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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The status identifier for claim 12 should be “Withdrawn” not “Original”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 “first injector portion” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) as demonstrated by Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) in view of, if necessary, Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) and Watanabe; Shingo et al. (US 5330352 A).
Yousif teaches a reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) comprising: a reaction chamber (100; Figure 1A,B,3,4) comprising an upper chamber portion (105; Figure 1A,B,3,4) and a lower chamber portion (portion below 105, not numbered; Figure 1A,B,3,4); a gas distribution device (110; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4-Applicant’s 208; Figure 2) for providing gas to the upper chamber portion (105; Figure 1A,B,3,4); a susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) positioned below the gas distribution device (110; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4-Applicant’s 208; Figure 2); a first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) comprising a first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants) comprising a plurality of holes (142; Figure 2; 320; Figure 6a-c); a cleaning reactant (hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65) source (152; Figure 1A,B,3,4 - hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65), comprising a cleaning reactant (hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65), fluidly coupled to the first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6); and at least one exhaust source (137; Figure 1A,B,3,4-Applicant’s 118; Figure 2,3) coupled to the reaction chamber (100; Figure 1A,B,3,4), wherein during a cleaning process, the first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) is positioned above the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) - claim 1. The Examiner’s above and/or below italicized text is considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Yousif further teaches:
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, wherein the first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants) comprises an arcuate shaped portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-Applicant’s 305; Figure 3-2/11/26 arguments), as claimed by claim 2
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 2, wherein holes (142; Figure 2; 320; Figure 6a-c) are located along an arc extending about 60 to 180º or about 90 to 150º of the arcuate shaped portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-Applicant’s 305; Figure 3-2/11/26 arguments), as claimed by claim 3
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, further comprising a lower chamber (lower chamber below 105, not numbered; Figure 1A,B,3,4) exhaust port (exhaust port to 100 at 137; Figure 1A,B,3,4) through a wall of the lower chamber portion (portion below 105, not numbered; Figure 1A,B,3,4), the lower chamber exhaust port (exhaust port to 100 at 137; Figure 1A,B,3,4) opposite the first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants), as claimed by claim 4
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, further comprising a feedthrough connector (143; Figure 1c,2; 300; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 400; Figure 4), wherein the feedthrough connector (143; Figure 1c,2; 300; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 400; Figure 4) receives a portion of the first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6), as claimed by claim 5
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, further comprising a moveable shaft (125; Figure 1A,B,2,4), wherein the moveable shaft (125; Figure 1A,B,2,4) moves the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) from a processing position (Figure 4) to a cleaning position (Figure 4), as claimed by claim 6. The above and below italicized claim text is/are considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
The reactor system of claim 1, wherein the first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) has a cross- sectional dimension (diameter at A=180º; column 4; lines 52-67) greater than a cross-sectional dimension of the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) – claim 21
The Examiner’s interpretation of Yousif’s cleaning reactant (hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65) source (152; Figure 1A,B,3,4 - hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65) as being considered a “cleaning” gas by the prior art is supported by Wood who demonstrates that hydrogen is a cleaning gas. Wood demonstrates using molecular hydrogen (H2) for substrate cleaning (column 18; lines 27-41).
