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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-22 are pending.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 20-22 are newly added.
Claims 16-18 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi (US 20110021033 A1) in view of Horie (JP 2002222806 A), Wiegers (US 20200048768 A1), and Maeng (US 20120171815 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeuchi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0031], film forming apparatus 20) comprising:
an inner tube provided with a substrate accommodating region therein in which a plurality of substrates are accommodated in a multistage manner along a predetermined arrangement direction while the plurality of substrates are horizontally laid (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], inner tube 24 accommodates a plurality of horizontal wafers stacked vertically within process field 23 on boat 34);
an outer tube provided outside the inner tube (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], outer tube 26 surrounds inner tube 24);
a plurality of first exhaust ports provided on the side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0041], plural gas through holes 72 are provided in inner tube 24 wall vertically);
a second exhaust port provided at an end portion of the outer tube along the arrangement direction (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], exhaust port 76 is provided at end of outer tube 26 along vertical wall); and
wherein a first exhaust port A among the plurality of first exhaust ports is located farthest from the second exhaust port (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], top exhaust port 72 is located furthest from exhaust port 76),
Ikeuchi fails to teach a plurality of gas supply ports provided on a side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction,
a gas guide configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube,
a plurality of nozzles penetrate the outer tube to communicate with the annular space,
a gas supply port A among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port A,
wherein the gas guide comprises a fin provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A and configured to surround at least a part of an outer periphery of the gas supply port A, and
wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube.
However, Horie teaches a plurality of gas supply ports provided on a side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction (Horie. Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26 in wall of chamber 10 through which gas passes),
a gas guide configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], gas inflow portion 20),
a gas supply port A among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port A (Horie, Fig. 1, [0033], each slit 26 faces a corresponding slit 26a in the vertical direction),
wherein the gas guide comprises a fin provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A and configured to surround at least a part of an outer periphery of the gas supply port A (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], jacket 28 and header 30 surround slits 26).
Horie is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Modified Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube, and
a plurality of nozzles penetrate the outer tube to communicate with the annular space.
While Horie provides for a fin protruding in a radial direction from the inner tube, Horie fails to teach a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube. However, Wiegers teaches wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube (Wiegers, Figs. 1 and 3, [0034], baffle 52 protrudes from outer wall of liner 40, creating a gap between end of baffle 52 and inner wall of tube 30).
Wiegers is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the spacing teaching of Wiegers (wherein the protrusion extends from the inner tube and has a gap between it and the outer tube) to the gas inflow portion of Horie (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], gas inflow portion 20) in relation to the spacing from the outer tube of Ikeuchi (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], outer tube 26) as doing so would ensure there is sufficient clearance to assemble the inner tube within the outer tube (Wiegers, [0038]) while also providing a mechanism to prevent unwanted backflow of gas in the central axis direction while still allowing pumping in the radial direction of the gas passage space (Wiegers, [0034]-[0035]).
Modified Ikeuchi fails to teach a plurality of nozzles penetrate the outer tube to communicate with the annular space.
However, Maeng teaches a plurality of nozzles penetrate the outer tube to communicate with the annular space (Maeng, Fig. 1, [0051], plurality of nozzles 33 penetrate pipe 12 through space between pipe 12 and pipe 11).
