DETAILED ACTION
1. 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.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 03/02/2026.
4. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 have been amended.
6. Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2003/0097987) in view of Wakabayashi et al (US 2005/0221005) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2017/0009348) with evidentiary support provided by Watanabe et al (US 2002/0005442).
Regarding claim 1:
Fukuda teaches a processing chamber (reactor) in a substrate processing system [fig 6 & 0093], the processing chamber (reactor) comprising: a lower surface (bottom of 602), an upper surface (top of 602) and a sidewall (602) defining an interior volume (reaction area, 641) [fig 6 & 0095, 0099]; a showerhead (604/647) comprising: an annular support (647) [fig 6 & 0094]; an upper portion (flange of 604) having a lower surface (lower surface of flange of 604) and an upper surface (upper surface of flange of 604), wherein the upper portion (flange 604) includes a step (see fig 6) configured to support the annular support (647) [fig 6 & 0094]; a faceplate (bottom plate of 604), wherein a lower surface of the faceplate (lower surface of bottom plate of 604) is below the lower surface of the upper portion (lower surface of flange of 604) such that the showerhead extends into the interior volume of the processing chamber (see fig 6), and wherein the faceplate (bottom plate of 604) includes a plurality of holes (multiple gas exhaust-nozzles) arranged in a pattern to provide fluid communication between a remote plasma source (remote plasma discharge device, 613) above the showerhead and the interior volume of the processing chamber (641) [fig 6 & 0096, 0098]; a sidewall (sidewall of 604) extending upward from an outer edge of the faceplate between the faceplate (bottom plate of 604) and the upper portion (flange of 604), wherein the upper portion (flange of 604) extends radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of 604), the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of 604) is perpendicular to (see fig 6) the upper portion (flange of 604) [fig 6 & 0094]; and a heater (sheath heater, 631) embedded in the upper portion of the showerhead (flange of 604) [fig 6 & 0097].
Fukuda does not specifically disclose the upper portion is configured to be mounted directly on the sidewall of the processing chamber, wherein the sidewall of the showerhead, the upper portion extending radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead, and the sidewall of the processing chamber define an annular pocket around the showerhead, and the sidewall of the showerhead defines a depth of the annular pocket which is open to the interior volume of the processing chamber.
Wakabayashi teaches an upper portion (ceiling part, 26) is configured to be mounted directly on the sidewall of the processing chamber (sidewall of 4), wherein the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of shower head 24), the upper portion (26) extending radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of shower head 24), and the sidewall of the processing chamber (sidewall of 4) define an annular pocket around the showerhead (see fig 1), and the sidewall of the showerhead defines a depth of the annular pocket which is open to the interior volume of the processing chamber (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0070].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the exhaust in the embodiment depicted in figure 6 of Fukuda to be located at a bottom portion of the chamber, thereby resulting in the upper portion mounted directly on the sidewall of the processing chamber, as in Wakabayashi, because such a configuration enables the processing chamber to be internally evacuated uniformly [Wakabayashi – 0068].
Fukuda modified by Wakabayashi does not specifically disclose the annular support including a downward-facing rim on a lower surface of the annular support, and the step includes a groove configured to interface with the downward-facing rim on the lower surface of the annular support.
Chandrasekharan teaches an annular support including a downward-facing rim on a lower surface of the annular support (see fig 6), and the step includes a groove configured to interface with the downward-facing rim on the lower surface of the annular support (see fig 6) [fig 6].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular support and step of modified Fukuda to include a downward-facing rim and groove respectively, as in Chandrasekharan, to facilitate alignment of the annular support and upper portion [Watanabe – 0080].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “to retain reflected radicals within the annular pocket” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2:
Fukuda teaches the heater (sheath heater, 631) extends from the upper portion into the sidewall of the showerhead (see fig 6) [fig 6 & 0097].
Regarding claim 10:
Fukuda teaches a controller (temperature regulator, 645) configured to control a temperature of the showerhead using the heater (631) [fig 6 & 0097].
