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 11/03/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/06/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are pending.
Claims 9-10 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 5, 7 and 11-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4 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 1-2, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20180135175 A1), in view of Nguyen (US 20170335457 A1), Wakasa (US 20150211118 A1), and Tam (US 20090095222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a film forming apparatus (Suzuki, Fig. 1, [0028], film forming apparatus 1) comprising:
a film formation chamber capable of accommodating a substrate (Suzuki, Fig. 1, [0029], chamber 10 houses substrate W therein);
a gas supplier comprising a plurality of nozzles provided in an upper portion of the film formation chamber to supply a process gas onto a film formation face of the substrate (Suzuki, Fig. 2, [0041], gas supplier 40 having plural nozzles N supplies gas to substrate W housed in chamber 10, and is located in upper head part 12 of chamber 10), and a cooling part configured to suppress a temperature increase of the process gas (Suzuki, Fig. 2, [0029], first cooler 31 and second cooler 32 suppress temperature of process gases);
a heater configured to heat the substrate to 1500°C or higher (Suzuki, Fig. 1, [0038], lower heater 90 and upper heater 95 heat substrate W to temperatures equal to or higher than 1500°C); and
a plate opposed to a bottom face of the gas supplier (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0042], first protection cover 110 faces bottom of gas supplier 40), where first opening parts of the nozzles are formed, in the film formation chamber (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0041], first opening parts OP1 of nozzles N are provided at bottom face of gas supplier 40), and arranged away from the bottom face (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0042], first protection cover 110 faces away from bottom face of gas supplier 40), wherein
the plate comprises a plurality of second opening parts having a smaller diameter than the first opening parts (Suzuki, Fig. 7, [0051], cover 110 has plurality of holes H110 that are smaller than parts OP110, where OP110 may be equal in size to openings OP1, [0042]), and arranged substantially uniformly in a plane of the plate (Suzuki, Fig. 7, [0051], holes H110 are provided uniformly across cover 110).
Suzuki fails to teach a partition protruded on an opposed face to the gas supplier and separating a space between an upper face of the plate and the bottom face of the gas supplier into a plurality of regions, wherein
a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and the upper face of the plate is between 1.0 mm and 8.0 mm, and
a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and an upper face of the partition is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.
However, Nguyen teaches a partition protruded on an opposed face to the gas supplier and separating a space between an upper face of the plate and the bottom face of the gas supplier into a plurality of regions (Nguyen, Figs. 1 and 3, [0038], barrier wall 310 extends outward from surface 312A of plate 138 towards bottom face of gas distribution assembly 134, separating inner zone 302 and outer zone 304).
Nguyen 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 incorporated the barrier walls of Nguyen into the apparatus of Suzuki as doing so would provide for the ability to have independent center to edge flow zonality (Nguyen, [0005]).
Modified Suzuki fails to teach a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and the upper face of the plate is between 1.0 mm and 8.0 mm, and
a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and an upper face of the partition is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.
However, Wakasa teaches a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and the upper face of the plate is between 1.0 mm and 8.0 mm (Wakasa, Fig. 5, [0059], diffusion plate 50 is spaced 5mm away from bottom surface of gas inlets 14).
Wakasa 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 diffusion space and diffusion hole dimensions as taught by Wakasa as doing so would create a diffusion space where gases introduced can be maximally uniformly integrated throughout the space before exiting through the diffusion holes (Wakasa, [0059]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Suzuki fails to teach a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and an upper face of the partition is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm. While Nguyen provides a range of lengths the barrier wall extends from the blocker plate (Nguyen, [0038], wall 310 may extend between 0.125in and 0.350in outward from surface 312A), Nguyen fails to explicitly teach wherein a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and an upper face of the partition is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.
However, Tam teaches a gap between the bottom face of the gas supplier and an upper face of the partition is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm (Tam, Fig. 2F, [0068], gap size G2 is 0.5mm to 1.5mm, where gap G2 is between top of restricting wall 172 and bottom of top plate 230, [0047]).