Maeng is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the nozzle assembly of modified Ikeuchi with the nozzles of Maeng as doing so would provide a nozzle per wafer wherein one would have the positional flexibility to process either the top of the wafer or both the top and bottom of the wafer (Maeng, Fig. 5A 0 5D, [0058]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas inflow portion of Horie has a jacket surrounding the gas supply ports in communication with a gas supply to direct the gas flow direction, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeuchi teaches wherein the second exhaust port is provided at a position opposite to the plurality of first exhaust ports with the substrate accommodating region interposed therebetween (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], process field 23 containing the wafers is located in between exhaust port 76 and gas through holes 72).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the gas guide comprises a first fin or two first fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in a horizontal direction, and wherein a length of the first fin or each of the two first fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the gas supply port A along the horizontal direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein the gas guide comprises a first fin or two first fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in a horizontal direction (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the horizontal direction, enclosed to create gas storage chamber 38), and wherein a length of the first fin or each of the two first fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the gas supply port A along the horizontal direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the horizontal direction, therefore being greater in length than slit 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the two first fins are provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port A such that the gas supply port A is interposed therebetween in the arrangement direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein the two first fins are provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port A such that the gas supply port A is interposed therebetween in the arrangement direction (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the horizontal direction, therefore the slit 26 is disposed in between the horizontal sections of jacket 28).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the gas guide comprises a second fin or two second fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in the arrangement direction, and wherein a length of the second fin or each of the two second fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the gas supply port A along the arrangement direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein the gas guide comprises a second fin or two second fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in the arrangement direction (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the vertical direction, enclosed to create gas storage chamber 38), and wherein a length of the second fin or each of the two second fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the gas supply port A along the arrangement direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the vertical direction, therefore being greater in length than slit 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the two second fins are provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port A such that the gas supply port A is interposed therebetween in a horizontal direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein the two second fins are provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port A such that the gas supply port A is interposed therebetween in a horizontal direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the vertical direction, therefore the slit 26 is disposed in between the vertical sections of jacket 28).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeuchi teaches first exhaust ports B among the plurality of first exhaust ports other than the first exhaust port A (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0041], gas through holes 72 are provided in plural vertically)
Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein first exhaust ports B are configured to face gas supply ports B among the plurality of gas supply ports other than the gas supply port B, respectively, wherein the gas guide comprises a third fin or two third fins provided in a vicinity of each of the gas supply ports B so as to extend in a horizontal direction, and wherein a length of the third fin or each of the two third fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of each of the gas supply ports B along the horizontal direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein first exhaust ports B are configured to face gas supply ports B among the plurality of gas supply ports other than the gas supply port B, respectively (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26a are provided in plural vertically and face each slit 26 in a one-to-one manner), and wherein the gas guide comprises a third fin or two third fins provided in a vicinity of each of the gas supply ports B so as to extend in a horizontal direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slits 26 after the top slit 26 in the horizontal direction, therefore the slits 26 are disposed in between the horizontal sections of jacket 28), and wherein a length of the third fin or each of the two third fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of each of the gas supply ports B along the horizontal direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 after the top slit 26 in the horizontal direction, therefore being greater in length than slit 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein first exhaust ports B among the plurality of first exhaust ports other than the first exhaust port A are configured to face gas supply ports B among the plurality of gas supply ports other than the gas supply port A, respectively, wherein the gas guide comprises a fourth fin or two fourth fins provided in a vicinity of each of the gas supply ports B so as to extend in the arrangement direction, and wherein a length of the fourth fin or each of the two fourth fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of each of the gas supply ports B along the arrangement direction.
However, Horie teaches wherein first exhaust ports B among the plurality of first exhaust ports other than the first exhaust port A are configured to face gas supply ports B among the plurality of gas supply ports other than the gas supply port A (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26a are provided in plural vertically and face each slit 26 in a one-to-one manner, including all slits 26 and 26a after top slit 26 and top slit 26a), respectively, wherein the gas guide comprises a fourth fin or two fourth fins provided in a vicinity of each of the gas supply ports B so as to extend in the arrangement direction (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slits 26 after the top slit 26 in the vertical direction, enclosed to create gas storage chamber 38), and wherein a length of the fourth fin or each of the two fourth fins is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of each of the gas supply ports B along the arrangement direction (Horie, Fig. 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slits 26 after the top slit 26 in the vertical direction, therefore being greater in length than slit 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Ikeuchi teaches wherein a first exhaust port C among the plurality of first exhaust ports is provided closest to the second exhaust port (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0030], [0042], lowermost gas through hole 72 is located closest to exhaust port 76).
