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 (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed on 22 Dec 2025 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 01 Dec 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 01 Dec 2025 and RCE filed 22 Dec 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-21 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 are amended. Claims 3, 8, 13, 18 are canceled. Claims 20 and 21 are new.
Specification
Specification objections discussed in the final rejection of 01 Oct 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification filed 01 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 22 Dec 2025.
.
Drawings
Drawing objections discussed in the final rejection of 01 Oct 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification filed 01 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 22 Dec 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 10 (and dependent claims 11-12, 14-17, 19) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, discussed in the final rejection of 01 Oct 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 01 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 22 Dec 2025.
Claim 1 (and depending claims 2, 4-7, 9), claim 10 (and depending claims 11-12, 14-17, 19) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed in the final rejection of 01 Oct 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 01 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 22 Dec 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al. (US 6,148,761 hereinafter “Majewski”) in view of White et al. (US 2014/0103145 A1 hereinafter “White”) and Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0153088 A1 hereinafter "Tsuji").
Regarding independent Claim 1 and 10 (see annotated Fig. 5 of Majewski below; see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above) Majewski teaches a gas distributor (comprising gas distribution assembly 104 including multi-channel faceplate 200 and 110, Fig. 3; see also Fig. 4-9 and col 4 line 33- col 7 line 55) of a semiconductor processing apparatus (comprising processing chamber 100, Fig. 3, claim 14, col 4 line 13-33) comprising a distributor body (comprising 200, Fig. 3 and 4), including:
a gas outlet end surface (comprising bottom surface 212, Fig. 4, col 4 line 65-col 5 line 11);
a gas distribution pipeline group (comprising interconnected horizontal channels 222, Fig. 4,5, 6, col 7 line 1);
a first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 184, Fig. 3 and comprising nozzle 224, Fig. 4, 5, 6, col 6 line 15- 66),
a gas outlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 224, Fig. 4, 5, 6) being communicated with a gas inlet of the gas distribution pipeline group (comprising 222, Fig. 4, 5, 6);
a plurality of first gas outlet pipelines (comprising vertical channels 228, Fig. 4, 5, 6, col 5 line 9-10), gas inlet ends of the plurality of first gas outlet pipelines (comprising 228, Fig. 4, 5, 6) being communicated to a plurality of gas outlets of the gas distribution pipeline group (comprising 222, Fig. 4, 5, 6) in a one-to-one correspondence;
a gas distribution chamber (comprising upper region 190, Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6, col 5 line 1-5, col 6 line 56-66) located above the gas distribution pipeline group (comprising 222, Fig. 4, 5, 6) and arranged surrounding the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 224, Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6);
a second gas inlet pipeline (comprising gas delivery passage 186, Fig. 3, col 6 line 54-65), a gas outlet of the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising an outlet of gas delivery passage 186, Fig. 3) being communicated with a gas inlet of the gas distribution chamber (comprising 190, Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6, col 6 line 54-65); and
a plurality of second gas outlet pipelines (comprising vertical channels 226, Fig. 4, 5, 6, col 6 line 60-64), gas inlets of the plurality of second gas outlet pipelines (comprising 226, Fig. 4, 5, 6) being communicated with the gas outlets of the gas distribution chamber (comprising 190, Fig. 4, 5, 6) in a one-to- one correspondence, the first outlet pipelines (comprising 228, Fig. 4, 5, 6) and the second outlet pipelines (comprising 226, Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6) being staggeredly arranged (as understood from Fig. 4, 5, 6), and the gas outlet ends of the first outlet pipelines (comprising 228, Fig. 4, 5, 6) and the second outlet pipelines (comprising 226, Fig. 4, 5, 6) being located on the gas outlet end surface (comprising 212, Fig. 4, 5, 6) of the distributor body.
Further regarding independent claim 10, Majewski teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus (comprising processing chamber 100, Fig. 3, claim 14, col 4 line 13-33), wherein: a gas inlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 224, Fig. 4, 5, 6) is configured to be communicated with a first reaction gas supply source (comprising a second gas source/second gas container 118, Fig. 3, in claim 14 and col 6 line 1-4, col 6 line 51-col 7 line 5); a gas inlet end of the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising 186, Fig. 3) is configured to be communicated with a second reaction gas supply source (comprising a first gas source/first gas container 116 , Fig. 3, claim 14, col 6 line 1-4, col 6 line 50-65); the first reaction gas supply source is configured to provide a first reaction gas (claim 14; col 6 line 55-col 7 line 5); the second reaction gas supply source is configured to provide a second reaction gas (claim 14; col 6 line 55-col 7 line 5).
