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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “209”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is amened to require, in part, “…wherein the nozzle installation part (Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) is provided with a body in which an empty space except for the insertion parts (Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) is not defined…”. It is uncertain, by the claimed amendment, what is and is not “defined”.
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, 8-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada; Hironori et al. (US 20190360098 A1). Shimada teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:a reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) having a processing space (S; Figure 2; [0025]), in which a plurality of substrates (200; Figure 2; [0027]) are accommodated to perform substrate processing; a nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) protruding outward from a portion (20; Figure 3) of a side surface (12a; Figure 3) of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) to provide a portion (20; Figure 3) of an outer surface of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3); and a plurality of gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) disposed along a circumference of each of the substrate in a direction perpendicular to the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) to inject a process gas into the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3), wherein the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) comprises a plurality of insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) corresponding to the gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) so that each of the gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) is inserted and installed, wherein the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) is provided with a body in which an empty space except for the insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) is not defined, and the insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) are formed in an inner surface extending from an inner surface of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) so that the inner surfaces have the same curvature, and wherein the gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) are inserted into the insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) so as to be disposed adjacent to the inner surface of the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) to minimize a dead volume of the processing space (S; Figure 2; [0025]), as claimed by claim 1. Although the Examiner’s 112(b) rejection illustrates indefiniteness in claim 1, the Examiner still believes Shimada’s Figure 3 equivalents and Applicant’s corresponding structure are identical within the claimed scope. Further, with respect to Applicant’s claimed “to minimize a dead volume of the processing space”, 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 Examer 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).
Shimada further teaches:
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) are inserted and installed to be spaced apart from an inner wall of each of the insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) corresponding thereto, as claimed by claim 8
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) has an inner surface that extends at the same curvature as an inner surface of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 9
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first distance (D1; Figure 4-Applicant’s D1; Figure 3) that is the shortest horizontal distance between an inner surface of the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) and a center of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) is the same as a second distance (D2; Figure 4-Applicant’s D2; Figure 3) that is the shortest distance from a position of the inner surface of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) excluding the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) to the center, as claimed by claim 10
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) comprises:a pair of protrusion surfaces (protrusion surfaces for 222a, 222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230; Figure 4) provided to protrude outward (radially) from a side surface (12a; Figure 3) of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3); and an outer surface portion (20; Figure 3-Applicant’s 240; Figure 4) defined between the protrusion surfaces (protrusion surfaces for 222a, 222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 11
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, wherein, in the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4), the pair of protrusion surfaces (protrusion surfaces for 222a, 222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230; Figure 4) and the outer surface portion (20; Figure 3-Applicant’s 240; Figure 4) are disposed on an outer surface of the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4), and the plurality of insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) are integrated with each other on the inner surface toward the processing space (S; Figure 2; [0025]), as claimed by claim 13
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the outer surface portion (20; Figure 3-Applicant’s 240; Figure 4) has the same curvature as an outer surface of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 14
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) comprises an exhaust port (236; Figure 5) provided at a position facing the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4), as claimed by claim 15
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) is disposed to be line symmetric (Figure 4) with respect to a virtual horizontal line connecting a center of the exhaust port (236; Figure 5) to a center of the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4) on a plane, as claimed by claim 16
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the gas injection nozzles (340a-340e; Figure 3; [0035]-Applicant’s 300; Figure 3,4) are disposed to inject the process gas so that a plurality of gas injection holes (234a; Figure 5) defined in the vertical direction are parallel to each other, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an outer tube (14; Figure 2,3) into which the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) is accommodated to define an exhaust space between the outer tube (14; Figure 2,3) and the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 18
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 18, wherein a side surface (14a; Figure 3) of the outer tube (14; Figure 2,3), an inner surface of the nozzle installation part (222a-222c; Figure 3-Applicant’s 200; Figure 3,4), and a side surface (12a; Figure 3) of the reaction tube (12; Figure 2,3,5; [0025]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 3) have the same curvature as each other, as claimed by claim 19
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada; Hironori et al. (US 20190360098 A1) in view of Hirano; Atsushi (US 20210292892 A1). Shimada is discussed above. Shimada does not teach the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the insertion parts (18c,18d; Figure 3,4; [0058]-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) comprise a plurality of insertion grooves (Applicant’s 210; Figure 3,4), each of which has a shape corresponding to an outer surface of the gas injection nozzle in an inner wall toward the processing space (S; Figure 2; [0025]) so that the gas injection nozzle is inserted and installed.
Hirano also teaches insertion parts (12b; Figure 2-Applicant’s 209; 3/18/26 amended Figure 2) comprise a plurality of insertion grooves (12b; Figure 2-Applicant’s 210; Figure 3,4), each of which has a shape corresponding to an outer surface of the gas injection nozzle (340d,e; Figure 2) in an inner wall toward the processing space (12; Figure 2) so that the gas injection nozzle (340d,e; Figure 2) is inserted and installed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Shimada to optimize Shimada’s insertion groove dimensions as taught by Hirano.
Motivation for Shimada to optimize Shimada’s insertion groove dimensions as taught by Hirano is to “..uniformize an injection amount of the gas..” ([0065], [0073]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
In contrast, as shown in FIG. 1 of Shimada, Shimada has a problem where the dead volume is very large due to the space required to install the injection nozzles, as the partition (18a) is not formed into a space corresponding to the gas injection nozzles. Shima is quite different in that Shimada nowhere teaches, discloses, or even suggests a configuration that can inject gas from a position adjacent to the processing space.
“
In response, Applicants have yet to cite claim limitations that distinguish Applicant’s purported problem with Shimada where Shimada’s “dead volume is very large due to the space required to install the injection nozzles”. The Examiner believs Shimada’s partition (18a) is formed into a space corresponding to Shimada’s gas injection nozzles. The Examiner has fully reconsidered Shima and believes Shimada indeed teaches, discloses, and suggests the claimed configuration and use such that Shimada’s structure can inject gas from a position adjacent to Shimada’s processing space.
Applicant states:
“
As shown in FIG. 2 of Hirano, Hirano has problems in that Hirano discloses where the nozzles are provided in a protruding state. Because a minimum required distance must be maintained between the nozzle and the substrate edge, the overall gap of Hirano between the edge of the substrate and the inner surface of the reaction tube widens, thereby increasing the dead volume. Hirano nowhere teaches, discloses, or suggesting reducing the dead volume, but Hirano rather suggests the opposite of increasing the dead volume.
“
In response, the Examiner’s application of the Hirano teachings is only with respect to Applicant’s claim 2 under §103 not §102. See above. In response to applicant's argument that Hirano does not discuss a “dead volume”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reactors with vertically stacked substrates using nozzle plenums with similar geometry include US 20200098555 A1; US 20190112710 A1.
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
Prosecution Insights