Ikeuchi fails to teach a gas supply port C among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port C, and wherein the gas guide comprises a fifth fin or two fifth fins extending with a predetermined length from one or two end portions of the fourth fin or the two fourth fins provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port C in the arrangement direction or in a direction toward the second exhaust port.
However, Horie teaches a gas supply port C among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port C (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], lowermost slit 26 faces lowermost slit 26a), and wherein the gas guide comprises a fifth fin or two fifth fins extending with a predetermined length from one or two end portions of the fourth fin or the two fourth fins provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port C in the arrangement direction (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], continuous jacket 28 extends to fully surround all slits 26 vertically from top slit to bottom slit) or in a direction toward the second exhaust port.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the two fifth fins extend from the two end portions of the two fourth fins provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port B, and wherein end portions of the two fifth fins facing the second exhaust port are in contact with each other.
However, Horie teaches wherein the two fifth fins extend from the two end portions of the two fourth fins provided in the vicinity of the gas supply port B (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], continuous jacket 28 extends to fully surround all slits 26 vertically from top slit to bottom slit), and wherein end portions of the two fifth fins facing the second exhaust port are in contact with each other (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], jacket 28 encloses lowermost slit 26 horizontally).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the gas guide comprises a sixth fin provided directly above and in a vicinity of the first exhaust port A, and wherein a length of the sixth fin is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the first exhaust port A along a horizontal direction.
However, Wiegers teaches wherein the gas guide comprises a sixth fin provided directly above and in a vicinity of the first exhaust port A direction (Wiegers, Fig. 5, [0048]-[0052], baffles 52 are wider than exhaust holes 19 in a horizontal direction, currently correspond to 40 degrees, and can be made wider up to 90 degrees, [0048], and where baffles 52 may partially or completely encircle the liner 40, [0034]), and wherein a length of the sixth fin is set to be a predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the first exhaust port A along a horizontal direction (Wiegers, Fig. 5, [0048]-[0052], baffles 52 are wider than exhaust holes 19 in a horizontal direction, currently correspond to 40 degrees, and can be made wider up to 90 degrees, [0048], and where baffles 52 may partially or completely encircle the liner 40, [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the baffles of Wiegers above the uppermost gas through hole of Ikeuchi as doing so would help prevent backflow of unwanted deposits to the substrates (Wiegers, [0032]-0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the plurality of first exhaust ports are provided at positions opposite to the plurality of gas supply ports with the substrate accommodating region interposed therebetween, respectively.
However, Horie teaches wherein the plurality of first exhaust ports are provided at positions opposite to the plurality of gas supply ports with the substrate accommodating region interposed therebetween, respectively (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26a are provided in plural vertically and face each slit 26 in a one-to-one manner, where the wafers W are interposed in the area between slits 26 and slits 26a).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Ikeuchi teaches first exhaust ports (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0041], plural gas through holes 72 are provided in inner tube 24 wall vertically), and the second exhaust port (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], exhaust port 76 is provided at end of outer tube 26 along vertical wall).
Ikeuchi fails to teach the gas guide and the plurality of gas supply ports.
However, Horie teaches the gas guide (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], gas inflow portion 20) and the plurality of gas supply ports (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26a are provided in plural vertically and face each slit 26 in a one-to-one manner).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the gas guide is configured to control a flow of an exhaust gas discharged into the annular space through each of the first exhaust ports and flowing toward the second exhaust port and the plurality of gas supply ports” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas inflow portion of Horie has a jacket surrounding the gas supply ports in communication with a gas supply, directing the gas flow direction towards exhaust ports opposite the supply ports. Ikeuchi has an exhaust port located opposite the region where the gas exhausts into the annular space and on the same side where the gas supply ports are located, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 21, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the sixth fin prevents an exhaust gas discharged through the first exhaust ports from flowing in an upper buffer space between a top plate of the inner tube and a top plate of the outer tube, and prevents the exhaust gas from flowing into the gas supply port via the upper buffer space.