Regarding claim 11:
Fukuda teaches a processing chamber (reactor) for a substrate processing system [fig 6 & 0093], the processing chamber (reactor) comprising: a lower surface (bottom of 602), an upper surface (top of 602) and a sidewall (602) defining an interior volume (reaction area, 641) [fig 6 & 0095, 0099]; a substrate support (susceptor, 603) arranged in the interior volume (641) of the processing chamber [fig 6 & 0093]; and a showerhead (604/647) arranged above the substrate support (603), the showerhead (604/647) comprising an annular support (647) [fig 6 & 0094], an upper portion (flange of 604), wherein the upper portion (flange 604) includes a step (see fig 6) configured to support the annular support (647) [fig 6 & 0094], a faceplate (bottom plate of 604), wherein the showerhead extends into the interior volume of the processing chamber (see fig 6) such that a lower surface of the faceplate (lower surface of bottom plate of 604) is below the upper surface of the processing chamber (see fig 6) [fig 6 & 0094], and a sidewall (sidewall of 604) extending upward from an outer edge of the faceplate between the faceplate (bottom plate of 604) and the upper portion (flange of 604), the upper portion (flange of 604) extends radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of 604), wherein the sidewall of the showerhead (sidewall of 604) is perpendicular to (see fig 6) the upper portion (flange of 604) [fig 6 & 0094].
Fukuda does not specifically disclose the upper portion is configured to be mounted directly on a sidewall of the processing chamber, and wherein an annular pocket is defined around the showerhead between the sidewall of the showerhead, the upper portion extending radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead, and the sidewall of the processing chamber, and wherein the sidewall of the showerhead defines a depth of the annular pocket which is open to the interior volume of the processing chamber.
Wakabayashi teaches an upper portion (ceiling part, 26) is configured to be mounted directly on a sidewall of the processing chamber (sidewall of 4), and wherein an annular pocket is defined around the showerhead (shower head, 24) between the sidewall of the showerhead, the upper portion extending radially outward from the sidewall of the showerhead, and the sidewall of the processing chamber (see fig 1), and wherein the sidewall of the showerhead defines a depth of the annular pocket which is open to the interior volume of the processing chamber (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0070].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the exhaust in the embodiment depicted in figure 6 of Fukuda to be located at a bottom portion of the chamber, thereby resulting in the upper portion mounted directly on a sidewall of the processing chamber, as in Wakabayashi, because such a configuration enables the processing chamber to be internally evacuated uniformly [Wakabayashi – 0068].
Fukuda modified by Wakabayashi does not specifically disclose the annular support including a downward-facing rim on a lower surface of the annular support, and the step includes a groove configured to interface with the downward-facing rim on the lower surface of the annular support.
Chandrasekharan teaches an annular support including a downward-facing rim on a lower surface of the annular support (see fig 6), and the step includes a groove configured to interface with the downward-facing rim on the lower surface of the annular support (see fig 6) [fig 6].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular support and step of modified Fukuda to include a downward-facing rim and groove respectively, as in Chandrasekharan, to facilitate alignment of the annular support and upper portion [Watanabe – 0080].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “to retain reflected radicals within the annular pocket” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 12-13:
Fukuda teaches a heater (sheath heater, 631) embedded in the upper portion of the showerhead (flange of 604) [fig 6 & 0097]; and the heater (sheath heater, 631) extends from the upper portion into the sidewall of the showerhead (see fig 6) [fig 6 & 0097].
Regarding claim 15:
Fukuda teaches a remote plasma source (remote plasma discharge device, 613) arranged above the showerhead (604/647), wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of holes (multiple gas exhaust nozzles) arranged in a pattern to provide fluid communication between the remote plasma source (remote plasma discharge device, 613) and the interior volume of the processing chamber (reaction area, 641) [fig 6 & 0096, 0098].
10. Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2003/0097987) in view of Wakabayashi et al (US 2005/0221005) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2017/0009348) as applied to claims 1-2, 10-13, and 15 above, and further in view of Liang et al (US 2017/0306491).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 10-13, and 15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
Modified Fukuda teaches the heater (631) tilts downward such that an inner diameter of the heater is lower than an outer diameter of the heater (see fig 6) [Fukuda - fig 6 & 0097].
Modified Fukuda does not specifically disclose the heater is annular.
Liang teaches a heater is annular (heater, 116, may be disposed in a circumferential orientation) [fig 1 & 0032].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heater of modified Fukuda to be annular, as in Liang, because such a configuration effectively allows the temperature of the precursors to be maintained such that condensation is prevented [Liang – 0049].
11. Claim(s) 4-8 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2003/0097987) in view of Wakabayashi et al (US 2005/0221005) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2017/0009348) as applied to claims 1-2, 10-13, and 15 above, and further in view of Paterson et al (US 2008/0178805).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 10-13, and 15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-8:
Modified Fukuda does not specifically disclose the pattern includes the plurality of holes arranged in a plurality of concentric rings; wherein the pattern includes regions that do not include any of the plurality of holes; wherein the regions are concentric regions; wherein the plurality of holes are blocked in selected regions of the plurality of concentric rings; and wherein the plurality of concentric rings are non-uniformly spaced in a radial direction.
Paterson teaches a pattern includes the plurality of holes (72) arranged in a plurality of concentric rings (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the pattern includes regions that do not include any of the plurality of holes (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the regions are concentric regions (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the plurality of holes are blocked in selected regions of the plurality of concentric rings (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; and wherein the plurality of concentric rings are non-uniformly spaced in a radial direction (see fig 3D) [fig 3D & 0026-0027].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pattern of the plurality of holes of modified Fukuda with a pattern of holes in Paterson to off-set or precisely compensate for a plasma ion density non-uniformity that is otherwise inherent in the apparatus [Paterson – 0027].
Regarding claims 16-20:
Modified Fukuda does not specifically disclose the pattern includes the plurality of holes arranged in a plurality of concentric rings; wherein the pattern includes regions that do not include any of the plurality of holes; wherein the regions are concentric regions; wherein the plurality of holes are blocked in selected regions of the plurality of concentric rings; and wherein the plurality of concentric rings are non-uniformly spaced in a radial direction.
Paterson teaches a pattern includes the plurality of holes (72) arranged in a plurality of concentric rings (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the pattern includes regions that do not include any of the plurality of holes (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the regions are concentric regions (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; wherein the plurality of holes are blocked in selected regions of the plurality of concentric rings (see fig 3A-3D) [fig 3A-3D & 0026-0027]; and wherein the plurality of concentric rings are non-uniformly spaced in a radial direction (see fig 3D) [fig 3D & 0026-0027].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pattern of the plurality of holes of modified Fukuda with a pattern of holes in Paterson to off-set or precisely compensate for a plasma ion density non-uniformity that is otherwise inherent in the apparatus [Paterson – 0027].
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 2-8 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim(s) 2-8 and 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 2-8 and 10.
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 10 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 10 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
14. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of record does not point to any specific portions of fig 6 of Chandrasekharan as teaching the asserted downward-facing rim or groove.
In response, it is noted that the claimed structure is clearly depicted in fig 6 of Chandrasekharan. Nevertheless, to facilitate applicant’s understanding, examiner has provided an annotated version of fig 6 of Chandrasekharan pointing to the claimed structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
1179
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion of why Chandrasekharan’s structure would be applied to the showerhead of Fukuda. Generally citing Watanabe is not sufficient to provide a motivation.
In response, examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection of record, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular support and step of modified Fukuda to include a downward-facing rim and groove respectively, as in Chandrasekharan, to facilitate alignment of the annular support and upper portion [Watanabe – 0080].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The remainder of applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Wakabayashi et al (US 2005/0221005) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuwada et al (US 2002/0029748), Suzuki et al (JP H09-30893A) teach a showerhead comprising a heater [fig 1 of each].
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights