DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12, 19-20 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 11/12/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the separate by-pass plate (433) of Janakiraman is designed to divert flow of remotely generated plasma flowing through annular channel 432d away from the region 499 (i.e., equated to the inner plenum).”
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Applicant is mistaken regarding what Examiner is equating the inner plenum with. The inner plenum is the space above 436 (gas distribution plate), this space is located between 436 and below 499. The space (inner plenum) is not 499. Examiner has pointed to this space multiple times, and even noted the actual multiple flow arrows in Fig. 4A of Janakiraman which is exactly where the inner plenum (space above 436) is located (and note that there are zero arrows in the 499 region). Despite Applicant’s multiple arguments about region 499, Examiner is not equating or relying upon “499” with/for anything, and has not mentioned “499” anywhere in the prior art rejections or previous response to arguments.
Regarding all other paragraphs of Applicant’s arguments with reference to region 499, see above, as the argument is now moot.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with reference to Fig. 5A-5B of Janakiraman, Examiner does not rely this embodiment in any of the prior art rejections, thus this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the design of the instant application is to have a showerhead that allows the first and second gases to flow into the inner plenum and to influence the first gas and the second gas to flow toward each other, Examiner refers Applicant back to Fig. 4A of Janakiraman which exactly shows that. Also, see Fig. 4A which is now explicitly below in the prior art rejections which shows that Fig. 4A and the disclosure teaches all of the structures of the claim.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments (filed 11/12/2024) are rendered not persuasive.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 06/24/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that after reviewing the various embodiments of Janakiraman, one would not arrive at the claimed invention as Janakiraman is silent about using the gas distribution system to “provide simultaneous flow of two gases into a single plenum and adjust the flow rate of the two gases using a plurality of flow valves to dynamically adjust the radii of the first and second gases.” Applicant has used functional language to define the configuration of the showerhead that is capable of controlling application of two different process gases using two separate flow valves into a single inner plenum.
Similarly, Applicant argues that the functional portion of “radial tuning” is enabled by the structure included—i.e. a single inner plenum for receiving both the first and second gases simultaneously and the flow valves to control the flow of the two gases. Applicant also argues that the use of functional language to define the structural configuration of the showerhead is appropriate and Applicant requests withdrawal of the 103 rejections of independent claims.
Regarding the arguments above, Examiner agrees that (primary reference) Janakiraman does not explicitly state or recite “providing simultaneous flow of two gases into a single plenum.” However, Janakiraman does not have to explicitly disclose every single use (function) of the apparatus. Janakiraman has all the physical structures (inner plenum, single first inlet, plurality of second inlets, flow valves, plurality of outlets) needed for claim 1 (12), and Janakiraman discusses one function or method of using the apparatus. The instant claimed invention, meanwhile, is claiming another function (as Applicant has argued), which the apparatus of Janakiraman is still capable of executing despite not being explicitly stated. The only items Janakiraman does not teach is having the flow valves independently arranged.
Further, secondary prior art reference Je then is relied upon to teach having independent flow valves (as rejected below) to control the amount of reaction gas depending on the result desired. The crux of Applicant’s invention is an apparatus capable of adjusting how much gas flow comes out the above-named physical structures, using functional language, which Janakiraman in view of Je, as a combination, teaches. What is Applicant’s evidence for why the apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je cannot function under what is claimed?
Lastly, Applicant stated that two different gases are claimed, and this is not true. The claim states a first gas and a second gas, which does not preclude that the two gases are “different.” And, Applicant has admitted, “the functional language is made possible by use of the flow structure which allows radial tuning of the two gases supplied to the inner plenum simultaneously,” this is exactly what the combination of Janakiraman in view of Je is capable of. It appears that Applicant is treating the two references individually; In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Janakiraman is silent about “the functional language is made possible by use of the flow structure which allows radial tuning of the two gases supplied to the inner plenum simultaneously,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that regarding Je, Je does not suggest or teach using the flow valves to control flow of the first gas and the second gas simultaneously into a single inner plenum, and that Je states that the diffusion regions are blocked against each other, such that movement of the reaction supplied into each diffusion region into the other diffusions may be prevented.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Je isn’t relied to reteach the physical structures already taught by Janakiraman (aka the single inner plenum, etc). Je is relied upon to teach having independent flow valves connected to each gas line (first inlet and second inlets) and the adjusting gas flow of each gas, as claimed.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0216844 to Janakiraman in view of US 20160289831 to Je.
