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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2). Metzner teaches a gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) comprising: a faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) having a front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) defining a thickness; and a plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) extending through the thickness, each of the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) having a first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2), a small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), and a second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2), wherein: the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) comprises an entry angle (25º<α<45º; Figure 9; column 11; lines 14-20) to the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) in a range of greater than or equal to 20º to or less than or equal to 40º; the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is defined by a cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9); and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises a non-perpendicular angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59), as claimed by claim 1
Metzner further teaches:
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) is a showerhead, as claimed by claim 2
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) are uniformly sized and shaped, as claimed by claim 3
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) is configured to protect a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is configured to protect a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, as claimed by claim 5. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, the above italicized claim requirements are considered intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims.
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) of the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24), as claimed by claim 8
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm, as claimed by claim 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) in view of Alayavalli; Kaushik et al. (US 10276353 B2). Based on Metzner’s Figure 9 it appears the claimed inequality of claim 9 is met. Metzner is believed to teach the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein a first height (Applicant’s H1; Figure 3) of the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) from the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) to a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is larger than a second height (Applicant’s H2; Figure 3) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) from the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) to a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2).
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds for anticipation are not accepted, then:
Alayavalli also teaches a showerhead (118,211; Figure 1,3-7) with conical inlets (310A,310B; Figure 3) and outlets (330A,330B; Figure 3) at optimized depths (350A,350B; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s relative bore heights as taught by Alayavalli.
Motivation for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s relative bore heights as taught by Alayavalli is for “..desired flow characteristic and/or a desired electric field formation for forming plasma.” as taught by Alayavalli (column 7; lines 23-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4, 6, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) in view of Rasheed; Muhammad M. et al. (US 20160319428 A1). Metzner is discussed above. Metzner further teaches a showerhead comprising: a faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) having a front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) defining a thickness; and a plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) extending through the thickness, each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) having a first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2), a small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), and a second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2), wherein: the first conical bore sections (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) comprise an entry angle (25º<α<45º; Figure 9; column 11; lines 14-20) to the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°; the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is defined by a cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) that is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24); the second conical bore sections (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) – claim 10
Metzner further teaches:
The showerhead of claim 10, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm, and/or a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) diameter of each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) is in a range of greater than or equal to 10 mil (254 micrometers) to less than or equal to 90 mil (2.28 millimeters), as claimed by claim 11
A semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) comprising: a housing; a chamber (250; Figure 4) having a support surface; and the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is spaced a distance from the support surface, as claimed by claim 12
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12 further comprising a controller (528; Figure 18) configured to provide a flow of gas to the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13), as claimed by claim 13
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) is a showerhead, as claimed by claim 14
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) are uniformly sized and shaped, as claimed by claim 15
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) is configured to protect a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is configured to protect a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, as claimed by cllaim 17. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, the above italicized claim requirements are considered intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims.
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein a first height (Applicant’s H1; Figure 3) of the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) from the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) to a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is larger than a second height (Applicant’s H2; Figure 3) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) from the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) to a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 18. This is argued above under a possible anticipation argument.
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) of each of the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24), as claimed by claim 19
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm and/or a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) diameter of each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) is in a range of greater than or equal to 10 mil (254 micrometers) to less than or equal to 90 mil (2.28 millimeters), as claimed by claim 20
Metzner does not teach:
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1 wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently have a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 24 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra, as claimed by claim 4
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°, as claimed by claim 6
an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°; and the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently have a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 10 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra – claim 10
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently has a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 24 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra, as claimed by claim 16
Rasheed also teaches a wafer processing reactor system (Figure 1) including a showerhead (110) with roughened surfaces of 10-300 µ-in Ra ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s exit angle and for Metzner to roughen Metzner’s faceplate (240-”showerhead”) as taught by Rasheed.
Motivation for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s exit angle is for optimizing the showerhead emissivity as taught by Metzner (column 13; lines 55-65).
Motivation for Metzner to roughen Metzner’s faceplate (240-”showerhead”) as taught by Rasheed is for film adhesion to the protective aluminum oxide coating as taught by Rasheed ([0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Metzner discloses aperture 238 having an upper conical region 289, a central region 246, and lower conical region 290. See id. at col. 11, lines 1-3. However, Metzner also discloses that "[g]as flows through inlet 291 into upper conic region 289". Id. at col. 11, lines 8-9. As FIG. 9 clearly shows, "inlet 291 is bounded by showerhead upper surface and 263 inlet parallel walls 269." Id. at col. 11, lines 6-8.
“
In response, the Examiner cannot find in Applicant’s argument where a claimed feature is purportedly not taught or suggested by Metzner. The Examiner has again fully reconsidered Metzner with respect to the guidance provided by Applicant’s Figure 2 and finds Applicant’s Figure 2, and associated claimed components to be identical to the Examiner’s cited claim analysis were noted above. Again, Metzner indeed teaches Metzner’s second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises a non-perpendicular angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59).
Applicant states:
“
As discussed above, Metzner discloses inlet 291, bounded by inlet parallel walls 269, which are perpendicular to showerhead upper surface 263. Metzner discloses upper conical region 289 that does not meet showerhead upper surface 263. Metzner does not disclose a first conical bore section comprising an entry angle to a back surface of a faceplate in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°.
“
In response, the Examiner acknowledges the argued difference as understood by comparing Applicant’s Figure 2 and Metzner’s Figure 9. Although Metzner’s extended wall section 281, Figure 9 is not present in Applicant’s Figure 2, the Examiner believes the claimed invention is still anticipated thereby by the claimed geometry. However, the Examiner believes that the stated difference is not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Metzner is thus reasserted as teaching Metzner’s first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) comprises an entry angle (25º<α<45º; Figure 9; column 11; lines 14-20) to the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) in a range of greater than or equal to 20º to or less than or equal to 40º; the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is defined by a cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9); and…
“
the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises a non-perpendicular angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59).
“
Thus, as noted from extending the rays of angle β and/or surfaces of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9) the claimed “non-perpendicular angle” is formed with the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59). The claims do not exclude Metzner’s “parallel walls 281” that do not have correspondence in the present invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and include gas distribution plates / showerheads with optimized hole geometries - US 20220093368 A1; US 20050223986 A1; US 20210335574 A1; US 20100006031 A1; US 20180090300 A1; US 20120097330 A1; US 20080141941 A1; US 20160319428 A1; US 20130117986 A1; US 20210156028 A1; US 20240170266 A1; US 20140116338 A1; US 20080020146 A1; US 20160240726 A1; US 20080302303 A1; US 20030209323 A1; US 20060228496 A1; US 20170178867 A1; US 20050255257 A1; US 6454860 B2; US 10276353 B2; US 6565661 B1; US 9394615 B2; US 6041734 A; US 6942753 B2; US 7514125 B2; US 6024799 A
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716