Tam 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 utilize the teachings of Tam regarding the length of the gap between the restricting wall and facing plate to set the length of the partition wall of modified Suzuki as doing so would allow control of the degree of gas flow rate between separated regions (Tam, [0068]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki fails to teach wherein the plate comprises a first plate region enclosed by the partition, and a second plate region on an outer circumference side of the partition, and the process gas is supplied from the gas supplier to the first plate region and the second plate region at concentrations different from each other or flow rates different from each other.
However, Nguyen teaches wherein the plate comprises a first plate region enclosed by the partition, and a second plate region on an outer circumference side of the partition (Nguyen, Figs. 1 and 3, [0038], barrier wall 310 separates inner zone 302 and outer zone 304, where outer zone 304 is disposed on an outer circumference of inner zone 302), and
the process gas is supplied from the gas supplier to the first plate region and the second plate region at concentrations different from each other or flow rates different from each other (Nguyen, Fig. 1, [0022], flow ratio controllers 114 provide gas to a first side 116A of inlet adapter 112 such that a gas is provided to a first section of the gas distribution assembly, and also provide gas to a second side 116B of inlet adapter 112 such that a gas is provided to a second section of the gas distribution assembly).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the barrier walls of Nguyen into the apparatus of Suzuki as doing so would provide for the ability to have independent center to edge flow zonality (Nguyen, [0005]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the process gas is supplied from the gas supplier to the first plate region and the second plate region at concentrations different from each other or flow rates different from each other “ 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 barrier wall of Nguyen separates the gas space into different regions, each of which is in communication with an individual gas flow ratio controller, thereby structurally being capable of supplying different flow rates of gas to each region. 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).teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches wherein the gas supplier further comprises a first nozzle (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0042], nozzle N), a third opening part at the bottom of the first nozzle (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0042], opening part OP1 is located at the bottom of nozzle N),
the plate further comprises a fourth opening part same as or larger than the third opening part at a location facing the third opening part (Suzuki, Fig. 6, [0042], opening part OP110 has a size equal to or larger than part OP1, and is formed in cover 100 which faces opening part OP1).
Suzuki fails to teach a temperature measuring window attached above the first nozzle, and
the partition is further provided around the fourth opening part.
However, Tam teaches a temperature measuring window attached above the first nozzle (Tam, Fig. 6A, [0073]-[0075], ports 400/401, located in line with regions overlapping gas communication holes in showerhead assembly 104, may be used to house pyrometers to measure substrate temperature), and
the partition is further provided around the fourth opening part (Tam, Fig. 3 and 6A, [0047], restricting walls 172 encircle locations where ports 400/401 are disposed, [0073]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the ports as taught by Tam into the apparatus of modified Suzuki as doing so would enable direct in situ measurement of the temperature of substrate (Tam, [0073]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches wherein the second opening parts are provided also at opposed locations of the plate opposed by the nozzles (Suzuki, Fig. 7, [0051], holes H110 are provided uniformly across cover 110, which faces the bottom surface of nozzles N in gas supply 40).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki fails to teach wherein a diameter of the second opening parts is between 0.5 mm and 5 mm.
However, Wakasa teaches wherein a diameter of the second opening parts is between 0.5 mm and 5 mm (Wakasa, Fig. 5, [0059], diameter of diffusion holes 51 in diffusion plate 50 is 2mm). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the diffusion space and diffusion hole dimensions as taught by Wakasa as doing so would create a diffusion space where gases introduced can be maximally uniformly integrated throughout the space before exiting through the diffusion holes (Wakasa, [0059]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20180135175 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 20170335457 A1), Wakasa (US 20150211118 A1), and Tam (US 20090095222 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8, and further in view of Masuda (US 20090117746 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki fails to teach wherein a plurality of the partitions are provided concentrically on the opposed face.
However, Masuda teaches wherein a plurality of the partitions are provided concentrically on the opposed face (Masuda, Fig. 4, [0064], partition wall member 43 is located concentrically outside of partition wall member 42).
Masuda 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 provided an additional partition member located concentrically located outside the partition member of modified Suzuki as doing so would allow for dedicated gas flow control at the outermost region of the substrate (Masuda, [0042], Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 11/03/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Suzuki in view of Lee, teach the claim limitations “a partition protruded on an opposed face to the gas supplier and separating a space between an upper face of the plate and the bottom face of the gas supplier into a plurality of regions” of independent claim 1 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