Claim 1: Janakiraman discloses a showerhead of a substrate processing system used for processing a substrate, comprising: an inner plenum (space above 436, Fig. 4A) coupled to, a single first inlet (432b [center bore]) defined at a center of the showerhead (center of 424 [gas distribution system]) to receive a first gas from a first source (processing gas source into 422 [mixing structure]), the first gas received in a center region of the inner plenum to create an inner flow that radiates outwardly from the center region of the inner plenum to cover a first radius (see fig. 4A);
a plurality of second inlets (433c, Fig. 4a-4b) defined along an outer edge of the showerhead (outer edge of 424) to receive a second gas from a second source (remote plasma source, para. [0037]) into the inner plenum (space above 436).
and a plurality of outlets (outlets of 436, Fig. 4A) distributed across a lower surface of the showerhead and extend a diameter of the inner plenum (inner space of 436); a plurality of flow valves (“flow controllers and valves,” para. [0061]).
The apparatus of Janakiraman discloses flow valves (not shown in Fig. 4A but disclosed as “flow controllers and valves,” para. [0061]). However the apparatus does not disclose the flow valves are to separately connect the single first inlet to the first source and the plurality of second inlets to the second source.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Janakiraman.
Je discloses flow valves (any of 44a-d [flow rate adjustors], Fig. 1) to separately connect the single first inlet (any of 40b-c [gas supply ports]) to the first source (para. [0033]) and the plurality of second inlets (any of 40a/40d [gas supply ports]) to the second source (para. [0033]), the plurality of flow valves (44a-d) operable to independently and simultaneously control flow rate of each of the first gas and the second gas (it is noted that Applicant has not claimed that the first and second gases are different kinds of gases) supplied simultaneously to the inner plenum (see para. [0015] where the amount of reaction gas supplied to one of the gas supply lines is different from that of reaction gas supplied to the other of the gas supply lines), for the purpose of increasing and/or decreasing the amount of reaction gas supplied into each of the diffusion regions, thus providing a thin film having a uniform thickness be formed (para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flow valve and configuration as taught by Je with motivation to increase and/or decrease the amount of reaction gas supplied into each of the diffusion regions, thus providing a thin film having a uniform thickness be formed.
Regarding limitations: the second gas received to create a perimeter flow that radiates inwardly from an outer edge toward the center region of the inner plenum (see fig. 4A, J Janakiraman), the perimeter flow extending from an outer edge of the first radius to a second radius in the inner plenum (see Fig. 4a), the flow valves operable to independently and simultaneously control flow rate of each of the first gas and the second gas supplied simultaneously to the inner plenum so as to influence the inner flow of the first gas flowing toward the second gas and the perimeter flow of the second gas flowing toward the first gas so as to radially tune the first radius and the second radius while keeping the first gas substantially separate from the second gas within the inner plenum; it is noted that Janakiraman teaches supplying the gases and adjusting the flow (para. [0016-0017]) the functional limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, secondary prior art reference Je then is relied upon to teach having independent flow valves (para. [0015], [0044], [0048]) to control the amount of reaction gas depending on the result desired. The crux of Applicant’s invention is an apparatus capable of adjusting how much gas flow comes out the above-named physical structures, using functional language, which Janakiraman in view of Je, as a combination, teaches.
Regarding limitations: the plurality of outlets (outlets of 436) considered capable to be configured to separately and simultaneously deliver the first gas from the inner plenum to a first process region and the second gas from the inner plenum to a second process region defined over a substrate, when the substrate is present in the substrate processing system (see fig. 4A, where the apparatus of Janakiraman is capable of using the showerhead for this function). Additionally, the courts have held that Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding the limitations “wherein a radii of the first process region and the second process region are adjusted to correspond with the first radius and the second radius, it is noted that the limitations are functional limitations, and as such, Janakiraman’s apparatus is capable of performing as necessary as it has the structure as recited above. Further, Je’s teachings regarding controlling the adjustment of the reaction gases are obvious over the limitations above.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein the first signal and the second signal generated by the controller are configured to control flow rates of the first and the second gases supplied simultaneously to the inner plenum, such that a second flow rate of the second gas is defined to be different from a first flow rate of the first gas.
Janakiraman teaches the showerheads may be connected with gas supply sources/lines, flow controllers, valves, flow rate measurement devices and so forth (para. [0061]), and also the showerhead includes a system controller having instructions for controlling the various valves and flow controllers (para. [0061]), that the instructions include flowing gases through first and/or second plenums and the controller can execute these instructions to perform as necessary (para. [0061, 0063]), for the purpose of dictating the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process (para. [0063]). It is noted that Janakiraman’s teaching reads on the above claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of connecting various flow controllers and the system controller to perform as necessary with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Janakiraman discloses wherein the plurality of second inlets (433b, Fig. 4A, Janakiraman) is coupled to the second source (remote plasma source) via a central channel (432d [annular channel]) disposed to surround the first inlet (432b), the second gas from the second source supplied to the outer edge of the inner plenum is supplied through the central channel (see Fig. 4A).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Janakiraman discloses wherein the showerhead (424, Fig. 4A-4B, Janakiraman) includes an edge plenum (433b [spoke-like channels]) defined along the outer edge and coupled to the plurality of second inlets (433c) to receive the second gas from the second source (remote plasma source, para. [0041]), the edge plenum (433b) defined outside of and coupled to the outer edge of the inner plenum (inner space above 436) via a plurality of conduits (433c) to supply the second gas to the inner plenum (inner space above 436).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner flow of the first gas and the perimeter flow of the second gas applied simultaneously to the inner plenum define a stagnation point at a separation interface between the first gas and the second gas within the inner plenum, the plurality of flow valves configured to independently and simultaneously control the inner flow of the first gas and the perimeter flow of the second gas controlled to adjust a location of the stagnation point within the inner plenum.
Janakiraman teaches the showerheads may be connected with gas supply sources/lines, flow controllers, valves, flow rate measurement devices and so forth (para. [0061]); Fig. 4a shows the multiple flows independently flow through as shown by arrows, and they necessarily flow simultaneously because it is disclosed that they interact before leave 436 (para. [0036-0042]); and also the showerhead includes a system controller having instructions for controlling the various valves and flow controllers (para. [0061]), that the instructions include flowing gases through first and/or second plenums and the controller can execute these instructions to perform as necessary (para. [0061, 0063]), for the purpose of dictating the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process (para. [0063]). It is noted that Janakiraman’s teaching reads on the above claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of connecting various flow controllers and the system controller to perform as necessary with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the first process region (inner space below 436, Fig. 4A, Janakiraman) is defined in a center of an area defined between an upper chamber body (upper 15 [chamber], Fig. 1B) and a lower chamber body (lower 15) of the substrate processing system;
Regarding the limitations: the first process region (inner space below 436) extend for a diameter of the stagnation point defined in the inner plenum, and the second process region is defined to extend from the diameter of the stagnation point to the outer edge of the inner plenum, Janakiraman teaches supplying the gases and adjusting the flow (para. [0016-0017]) and the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, the courts have held that Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the showerhead (424, Fig. 4A, Janakiraman) is integrated into an upper chamber body of the substrate processing system (upper 15 of 10, Fig. 1B), the upper chamber body (upper 15) configured to mate with a lower chamber body (lower 15) to provide a tight seal during processing of the substrate (para. [0051]).
Claim 19: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein a first set of outlets of the plurality of outlets is defined to cover the first process region covering a portion of the showerhead extending up to a stagnation point defined at an interface of the first and the second gas and a second set of outlets of the plurality of outlets defined to cover the second process region extending from the stagnation point to the outer edge of the inner plenum, wherein the first set of outlets and the second set of outlets are dynamically defined based on the dynamic adjustment to a location of the stagnation point.
Yet it is noted that Janakiraman teaches supplying the gases and adjusting the flow (para. [0016-0017]) and Fig. 4a shows the multiple flows independently flow through as shown by arrows (para. [0036-0042]); the functional limitations are also drawn to intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, Je teaches supplying the separate gases simultaneously and adjusting the flow (para. [0044], [0048]) which necessarily yields a “dynamic adjustment to a location of the stagnation point” depending on the actual pressure and flow control parameters applied (which are not claimed). Additionally, the courts have held that Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does MPEP 2114 II. It is noted that Janakiraman’s apparatus reads on the above claimed limitations, and also see above case law regarding intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of set of first and second outlets respectively with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman in view of Je as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 19 above, and further in view of US 20110045676 to Park.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the plurality of flow valves (para. [0061], Janakiraman) includes a first flow valve and at least one second flow valve (not shown but para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines, thus there are necessarily at least one coupled to each supply line) wherein the single first inlet (432b, Fig. 4a-4b) is coupled to the first source (processing source to 422) via a first flow valve (para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines), and the plurality of second inlets (433c) is coupled to the second source (remote plasma source) via one or more second flow valves (para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines), and a controller (34 [system controller]) coupled to the first flow valve and the one or more second flow valves (para. [0061]), the controller (34) configured to generate a first signal to the first flow valve to control a first flow rate of the first gas, and a second signal to the one or more second flow valves to control a second flow rate of the second gas through the plurality of second inlets (para. [0061] via sensors).