See annotated figures of Majewski below:
PNG
media_image1.png
587
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
699
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Majewski does not explicitly teach a height of the gas distribution chamber gradually decreasing from an inner peripheral edge close to the first gas inlet pipeline to an outer peripheral edge away from the first gas inlet pipeline; a dilution gas source configured to supply a dilution gas, the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline and the second gas inlet pipeline, such that the dilution gas supplied from the dilution gas source is introducible into the gas distribution pipeline group via the first gas inlet pipeline and into the gas distribution chamber via the second gas inlet pipeline.
Further, regarding claim 10: Majewski does not explicitly teach a diffusion coefficient of the first reaction gas is greater than a diffusion coefficient of the second reaction gas.
However, regarding claim 1 and 10, White teaches a gas distributor (comprising showerhead 26, Fig. 1) including a gas distribution chamber (comprising first cavity 46, Fig. 1) having a height that gradually decreases from an inner side close to the first gas inlet pipe line (comprising first gas hole 44, Fig. 1) to an outer peripheral edge away from the first gas inlet pipeline (para. [0039]-[0040]). White further teaches that the shape, size and thickness of the gas distribution chamber is a result-effective variable that enables providing better flow characteristics as well as limiting pocket formation which may increase purge times (para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the height of the gas distribution chamber (Majewski: comprising 190, Fig. 3) gradually decreasing from an inner peripheral edge close to the first gas inlet pipeline to an outer peripheral edge away from the first gas inlet pipeline or alternatively to optimize the size and shape of the gas distribution chamber because White teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of a gas distribution chamber for better flow characteristics or alternatively because White teaches that the size and shape of the gas distribution chamber is/are result-effective variable(s) which affect(s) flow characteristics and purge times (White: para. [0040]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by teachings of White to optimize the size and shape of the gas distribution chamber to optimize the flow characteristics in the gas distribution chamber.
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Majewski in view of White as applied above does not teach a dilution gas source configured to supply a dilution gas, the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline and the second gas inlet pipeline, such that the dilution gas supplied from the dilution gas source is introducible into the gas distribution pipeline group via the first gas inlet pipeline and into the gas distribution chamber via the second gas inlet pipeline.
However, Tsuji teaches a gas distributor (comprising showerhead 10, Fig. 1, para. [0024]), wherein the gas distributor includes a dilution gas source (shown as N2 gas source in Fig. 1, para [0031]) configured to supply a dilution gas (i.e. purge gas such as N2), the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising third thin hole 30a, Fig. 1) and the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising first thin hole 20a, Fig. 1) (para. [0031]), wherein the first gas and the second gas have separate/independent gas flow paths (para. [0025]). Tsuji teaches that providing the dilution gas source communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 30a, Fig. 1) and the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising 20a, Fig. 1) enables supplying purge gas and the first gas into the first gas flow path (comprising 30, Fig. 1) and supplying purge gas and second gas into the second gas flow path (comprising 20, Fig. 1) (para. [0037]-[0042]) and enabling removing/purging the first gas from the first gas flow path (comprising 30, Fig. 1) and removing/purging the second gas from the second gas flow path (comprising 20, Fig. 1) (para. [0038],[0041]).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a dilution gas source configured to supply a dilution gas (i.e. purge/inert gas), the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline (Majewski: comprising 184, Fig. 3) and the second gas inlet pipe line (Majewski: comprising 186, Fig. 3) because Tsuji teaches/suggests that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative gas supply configuration which enables removing/purging the first gas from the first gas flow path and removing/purging the second gas from the second gas flow path (Tsuji: para. [0038],[0041]) for suitable substrate processing wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limitation "such that the dilution gas supplied from the dilution gas source is introducible into the gas distribution pipeline group via the first gas inlet pipeline and into the gas distribution chamber via the second gas inlet pipeline" would be met when modifying Majewski in view of teachings of Tsuji since Majewski already teaches the configuration of the gas distribution pipeline group, first gas inlet pipeline, gas distribution chamber and second gas inlet pipeline.