Yousif and Wood do not teach:
a second cleaning gas diffuser (Applicant’s 604; Figure 6); wherein during a cleaning process, the second cleaning gas diffuser (Applicant’s 604; Figure 6) is below the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) – claim 1
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 6, wherein, in the cleaning position (Figure 4), a bottom surface of the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4) is above the plurality of holes (142; Figure 2; 320; Figure 6a-c), as claimed by claim 7
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, further comprising an isolation plate between the upper chamber portion (105; Figure 1A,B,3,4) and the lower chamber portion (portion below 105, not numbered; Figure 1A,B,3,4), wherein the first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants) is below the isolation plate, as claimed by claim 10
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, wherein the first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants) is positioned below a bottom surface of the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,B,2,4), as claimed by claim 11
The reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, comprising an exhaust port (exhaust port to 100 at 137; Figure 1A,B,3,4) positioned above (Applicant’s 134; Figure 1) the first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants), as claimed by claim 14
wherein the second cleaning gas diffuser has a cross-sectional dimension less than the cross-sectional dimension of the susceptor (120; Figure 1A,2,4) – claim 21
Watanabe teaches a multi-wafer processing system (Figure 1) with an injector portion (42; Figure 4-not shown by Applicants) including:
a second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 1,4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6); wherein during a cleaning process, the second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 1,4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6) is below the susceptor (21; Figure 1) – claim 1
The reactor system (30; Figure 1) of claim 6, wherein, in the cleaning position (Figure 4), a bottom surface of the susceptor (21; Figure 1) is above the plurality of holes (42a; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 7
The reactor system (30; Figure 1) of claim 1, further comprising a second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6), and wherein during a cleaning process, the first cleaning gas diffuser (17a; Figure 1-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) is positioned above the susceptor (21; Figure 1) and the second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6) is below the susceptor (21; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 9
The reactor system (30; Figure 1) of claim 1, further comprising an isolation plate (plate supporting 32, not numbered; Figure 1) between the upper chamber portion (32; Figure 1) and the lower chamber portion (plate supporting 33+32, not numbered; Figure 1), wherein the first injector portion (42; Figure 4-not shown by Applicants) is below the isolation plate (plate supporting 32, not numbered; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 10
The reactor system (30; Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the first injector portion (42; Figure 4-not shown by Applicants) is positioned below a bottom surface of the susceptor (21; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 11
The reactor system (30; Figure 1) of claim 1, comprising an exhaust port (10a; Figure 1) positioned above the first injector portion (42; Figure 4-not shown by Applicants), as claimed by claim 14
wherein the second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 1,4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6) has a cross-sectional dimension (diameter; Figure 1) less than the cross-sectional dimension (diameter; Figure 1) of the susceptor (21; Figure 1) – claim 21
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of interpretation of Yousif’s cleaning reactant (hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65) source (152; Figure 1A,B,3,4 - hydrogen; column 3; lines 59-65) are not accepted, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yousif to clean using Yousif’s molecular hydrogen (H2) as taught by Wood. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yousif to add Watanabe’s wafer boat (21), second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 1,4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6), and supporting processing components.
Motivation for Yousif to clean using Yousif’s molecular hydrogen (H2) as taught by Wood is for “gentler cleaning” as taught by Wood (column 18; lines 27-41).
Motivation for Yousif to add Watanabe’s wafer boat (21), second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 1,4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6), and supporting processing components is for increasing through-put/manufacturing production of processed wafers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) as demonstrated by Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) in view of Watanabe; Shingo et al. (US 5330352 A), and Singh; Vikram et al. (US 6042687 A). Yousif, Wood, and Watanabe are discussed above. Yousif, Wood, and Watanabe do not teach the reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, wherein Yousif’s first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) comprises aluminum or yttrium.
Singh also teaches a ring-shaped injector portion (170; Figure 2) made of aluminum (column 4; lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yousif to use aluminum for Yousif’s gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) as taught by Singh.
Motivation for Yousif to use aluminum for Yousif’s gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) as taught by Singh is for process compliant materials as taught by Singh.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) as demonstrated by Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) in view of Watanabe; Shingo et al. (US 5330352 A) and Tadigadapa; Srinivas et al. (US 20140166618 A1). Yousif, Wood, and Watanabe are discussed above. Yousif, Wood, and Watanabe do not teach the reactor system (Figure 1A,B,3,4) of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional dimension of one or more of the holes (142; Figure 2; 320; Figure 6a-c) is between about 0.8 mm and about 1 mm.
Tadigadapa also teaches a ringed gas diffuser (214; Figure 4-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) with holes that are 0.5-1mm holes ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yousif to optimize the dimensions of Yousif’s apparatus parts.
Motivation for Yousif to optimize the dimensions of Yousif’s apparatus parts is for accommodating variability in design as taught by Tadigadapa ([0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed February 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims §102/103 under Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) as demonstrated by Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) in view of, if necessary, Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) as demonstrated by Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yousif; Imad et al. (US 8329593 B2) in view of, if necessary, Wood; Bingxi Sun et al. (US 7604708 B2) and Watanabe; Shingo et al. (US 5330352 A).