Regarding (claim 2), Janakiraman teaches the showerheads may be connected with gas supply sources/lines, flow controllers, valves, flow rate measurement devices and so forth (para. [0061]), and also the showerhead includes a system controller having instructions for controlling the various valves and flow controllers (para. [0061]), that the instructions include flowing gases through first and/or second plenums simultaneously and the controller can execute these apparatus will perform as necessary (para. [0061, 0063]), for the purpose of dictating the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process (para. [0063]). It is noted that Janakiraman’s teaching reads on the above claimed limitations, and also see above case law regarding intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of connecting various flow controllers and the system controller to perform as necessary with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
However the apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein the first gas is different from the second gas in composition or concentration.
Park discloses a single first inlet (227 [interior channel], Fig. 2B) flowing a first gas and a second inlet (226 [exterior channel]) flowing a second gas, wherein the first gas is different from the second gas in composition or concentration (para. [0022], [0033]) for the purpose of resulting in improved deposition rate, and/or improved deposition uniformity (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different or same gases as taught by Park with motivation to result in in improved deposition rate, and/or improved deposition uniformity.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je, Park discloses wherein the first flow valve and the second flow valve (disclosed as flow controllers, para. [0061], Janakiraman) are located outside the showerhead (see Fig.1B where lines are also located outside, therefore they are necessarily outside).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman in view of Je, Park as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of US 2016/0168705 to Lind.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je, Park does not disclose wherein the first flow valve and the second flow valve are located inside the showerhead.
Lind discloses wherein flow valves (426/422 [RPS valve]) are located inside the showerhead (“gas distribution apparatus”, para. [0067]) for the purpose of controlling the flow of reactive species for use in substrate processing (para. [0067]) thereby effectively purging dead legs within the showerhead inlet’s internal flow paths (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the location of valves as taught by Lind with motivation to control the flow of reactive species for use in substrate processing thereby effectively purging dead legs within the showerhead inlet’s internal flow paths.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman in view of Je as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 19 above, and further in view of US 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al (“Chandrasekharan”).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not disclose wherein the edge plenum further includes, a distribution plenum configured to equalize the second gas received from the second source;
and an application plenum to receive the second gas from the distribution plenum, a bottom portion of the application plenum coupled to the plurality of conduits to supply the second gas to the outer edge of the inner plenum
Chandrasekharan discloses wherein an edge plenum (606/640, Fig. 6C) further includes, a distribution plenum (channel in 682 [backplate]) considered capable to receive and equalize the second gas provided by the second source (not referenced but disclosed in para. [0112]); and an application plenum (606 [third plenum volume]) to receive the second gas from the distribution plenum (channel in 682) and a bottom portion of the application plenum (bottom of 606) coupled to the plurality of conduits (bottom 640 [third holes]) to supply the second gas to an outer edge of the inner plenum (see para. [0094], Fig. 6C), for the purpose of utilizing such a design when the gases will be routed through various plenums (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the components of the edge plenum as taught by Chandrasekharan with motivation to utilize such a design when the gases will be routed through various plenums.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12-14, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0216844 to Janakiraman in view of US 20160289831 to Je.
Claim 12: Janakiraman discloses a process chamber used for processing a substrate, comprising: a lower chamber body (lower 15 [chamber], Fig. 1B) having a substrate support surface (top of 12 [heater pedestal assembly]) for supporting the substrate (not shown, para. [0061]); an upper chamber body (upper 15) configured to mate with the lower chamber body (lower 15), the upper chamber body having a showerhead (424 [gas distribution system], Fig. 4A), wherein the showerhead (424) comprising: an inner plenum (inner space above 436) coupled to, a single first inlet (432b [center bore]) defined at a center of the showerhead (center of 424 [gas distribution system]) to receive a first gas from a first source (processing gas source into 422 [mixing structure]), the first gas received in a center region of the inner plenum to create an inner flow that radiates outwardly from a center region of the inner plenum to cover a first radius (see fig. 4A);
a plurality of second inlets (433c, Fig. 4a-4b) defined along an outer edge of the showerhead (outer edge of 424) to receive a second gas from a second source (remote plasma source, para. [0037]) into the inner plenum (space above 436); a plurality of flow valves (“flow controllers and valves,” para. [0061]); and a plurality of outlets (outlets of 436, Fig. 4A) distributed across a lower surface of the showerhead and extend a diameter of the inner plenum (inner space of 436).