Regarding claim 10 limitation "a diffusion coefficient of the first reaction gas is greater than a diffusion coefficient of the second reaction gas," this is an intended use limitation dependent on the type of gas intended to be used in the semiconductor processing apparatus. Since Majewski in view of White and Tsuji teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim including first and second reaction gas sources, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding claim 11, Majewski in view of White and Tsuji teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as applied above and Majewski further teaches a gas inlet block (comprising gas feed through 108, Fig. 3 and 7, col 5 line 46-58) arranged on the distributor body (comprising 110 and 200, Fig. 3) and including: a first transmission channel (comprising second gas tube 158, Fig. 7) configured to communicate the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 224, Fig. 4, 5, 6) with the first reaction gas supply device (comprising second gas source, claim 14, col 6 line 46-66); and a second transmission channel (comprising gas tube 156, Fig. 7) configured to communicate the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising 186, Fig. 3; col 6 line 20-21 and line 54-65) with the second reaction gas supply device (comprising first gas source, claim 14, col 6 line 46-66).
Majewski in view of White and Tsuji as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein: a first sealing ring and a second sealing ring surrounding the first sealing ring are arranged between the gas inlet block and the distributor body; a connection position between the first transmission channel and the first gas inlet pipeline is located on an inner side of the first sealing ring; and a connection position between the second transmission channel and the second gas inlet pipeline is located between the first sealing ring and the second sealing ring.
However, Majewski further teaches that the gas inlet block (comprising 108, Fig. 3 and 7, col 5 line 46-58) can have a concentric/coaxial configuration.
Additionally, White further teaches a gas inlet block (comprising gas control valve assembly 54, Fig. 1) comprising a first sealing ring (comprising inner o-ring 56, Fig. 1) and a second sealing ring (comprising outer o-ring 58, Fig. 1) surrounding the first sealing ring (comprising 56, Fig. 1) are arranged between the gas inlet block (comprising 54, Fig. 1) and the distributor body (comprising 32 and 34, Fig. 1 ); a connection position between the first transmission channel (comprising 60, Fig. 1) and the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 44, Fig. 1) is located on an inner side of the first sealing ring (comprising 56, Fig. 1); and a connection position between the second transmission channel (comprising 62, Fig. 1) and the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising 42, Fig. 1) is located between the first sealing ring (comprising 56, Fig. 1) and the second sealing ring (comprising 58, Fig. 1) (para. [0030]). White teaches that such a configuration of first and second sealing rings prevents comingling of gases during delivery and also prevents gases from leaking at the intersection between the distribution body (comprising 32 including 40 Fig. 1) and the gas inlet block (comprising 54, Fig. 1) (para. [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gas inlet block of Majewski to have a concentric/coaxially configuration and to further provide first sealing ring are arranged between the gas inlet block and the distributor body; a connection position between the first transmission channel and the first gas inlet pipeline is located on an inner side of the first sealing ring; and a connection position between the second transmission channel and the second gas inlet pipeline is located between the first sealing ring and the second sealing ring because Majewski teaches that a concentric/coaxial arrangement is a known suitable alternative configuration and because White teaches providing first and second sealing rings enables preventing comingling/mixing of gases during delivery (White: para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Majewski in view of White, Tsuji and Lim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10, respectively, as applied above and Majewski further teaches wherein the second gas inlet pipeline (comprising 186, Fig. 3) is an annular gas inlet pipe line arranged around the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 184, Fig. 3, col 6 line 15-21) (Examiner explains that col 6 line 15-21 disclose that the perimeter of first gas inlet pipeline/conduit 184 and central bore 182 define second gas inlet pipeline/gas delivery passage 186, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as an annular gas inlet pipe line configuration).
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al. (US 6,148,761 hereinafter “Majewski”) in view of White et al. (US 2014/0103145 A1 hereinafter “White”) and Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0153088 A1 hereinafter "Tsuji") as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 19 above and further in view of Kamio et al. (US 2019/0024234 A1 hereinafter “Kamio”).
Regarding claim 2, 12, Majewski in view of White and Tsuji teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 10 respectively as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the gas distribution chamber at the inner peripheral edge is between 2 mm and 4 mm, and the height of the gas distribution chamber at the outer peripheral edge is between 0.5 mm and 1 mm.
