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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 04/14/2026 & 04/30/2026 have been entered.
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Claim(s) 3, 5-14, 17-19 is/are cancelled; Claim(s) 15-16 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 is/are amended; claim(s) 20-33 is/are newly added.
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 Bohdy in addition to previously relied on references below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 20-33 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " which is substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate and orthogonal to the gas ejecting direction, than the horizontal central portion " in the claim. It is unclear what “which” is the structure being referred to, is it the gas supply nozzle, horizontal edge portion, horizontal central portion, or the first gas ejection port? Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " wherein the gas supply nozzle is provided with a narrow restrictor in a gas flow path communicating with the first gas ejection port" in the claim. It is unclear if the “narrow restrictor” introduced in claim 20 is the same one ““functionally described” in claim 1. Examiner interprets as the same. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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, 20-23, 25-27, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090191718 to Nakashima in view of US 20200352016 to Bohdy.
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 gas ejecting direction (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), which is substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate (parallel to 200) and orthogonal to the gas ejecting direction, than the horizontal central portion (interpreted as the port being orthogonal to the gas ejecting direction than the horizontal central portion, Fig. 33); a vertical width of the horizontal edge vicinity portion of the first gas ejection port (vertical width of 213, Fig. 33, Nakashima).
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;
wherein a 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 along a vertical direction orthogonal to both the horizontal direction and the gas ejecting direction, and wherein the horizontal central portion faces a center of the substrate along the gas ejecting direction, and the horizontal edge vicinity portion faces the substrate along an oblique direction relative to the gas ejection direction.
However Bohdy discloses wherein the horizontal edge vicinity portion (vertical width of 1030 [flared outlet], Fig. 17A-17C, 18) is located closer to a horizontal edge of the first gas ejection port (1000 [nozzle], Fig. 17A-17C, 18) along the horizontal direction substantially parallel than the horizontal central portion (horizontal central portion of 1000, Fig. 17);
wherein a vertical width of the horizontal edge vicinity portion (vertical width of 1030) of the first gas ejection port (1000 [nozzle], Fig. 17A-17C, 18) is greater than a vertical width of the horizontal central portion (vertical width of 1020 [constriction]) of the first gas ejection port (1000) wherein the vertical width is defined as a width along a vertical direction orthogonal to both the horizontal direction and the gas ejecting direction (Fig. 18, para. [0100]), (claim 20) wherein the gas supply nozzle (1000) is provided with a narrow restrictor (1020) in a gas flow path (path of 1000) communicating with the first gas ejection port (1000); (claim 21) wherein the narrow restrictor (1020) is configured to narrow the gas flow path to reduce a cross-sectional area of the gas flow path (Fig. 17B, para. [0100]); (claim 22) wherein the gas flow path is formed with a shape which gradually widens from the narrow restrictor to the first gas ejection port (para. [0100]); (claim 23) wherein the shape comprises a tapered shape (Fig. 17A-17C).
Bohdy teaches the above limitations for the purpose of utilizing a combination of processes to induce charge and plasma formation to effectively generate suspension of vapor in for use in a variety of applications (para. [0057].
Regarding the limitations (claim 1), “wherein the horizontal central portion faces a center of the substrate along the gas ejecting direction, and the horizontal edge vicinity portion faces the substrate along an oblique direction relative to the gas ejection direction,” Bohdy teaches that the constriction is centrally located in the nozzle vertically, which necessarily renders the limitations above, as Nakashima already teaches the nozzles flowing to the substrates.
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 above as taught by Bohdy with motivation to utilize a combination of processes to induce charge and plasma formation to effectively generate suspension of vapor in for use in a variety of applications.
Claims 3, 5-14: (Cancelled).
Claim 25: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Bohdy 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 26: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Bohdy discloses wherein the gas supplied through the gas flow path (path of 230a, Fig. 1, Nakashima) comprises a process gas (para. [0068]).
Claim 27: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Bohdy discloses wherein the process gas is a source gas or a reactive gas (para. [0068], [0089], Fig. 1, Nakashima).
Claim 31: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Bohdy 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 32: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Bohdy 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 33: The apparatus of Nakashima in view Bohdy 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) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Bohdy as applied to claims 1, 20-23, 25-27, 31-33 above, and further in view of US 6246586 to Honda.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Bohdy does not disclose wherein the first gas ejection port is configured such that an opening dimension of the first gas ejection port measured along the horizontal direction is 4 to 10 times an opening dimension of the first gas ejection port measured along the vertical direction.
Honda discloses wherein the first gas ejection port (13 [nozzle holes], 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 Bohdy, 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(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Bohdy as applied to claims 1, 20-23, 25-27, 31-33 above, and further in view of US 20040011464 to Shan.
Claim 24: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Bohdy 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) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Bohdy as applied to claims 1, 20-23, 25-27, 31-33 above, and further in view of US 20160068953 to Li.
Claims 28-30: The apparatus of Nakashima in view of Honda, Shang does not disclose (claim 28) 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 29) wherein the gas supply nozzle is further provided with one or more second gas ejection ports through which the inert gas is ejected; (claim 30) 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 28) 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 29) 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 30) 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).
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
Prosecution Insights