However, Wiegers teaches wherein the sixth fin prevents an exhaust gas discharged through the first exhaust ports from flowing in an upper buffer space between a top plate of the inner tube and a top plate of the outer tube (Wiegers, Fig. 5, [0048]-[0052], baffles 52 are wider than exhaust holes 19 in a horizontal direction, currently correspond to 40 degrees, and can be made wider up to 90 degrees, [0048], and where baffles 52 may partially or completely encircle the liner 40, [0034]), and prevents the exhaust gas from flowing into the gas supply port via the upper buffer space (Wiegers, [0032]-[0035], baffles prevent unwanted backflow of gas in the central axis direction).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the baffles of Wiegers above the uppermost gas through hole of Ikeuchi as doing so would help prevent backflow of unwanted deposits to the substrates (Wiegers, [0032]-0033]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “prevents an exhaust gas discharged through the first exhaust ports from flowing in an upper buffer space between a top plate of the inner tube and a top plate of the outer tube” and “prevents the exhaust gas from flowing into the gas supply port via the upper buffer space” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The baffles of Wiegers are located above the exhaust ports and are in the path of gas flow along the central axis of the tube, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein the plurality of nozzles are provided outside the inner tube, and tips of the plurality of nozzles respectively face the plurality of gas supply ports,
wherein the gas guide comprises a first fin or two first fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in a horizontal direction, and
wherein protrusion amounts of the first fin or two first fins and the second fin or two second fins are larger than a distance between the gas supply port A and a tip of one nozzle among the plurality of nozzles corresponding to the gas supply port A.
However, Horie teaches wherein the plurality of nozzles are provided outside the inner tube (Horie, [0030]-[0031], Fig. 1, nozzles 34 are provided outside chamber 10), and tips of the plurality of nozzles respectively face the plurality of gas supply ports (Horie, [0030]-[0031], Fig. 1, nozzles 34 face slits 26), and
wherein the gas guide comprises a first fin or two first fins provided in a vicinity of the gas supply port A so as to extend in a horizontal direction (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030], jacket 28 extends to fully surround slit 26 in the horizontal direction, enclosed to create gas storage chamber 38).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
While Maeng teaches a plurality of nozzles (Maeng, Fig. 1, [0051], plurality of nozzles 33) and Horie teaches the positional relationship of the end of the nozzles facing the plurality of gas supply ports (Horie, [0030]-[0031], Fig. 1, nozzles 34 face slits 26), neither teach the combination wherein protrusion amounts of the first fin or two first fins and the second fin or two second fins are larger than a distance between the gas supply port A and a tip of one nozzle among the plurality of nozzles corresponding to the gas supply port A.
However, Wiegers teaches wherein a fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube (Wiegers, Figs. 1 and 3, [0034], baffle 52 protrudes from outer wall of liner 40, creating a gap between end of baffle 52 and inner wall of tube 30) with the purpose of providing a mechanism to prevent unwanted backflow of gas along the central axis direction by physical obstruction of the gas flow via baffles located at the exhaust ports where the gas flow is exiting (Wiegers, [0034]-[0035]). Using the same reasoning, one having ordinary skill in the art would similarly seek to prevent unwanted flow along the central axis at the supply side, which would be accomplished by ensuring that the gas exiting the supply nozzles are physically obstructed, necessitating that the fins cover the region where gas exits sufficiently enough to obstruct the flow.