However, White teaches that the shape, size and thickness of the gas distribution chamber (comprising 46, Fig. 1) is a result-effective variable that enables providing better flow characteristics as well as limiting pocket formation which may increase purge times (para. [0040]).
Additionally, Kamio teaches an example of a gas distribution chamber (comprising gas diffusion space 37, Fig. 3 and 4) having a height (h2, Fig. 4) of 8 mm or less (para. [0043]). Kamio further teaches that making the height of the gas distribution chamber (comprising 37, Fig. 4) relatively small enables quick purging and reduces time for performing a cycle of an ALD process (para. [0043]). In other words, Kamio teaches that the height of the gas distribution chamber is a result-effective variable which affects the purge time in a process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the height of the gas distribution chamber at the inner peripheral edge and the outer peripheral edge because both White and Kamio teach that the height/dimensions of the gas distribution chamber is/are a result-effective variable which affects gas flow and process time (White: para. [0040]; Kamio: [0043]), wherein Kamio teaches an example height of a gas distribution chamber which could be used as a starting point for optimization of the gas distribution chamber height dimensions.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al. (US 6,148,761 hereinafter “Majewski”) in view of White et al. (US 2014/0103145 A1 hereinafter “White”) and Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0153088 A1 hereinafter "Tsuji") as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 19 above and further in view of Lim (KR20060115943A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Majewski in view of White and Tsuji teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10, respectively as applied above.
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Majewski in view of White and Tsuji as applied above does teach a gas distribution pipeline group (Majewski: comprising 222, Fig. 4-6), but Fig. 4-6 embodiment does not show a top or bottom facing view of the gas distribution pipeline group showing how the gas pipeline group is interconnected and thus does not clearly teach and explicitly teach: wherein the gas distribution pipeline group includes: a plurality of main pipelines radially arranged from the first gas inlet pipeline in different directions away from the first gas inlet pipeline, ends of the plurality of main pipelines close to the first gas inlet pipeline being communicated with a gas outlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline; a plurality of sub-pipeline groups arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the main pipelines, each of the sub-pipeline groups including a plurality of sub-pipelines arranged on two sides of a corresponding main pipeline and at a predetermined included angle with the corresponding main pipeline, the sub-pipelines of each of the sub-pipeline groups located on a same side of the corresponding main pipeline being arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the corresponding main pipeline, an end of each of the sub-pipelines close to the corresponding main pipeline being communicated with the corresponding main pipeline, and the plurality of gas outlets of the gas distribution pipeline group being arranged at the plurality of sub-pipelines; and inner ends of the sub-pipelines on different sides of the corresponding main pipeline are connected to a same position of the main pipeline in a one-to-one correspondence, such that the sub-pipelines located on the two sides of the corresponding main pipeline of a same sub-pipeline group are arranged symmetrically.
However, Majewski teaches a further embodiment (Fig. 8 and 9 col 7 line-16-45), and teaches that other arrangements/design of the interconnected pipelines (comprising 314, 316, Fig. 8) can be provided as the marketplace and manufacturing concerns direct (col 7 line 35-43).
Note that the embodiment in Majewski Fig. 8 teaches a gas distribution pipeline group includes: a plurality of main pipelines radially arranged from the first gas inlet pipeline in different directions away from the first gas inlet pipeline, ends of the plurality of main pipelines close to the first gas inlet pipeline being communicated with a gas outlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline; a plurality of sub-pipeline groups arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the main pipelines, each of the sub-pipeline groups including a plurality of sub-pipelines arranged on two sides of a corresponding main pipeline and at a predetermined included angle with the corresponding main pipeline; inner ends of the sub-pipelines on different sides of the corresponding main pipeline are connected to a same position of the main pipeline in a one-to-one correspondence, such that the sub-pipelines located on the two sides of the corresponding main pipeline of a same sub-pipeline group are arranged symmetrically. See annotated Fig. 8 of Majewski below.
Examiner notes that embodiment of Fig. 8 of Majewski does not teach “the sub-pipelines of each of the sub-pipeline groups located on a same side of the corresponding main pipeline being arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the corresponding main pipeline.” In other words, Fig. 8 of Majewski does not explicitly teach that there are a plurality of sub-pipelines/more than one sub-pipeline extending along each of the two sides of the corresponding main pipeline.