Applicant’s “first injector portion” is still not shown or has specification antecedence.
Applicant states:
“
The gas supply portion 42 of Watanabe cited as a cleaning gas diffuser is Watanabe's process gas supply portion, and, if configured as a cleaning gas diffuser, the system of Watanabe would no longer have a process gas input.
“
In response, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is centered on an intended use of the prior art structure. Intended use claim requirements should not limit the pending apparatus claims. See above.
Applicants’ states:
“
Further, Watanabe does not include "a second cleaning gas diffuser." Assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that gas supply portion 42 of Watanabe is a cleaning gas diffuser, it is the only cleaning gas diffuser of Watanabe.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, under a reasonable interpretation of Watanabe, Watanabe indeed teaches plural diffusers as is noted by the plural locations for gas injection.
Applicant states:
“
Further, Watanabe does not include "a second cleaning gas diffuser." Assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that gas supply portion 42 of Watanabe is a cleaning gas diffuser, it is the only cleaning gas diffuser of Watanabe. The Office Action cites Watanabe's outlet port end portion 17a as disclosing the first cleaning gas diffuser. See Office Action at page 7. However, Watanabe's outlet port end portion 17a is merely an opening of Watanabe's purge gas supply pipe 17. The claimed "first cleaning gas diffuser" recited in claim 1 includes "a first injector portion comprising a plurality of holes." Therefore, Watanabe at most discloses a first cleaning gas diffuser, and fails to cure the conceded deficiency of Yousif and Wood with respect to the second cleaning gas diffuser.
“
In response, the Examiner agrees that the claim 1 requirement is that the first cleaning gas diffuser is required to have a plurality of holes, however, this feature is already taught by Yousif in that Yousif’s first cleaning gas diffuser (140a; Figure 1A,B-C, 2-4; 310; Figure 6a,c-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6) comprising a first injector portion (140a; Figure 1C,2; 310; Figure 6A-C-not shown by Applicants) comprising a plurality of holes (142; Figure 2; 320; Figure 6a-c). The Examiner’s citation of Watanabe in claim 9 is only to illustrate plural locations for gas injections in Watanabe’s apparatus whereby Watanabe’s first cleaning gas diffuser (17a; Figure 1-Applicant’s 214; Figure 2,3; 602; Figure 6), having a single hole, is positioned above the susceptor (21; Figure 1) and the second cleaning gas diffuser (42; Figure 4-Applicant’s 604; Figure 6) is below the susceptor (21; Figure 1) - claim 9.
Applicant states:
“
Claim 10 recites "an isolation plate between the upper chamber portion and the lower chamber portion, wherein the first injector portion is below the isolation plate." The Office Action concedes that Yousif and Wood do not disclose the claimed isolation plate. See Office Action page 6. The Office Action cites "plate supporting 32, not numbered; Figure 1" of Watanabe as disclosing the claimed isolation plate. The Office Action asserts that said plate is "between the upper chamber portion (32; Figure 1) and the lower chamber portion (plate supporting 33+32, not numbered; Figure 1)" of Watanabe. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that the non-numbered plate supporting 33+32 of Watanabe does not reasonably disclose the claimed "lower chamber portion." Rather, the plate is a solid plate about the outside of processing vessel 10 of Watanabe.
“
In response, Applicant’s claimed “upper” and “lower” chamber portions are cited in the prior art with the stated relative position. As a result, Watanabe’s lower chamber portion is below Watanabe’s upper chamber portion.
Applicant states:
“
Claim 21 recites "wherein the first cleaning gas diffuser has a cross-sectional dimension greater than a cross-sectional dimension of the susceptor and wherein the second cleaning gas diffuser has a cross-sectional dimension less than the cross-sectional dimension of the susceptor." None of the cited references contemplate or disclose such a first and second cleaning gas diffuser.
“
In response the Examiner disagrees and notes the new grounds of rejection as required by the newly added claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gas distribution rings with variable shapes and positions in the processing environments include: US 20130098455 A1, US 20040099378 A1, and US 20060029735 A1
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716