The apparatus of Janakiraman discloses flow valves (“flow controllers and valves,” para. [0061]). However the apparatus does not disclose the flow valves to separately connect the single first inlet to the first source and the plurality of second inlets to the second source.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Janakiraman.
Je discloses flow valves (any of 44a-d [flow rate adjustors], Fig. 1) to separately connect the single first inlet (any of 40b-c [gas supply ports]) to the first source (para. [0033]) and the plurality of second inlets (any of 40a/40d [gas supply ports]) to the second source (para. [0033]), for the purpose of increasing and/or decreasing the amount of reaction gas supplied into each of the diffusion regions, thus providing a thin film having a uniform thickness be formed (para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flow valve and configuration as taught by Je with motivation to increase and/or decrease the amount of reaction gas supplied into each of the diffusion regions, thus providing a thin film having a uniform thickness be formed.
Regarding limitations: the second gas received to create a perimeter flow that radiates inwardly from an outer edge toward the center region of the inner plenum (see fig. 4A, J Janakiraman), the perimeter flow extending from an outer edge of the first radius to a second radius in the inner plenum (see Fig. 4a), the flow valves operable to independently and simultaneously control flow rate of each of the first gas and the second gas supplied simultaneously to the inner plenum so as to influence the inner flow of the first gas flowing toward the second gas and the perimeter flow of the second gas flowing toward the first gas so as to radially tune the first radius and the second radius while keeping the first gas substantially separate from the second gas within the inner plenum; wherein a stagnation point is defined at an interface between the first gas and the second gas within the inner plenum and wherein the radial tuning of the first radius and the second radius resulting in dynamic adjustment to a location of the stagnation point within the inner plenum; it is noted that Janakiraman teaches supplying the gases and adjusting the flow (para. [0016-0017]) the functional limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, secondary prior art reference Je then is relied upon to teach having independent flow valves (para. [0015], [0044], [0048]) to control the amount of reaction gas depending on the result desired. The crux of Applicant’s invention is an apparatus capable of adjusting how much gas flow comes out the above-named physical structures, using functional language, which Janakiraman in view of Je, as a combination, teaches.
Regarding limitations: the plurality of outlets (outlets of 436) considered capable to be configured to separately and simultaneously deliver the first gas from the inner plenum to a first process region and the second gas from the inner plenum to a second process region defined over a substrate, when the substrate is present in the substrate processing system (see fig. 4A, where the apparatus of Janakiraman is capable of using the showerhead for this function). Additionally, the courts have held that Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding the limitations “wherein a radii of the first process region and the second process region are adjusted to correspond with the first radius and the second radius, it is noted that the limitations are functional limitations, and as such, Janakiraman’s apparatus is capable of performing as necessary as it has the structure as recited above. Further, Je’s teachings regarding controlling the adjustment of the reaction gases are obvious over the limitations above.
Claim 13: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the plurality of flow valves (para. [0061], Janakiraman) includes a first flow valve and at least one second flow valve (not shown but para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines, thus there are necessarily at least one coupled to each supply line), and wherein the single first inlet (432b, Fig. 4a-4b, Janakiraman) is coupled to the first source (processing source to 422) via a first flow valve (para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines), and the plurality of second inlets (433c) is coupled to the second source (remote plasma source) via one or more second flow valves (para. [0061] where mass flow controllers or valves are connected to the supply lines), and a controller (34 [system controller]) coupled to the first flow valve and the one or more second flow valves (para. [0061]), the controller (34) configured to generate a first signal to the first flow valve to control a first flow rate of the first gas, and a second signal to the one or more second flow valves to control a second flow rate of the second gas through the plurality of second inlets (para. [0061] via sensors).
Janakiraman teaches the showerheads may be connected with gas supply sources/lines, flow controllers, valves, flow rate measurement devices and so forth (para. [0061]), and also the showerhead includes a system controller having instructions for controlling the various valves and flow controllers (para. [0061]), that the instructions include flowing gases through first and/or second plenums simultaneously and the controller can execute these apparatus will perform as necessary (para. [0061, 0063]), for the purpose of dictating the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process (para. [0063]). It is noted that Janakiraman’s teaching reads on the above claimed limitations, and also see above case law regarding intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of connecting various flow controllers and the system controller to perform as necessary with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the first flow valve and the second flow valve (disclosed as flow controllers, para. [0061], Janakiraman) are located outside the showerhead (see Fig.1B where lines are also located outside, therefore they are necessarily outside).