PNG
media_image3.png
527
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Lim teaches gas distribution pipeline group includes: a plurality of main pipelines (comprising first main channels 312, Fig. 16) radially arranged from the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising feeding hole 311, Fig. 16) in different directions away from the first gas inlet pipeline, ends of the plurality of main pipelines (comprising 314, Fig. 16) close to the first gas inlet pipeline being communicated with a gas outlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline; a plurality of sub-pipeline groups (comprising groups of first sub channels 313, Fig. 16) arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the main pipelines (comprising 314, Fig. 16), each of the sub-pipeline groups including a plurality of sub-pipelines (comprising 313, Fig. 16) arranged on two sides of a corresponding main pipeline and at a predetermined included angle with the corresponding main pipeline, the sub-pipelines of each of the sub-pipeline groups located on a same side of the corresponding main pipeline being arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the corresponding main pipeline, an end of each of the sub-pipelines close to the corresponding main pipeline being communicated with the corresponding main pipeline, and the plurality of gas outlets (comprising 314, Fig. 16) of the gas distribution pipeline group being arranged at the plurality of sub-pipelines; and inner ends of the sub-pipelines on different sides of the corresponding main pipeline are connected to a same position of the main pipeline in a one-to-one correspondence, such that the sub-pipelines located on the two sides of the corresponding main pipeline of a same sub-pipeline group are arranged symmetrically (page 17-18). Lim teaches that such a configuration enables uniform substrate processing and utilization efficiency of a source gas (upper page 14, lower page 21-upper page 22, page 29). See annotated Fig. 16 of Lim below.
PNG
media_image4.png
724
974
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
753
975
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Specifically, Lim teaches the sub-pipelines of each of the sub-pipeline groups located on a same side of the corresponding main pipeline being arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the corresponding main pipeline. In other words, Lim teaches there are a plurality of sub-pipelines/more than one sub-pipeline extending along two sides of the corresponding main pipeline, which cure the deficiencies of Majewski Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 20 and 21, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gas distribution pipeline group to include a plurality of main pipelines radially arranged from the first gas inlet pipeline in different directions away from the first gas inlet pipeline, ends of the plurality of main pipelines close to the first gas inlet pipeline being communicated with a gas outlet end of the first gas inlet pipeline; a plurality of sub-pipeline groups arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the main pipelines, each of the sub-pipeline groups including a plurality of sub-pipelines arranged on two sides of a corresponding main pipeline and at a predetermined included angle with the corresponding main pipeline, the sub-pipelines of each of the sub-pipeline groups located on a same side of the corresponding main pipeline being arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the corresponding main pipeline, an end of each of the sub-pipelines close to the corresponding main pipeline being communicated with the corresponding main pipeline, and the plurality of gas outlets of the gas distribution pipeline group being arranged at the plurality of sub-pipelines; and inner ends of the sub-pipelines on different sides of the corresponding main pipeline are connected to a same position of the main pipeline in a one-to-one correspondence, such that the sub-pipelines located on the two sides of the corresponding main pipeline of a same sub-pipeline group are arranged symmetrically because Majewski teaches alternative designs/configurations of the gas pipelines can be provided for distributing gas into the processing chamber of the semiconductor processing apparatus wherein Majewski teaches an alternative configuration including main pipelines and sub-pipelines (see Fig. 8) and because Lim teaches that such a configuration of branching sub-pipelines is a known suitable alternative configuration of a gas distribution pipeline group which enables uniform substrate processing and utilization efficiency of a source gas (Lim: upper page 14, lower page 21-upper page 22, page 29).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Majewski in view of White, Tsuji and Lim teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 and 21 respectively, as applied above and Lim further teaches wherein sub-pipelines located between any two neighboring main pipelines are parallel to each other. See annotated Fig. 16 of Lim above in claim 20 and 21 rejection.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al. (US 6,148,761 hereinafter “Majewski”) in view of White et al. (US 2014/0103145 A1 hereinafter “White”), Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0153088 A1 hereinafter "Tsuji") and Lim (KR20060115943A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 7, 17, 20, 21 above and further in view of Yao (US 2010/0276084 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Majewski in view of White and Lim teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 and 21, respectively as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the gas distribution pipeline group further includes: at least one connection pipeline communicated with at least some of the main pipelines and/or the sub-pipelines intersecting with an extension trajectory of the at least one connection pipeline.