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teaching of Wiegers to ensure that the jacket portions of the gas guide of Horie (Horie, Figs. 1 and 2, [0030]-[0031], jacket 28) extend at least far enough to sufficiently cover the regions of the nozzles of Maeng where the gas exits (Maeng, Fig. 1, [0051], plurality of nozzles 33) to ensure that the flow is obstructed to prevent unwanted backflow of gas in the central axis direction while still allowing pumping in the radial direction of the gas passage space (Wiegers, [0034]-[0035]), thereby meeting the claim limitation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi (US 20110021033 A1) in view of Horie (JP 2002222806 A), and Wiegers (US 20200048768 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ikeuchi teaches an inner tube comprising
a substrate accommodating region in which a plurality of substrates are accommodated in a multistage manner along a predetermined arrangement direction while the plurality of substrates are horizontally laid (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], inner tube 24 accommodates a plurality of horizontal wafers stacked vertically within process field 23 on boat 34),
wherein the inner tube is provided inside an outer tube (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], outer tube 26 surrounds inner tube 24) at which a second exhaust port is provided at an end portion of the outer tube along the arrangement direction (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], exhaust port 76 is provided at end of outer tube 26 along vertical wall),
wherein a plurality of first exhaust ports is provided on the side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0041], plural gas through holes 72 are provided in inner tube 24 wall vertically), and
wherein a first exhaust port A among the plurality of first exhaust ports is provided farthest from the second exhaust port (Ikeuchi, Fig. 1, [0042], top exhaust port 72 is located furthest from exhaust port 76).
Ikeuchi fails to teach wherein a plurality of gas supply ports are provided on a side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction,
a gas supply port A among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port A,
wherein a fin constituting at least a part of a gas guide configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube is provided on the side wall of the inner tube in a vicinity of the gas supply port A and configured to surround at least a part of an outer periphery of the gas supply port A, and
wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube.
However, Horie teaches wherein a plurality of gas supply ports are provided on a side wall of the inner tube along the arrangement direction (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], slits 26 in wall of chamber 10 through which gas passes),
a gas supply port A among the plurality of gas supply ports faces the first exhaust port A (Horie, Fig. 1, [0033], each slit 26 faces a corresponding slit 26a in the vertical direction), and
wherein a fin constituting at least a part of a gas guide configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube is provided on the side wall of the inner tube in a vicinity of the gas supply port A and configured to surround at least a part of an outer periphery of the gas supply port A (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], jacket 28 is attached to chamber 10, and fully surrounds uppermost slit 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the sidewalls of the inner tube of Ikeuchi to incorporate the gas inflow portion, slits, and nozzle arrangement of Horie as doing so would confine gas to flow substantially parallel to the wafer and flow more uniformly along the surface of the wafer (Horie, [0034]).
While Horie provides for a fin protruding in a radial direction from the inner tube, Horie fails to teach a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube.
However, Wiegers teaches wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube (Wiegers, Figs. 1 and 3, [0034], baffle 52 protrudes from outer wall of liner 40, creating a gap between end of baffle 52 and inner wall of tube 30).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the spacing teaching of Wiegers (wherein the protrusion extends from the inner tube and has a gap between it and the outer tube) to the gas inflow portion of Horie (Horie, Fig. 1, [0030], gas inflow portion 20) in relation to the spacing from the outer tube of Ikeuchi (Ikeuchi, Fig.1, [0031], outer tube 26) as doing so would ensure there is sufficient clearance to assemble the inner tube within the outer tube (Wiegers, [0038]) while also providing a mechanism to prevent unwanted backflow of gas in the central axis direction while still allowing pumping in the radial direction of the gas passage space (Wiegers, [0034]-[0035]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to be capable of controlling a flow of a gas in an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas inflow portion of Horie has a jacket surrounding the gas supply ports in communication with a gas supply to direct the gas flow direction, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 11/19/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Ikeuchi in view of Horie and/or Wiegers, teach the claim limitations “a plurality of nozzles penetrate the outer tube to communicate with the annular space”, “wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube”, and “wherein the fin protrudes in a radial direction from the inner tube such that a gap of a predetermined distance is maintained between an end of the fin and an opposing surface of the outer tube” of independent claim 1 (and similarly claim 19) as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718