Claim 16: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein the first signal and the second signal generated by the controller are configured to control flow rates of the first and the second gases supplied simultaneously to the inner plenum, such that a second flow rate of the second gas is defined to be different from a first flow rate of the first gas.
Janakiraman teaches the showerheads may be connected with gas supply sources/lines, flow controllers, valves, flow rate measurement devices and so forth (para. [0061]), and also the showerhead includes a system controller having instructions for controlling the various valves and flow controllers (para. [0061]), that the instructions include flowing gases through first and/or second plenums and the controller can execute these instructions to perform as necessary (para. [0061, 0063]), for the purpose of dictating the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process (para. [0063]). It is noted that Janakiraman’s teaching reads on the above claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of connecting various flow controllers and the system controller to perform as necessary with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claim 17: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je discloses wherein the showerhead (424, Fig. 4A-4B, Janakiraman) includes an edge plenum (433b [spoke-like channels]) defined along the outer edge and coupled to the plurality of second inlets (433c) to receive the second gas from the second source (remote plasma source, para. [0041]), the edge plenum (433b) defined outside of and coupled to the outer edge of the inner plenum (inner space above 436) via a plurality of conduits (433c) to supply the second gas to the inner plenum (inner space above 436).
Claim 20: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not explicitly disclose wherein a first set of outlets of the plurality of outlets is defined to cover the first process region and a second set of outlets of the plurality of outlets defined to cover the second process region are dynamically defined based on the dynamic adjustment to a location of the stagnation point.
Yet it is noted that Janakiraman teaches supplying the gases and adjusting the flow (para. [0016-0017]) and Fig. 4a shows the multiple flows independently flow through as shown by arrows (para. [0036-0042]); the functional limitations are also drawn to intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, Je teaches supplying the separate gases simultaneously and adjusting the flow (para. [0044], [0048]) which necessarily yields a “dynamic adjustment to a location of the stagnation point” depending on the actual pressure and flow control parameters applied (which are not claimed). Additionally, the courts have held that Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does MPEP 2114 II. It is noted that Janakiraman’s apparatus reads on the above claimed limitations, and also see above case law regarding intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of number of first and second outlets respectively with motivation to dictate the timing, mixture of gases, and other parameters of a particular process.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman in view of Je as applied to claims 12-14, 16-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 2016/0168705 to Lind.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not disclose wherein the first flow valve and the second flow valve are located inside the showerhead.
Lind discloses wherein flow valves (426 [RPS valve]) are located inside the showerhead (“gas distribution apparatus”, para. [0067]) for the purpose of controlling the flow of reactive species for use in substrate processing (para. [0067]) thereby effectively purging dead legs within the showerhead inlet’s internal flow paths (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the location of valves as taught by Lind with motivation to control the flow of reactive species for use in substrate processing thereby effectively purging dead legs within the showerhead inlet’s internal flow paths.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman in view of Je as applied to claims 12-14, 16-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al (“Chandrasekharan”).
Claim 18: The apparatus of Janakiraman in view of Je does not disclose wherein the edge plenum defined outside of the inner plenum in the showerhead further includes, a distribution plenum configured to equalize the second gas received from the second source;
and an application plenum to receive the second gas from the distribution plenum, a bottom portion of the application plenum coupled to the plurality of conduits to supply the second gas to the outer edge of the inner plenum
Chandrasekharan discloses wherein an edge plenum (606/640, Fig. 6C) further includes, a distribution plenum (channel in 682 [backplate]) considered capable to receive and equalize the second gas provided by the second source (not referenced but disclosed in para. [0112]); and an application plenum (606 [third plenum volume]) to receive the second gas from the distribution plenum (channel in 682) and a bottom portion of the application plenum (bottom of 606) coupled to the plurality of conduits (bottom 640 [third holes]) to supply the second gas to an outer edge of the inner plenum (see para. [0094], Fig. 6C), for the purpose of utilizing such a design when the gases will be routed through various plenums (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the components of the edge plenum as taught by Chandrasekharan with motivation to utilize such a design when the gases will be routed through various plenums.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,535,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims of the instant application is fully encompassed by the patent, rendering the instant application obvious over the patent mentioned above. It is further noted that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent No. 11,535,936.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 5712725166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718