However, Yao teaches a gas distributor comprising at least one connection pipeline/flowpath (comprising circumferential gas flow grooves 41, Fig. 5; comprising 41a, 41b, 41c, Fig. 6, para. [0051]) communicated with at least some of the main/sub-pipelines/flowpaths (comprising radial gas flow grooves 42, Fig. 5; comprising 42a, 42b, 42c, Fig. 6, para. [0051]) intersecting with an extension trajectory (i.e. circumferential direction) of the connection pipeline/flowpath (comprising 41, Fig. 5; comprising 41a, 41b, 41c, Fig. 6). Yao teaches that such a configuration enables uniform distribution of process gas in a circumferential direction/extension trajectory of the connection pipeline (para. [0056]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gas distribution pipeline group to further include at least one connection pipeline (i.e. a circumferential pipeline/flowpath) communicated with at least some of the main pipeline and/or the sub-pipelines intersecting with an extension trajectory of the connection pipeline because Yao teaches that such a configuration enables uniform distribution of process gas in a circumferential direction/extension trajectory of the connection pipeline (Yao: para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Majewski in view of White, Tsuji, Lim and Yao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 20, 4 and 10, 21,14 respectively as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein: each connection pipeline is an annular pipeline; a plurality of annular pipelines are included; orthographic projections of the plurality of annular pipelines on a radial cross-section of the first gas inlet pipeline have different diameters and are concentrically arranged with an orthographic projection of an axis of the first gas inlet pipeline as a center; a radial distance between orthographic projections of any two neighboring annular pipelines is the same; and the gas outlet of each of the sub-pipelines is located at a position where the sub-pipeline intersects with the connection pipeline.
However, Yao further teaches each connection pipeline (comprising 41, Fig. 5) is an annular pipeline; a plurality of annular pipelines are included (comprising 41a, 41b, 41c, Fig. 6); orthographic projections of the plurality of annular pipelines on a radial cross-section of the first gas inlet pipeline (i.e. from a top or plan view) have different diameters and are concentrically arranged (para. [0051]) with an orthographic projection of an axis of the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising first air inlet passage 31, Fig. 3) as a center (para. [0054]); a radial distance between orthographic projections of any two neighboring annular pipelines (comprising 41, Fig. 5) is the same (as understood from Fig. 5 and 6); and the gas outlet (comprising one of the viaholes 43, Fig. 5, para. [0055]) of each of the sub-pipelines (comprising radial grooves 42, Fig. 5) is located at a position where the sub-pipeline intersects with the connection pipeline (comprising circumferential grooves 41, Fig. 5). Yao teaches that such a configuration enables uniform distribution of process gas in a circumferential direction/extension trajectory of the connection pipeline (Yao: para. [0056]). See annotated Fig. 5 of Yao below.
PNG
media_image6.png
626
728
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 15, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the connection pipeline to be an annular pipeline; a plurality of annular pipelines are included; orthographic projections of the plurality of annular pipelines on a radial cross-section of the first gas inlet pipeline have different diameters and are concentrically arranged with an orthographic projection of an axis of the first gas inlet pipeline as a center; a radial distance between orthographic projections of any two neighboring annular pipelines is the same; and the gas outlet of each of the sub-pipelines is located at a position where the sub-pipeline intersects with the connection pipeline, because Yao teaches that such a configuration enables uniform distribution of process gas in a circumferential direction/extension trajectory of the connection pipeline (Yao: para. [0056]).
Claim(s) 6, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al. (US 6,148,761 hereinafter “Majewski”) in view of White et al. (US 2014/0103145 A1 hereinafter “White”), Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0153088 A1 hereinafter "Tsuji") and Lim (KR20060115943A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 7, 17, 20, 21 above and further in view of Berkau et al. (CN205275699U IDS art hereinafter “Berkau” and referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Majewski in view of White, Tsuji and Lim teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 and 21, respectively as applied above but does not explicitly teach from an end of each of the main pipelines close to the first gas inlet pipeline to the other end away from the first gas inlet pipeline, an inner diameter of the main pipeline gradually decreases; and from an end of each of the sub-pipeline close to the corresponding main pipeline to the other end away from the corresponding main pipeline, an inner diameter of the sub-pipeline gradually decreases.
