wherein the gas supply component (30 [gas distribution assemblies], Fig. 2) is provided with an inert gas flow path (40 [gas curtain]) through which an inert gas is supplied and different from the gas flow path (40); (claim 10) wherein the gas supply component (30) is further provided with one or more second gas ejection ports (ports of 40) through which the inert gas is ejected (para. [0046]); (claim 11) wherein the one or more second gas ejection ports (ports of 40) are provided such that the first gas ejection port (ports of 30) is interposed between the one or more second gas ejection ports (ports of 40, see Fig. 2, where 30 is between two 40’s), for the purpose of creating a barrier to prevent or minimize the movement of processing gases from the gas distribution assemblies from migrating from the respective region (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations of claims 9-11 as taught by Li with motivation to create a barrier to prevent or minimize the movement of processing gases from the gas distribution assemblies from migrating from the respective region.
Claims 15-16: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170073813 discloses a gas supply nozzle (131 [injection nozzle], Fig. 2), a substrate support (170) accommodated in the reaction tube (111), the nozzle along a direction substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate (para. [0049]), the gas supply nozzle (131) has a first gas ejection port (port of 131).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718