However, Berkau further teaches a gas distributor including main pipelines (comprising main pipes 8, 9, 10, 11, Fig. 2, para [0042]), sub-pipelines (comprising branch pipes8-1 to 8-8, 9-1, to 9-8, 10-1 to 10-8, 11-1 to 11-8, Fig. 2, para. [0042]) and a first gas inlet pipeline (comprising air inlet pipe 5, Fig. 2, para. [0043]), wherein the main and branch pipelines can have a circle cross-section (para. [0037]) and wherein an end of each of the main pipeline (comprising main pipes 8, 9, 10, 11, Fig. 2) close to the first gas inlet pipeline (comprising 5, Fig. 2) to the other end away from the first gas inlet pipeline (i.e. from center to edge), cross-sectional area of the main pipeline gradually decreases (para. [0040]-[0041], [0047]); and from an end of each of the sub-pipeline (comprising branch pipes 8-1 to 8-8, 9-1, to 9-8, 10-1 to 10-8, 11-1 to 11-8, Fig. 2,) close to the corresponding main pipeline (comprising 8, 9, 10, 11, Fig. 2) to the other end away from the corresponding main pipeline (i.e. from connection point to edge), an inner diameter of the sub-pipeline gradually decreases (para. [0040], [0041], [0047]). Examiner further explains that an inner diameter value is needed to obtain a cross-sectional area of a pipe having a circle shaped cross-section. Since, Berkau teaches a cross-sectional area of each of the main pipeline decreases from center to the edge and the cross-sectional area of each of the sub-pipelines decreases from connection point at the main pipeline to the edge, the associated inner diameter values would also decrease from center to the edge and from connection point to the edge, respectively. Berkau further teaches that such a configuration enables reducing purge time and improving purge efficient while ensuring even distribution of gases inside the chamber (para. [0040], [0047]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the main pipelines and sub-pipelines such that an end of each of the main pipelines close to the first gas inlet pipeline to the other end away from the first gas inlet pipeline, an inner diameter of the main pipeline gradually decreases; and from an end of each of the sub-pipelines close to the corresponding main pipeline to the other end away from the corresponding main pipeline, an inner diameter of the sub-pipeline gradually decreases because Berkau teaches that such a configuration enables reducing purge time and improving purge efficient while ensuring even distribution of gases inside the chamber (Berkau: para. [0040], [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 22 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 17-18) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 10, Majewski, White, Lim, Kamio, Yao and Berkau whether alone or in any combination do not teach a common dilution/purge gas source that is simultaneously connected to two distinct internal gas diffusion structures and thus do no teach amended claim limitation "a dilution gas source configured to supply a dilution gas, the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline and the second gas inlet pipeline, such that the dilution gas supplied from the dilution gas source is introducible into the gas distribution pipeline group via the first gas inlet pipeline and into the gas distribution chamber via the second gas inlet pipeline."
Examiner responds independent claim 1 and 10 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Current independent claim 1 and 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski in view of White and Tsuji wherein Tsuji teaches "a dilution gas source configured to supply a dilution gas, the dilution gas source being communicated with both the first gas inlet pipeline and the second gas inlet pipeline” wherein configuration is a known suitable alternative gas supply configuration which enables removing/purging the first gas from the first gas flow path and removing/purging the second gas from the second gas flow path (Tsuji: para. [0038],[0041]) for suitable substrate processing wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limitation "such that the dilution gas supplied from the dilution gas source is introducible into the gas distribution pipeline group via the first gas inlet pipeline and into the gas distribution chamber via the second gas inlet pipeline" would be met when modifying Majewski in view of teachings of Tsuji since Majewski already teaches the configuration of the gas distribution pipeline group, first gas inlet pipeline, gas distribution chamber and second gas inlet pipeline.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 2, 4-7,9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-21 are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hytros et al. (US 2003/0124842 A1) teaches a gas distribution system (comprising showerhead 170, a first gas source 135, a second gas source 141, Fig. 2) configured to delivery a first gas (i.e. titanium containing gas such as TiCl4) and a second gas (i.e. nitrogen containing gas such as NH3) and also an inert gas such as helium, argon, nitrogen can be mixed with the first and/or second gas to be separately/independently delivered into the process chamber (para. [0024], [0056]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights