DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1 is amended; claims 13-15 are canceled; claim 16 is new.
The applicant contends that the instant amendments clarifying the distribution network of the injection unit overcomes the cited prior art (pp. 7-8).
In response, the examiner agrees that claim 1 exceeds the deliverances of the prior art and has withdrawn the outstanding 103 rejections, accordingly. Claim 16, however, is much broader in scope, and the examiner has applied 102 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for grammatical reasons. The antepenultimate paragraph reads, “wherein each injection unit flow path is branched in a same number of sub-injection unit flow paths as a number of gas inlets.” Given that the claimed features of “sub-injection unit flow paths” and “gas inlets” inherently possess the characteristic of quantity, it is appropriate and colloquial to instead recite the same number rather than “a same number” in both instances of use.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “unit,” in this case – that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “gas unit” of claims 1, 8, and 16;
The “injection unit” of claims 1, 8, 12, and 16.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The gas unit (210) will be interpreted as comprising a valve, a flow rate controller, and a flow path in accordance with paragraph [0036] of Applicant’s specification.
The injection unit (220) will be interpreted as comprising a valve, a flow rate controller, and a flow path in accordance with paragraph [0046].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 refers to an injection unit flow path having a “valve upstream from the branch.” The phrase, “the branch,” however, is indefinite because the claim priorly recites a branch disposed upstream of the injection unit flow path in the fourth-to-last paragraph, as well as a branch disposed downstream in the antepenultimate paragraph; it is unclear whether “the branch” of the penultimate paragraph denotes the upstream or downstream branch. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al., US 2006/0016559.
Kobayashi discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A substrate processing chamber (1) having a substrate support (4) ([0035], Fig. 1);
A shower head (11) having a plurality of gas diffusion chambers (35-1, 35-1) and configured to introduce a gas into the chamber ([0041], Fig. 6);
A gas supply (13) configured to supply a gas to the plurality of gas inlets, including:
A plurality of common gas flow paths (22-1, 22-2) connected to the gas diffusion chambers;
A gas unit (14-1) configured to supply a common gas to the plurality of gas diffusion chambers via the plurality of common gas flow paths;
An injection unit (14-2) configured to supply an injection gas to at least one common gas flow path, further including:
A plurality of first branch gas flow paths (~23-3, ~23-4) branching from the gas unit;
A plurality of first flow rate controllers (23-3, 23-4) respectively disposed in the plurality of first branch gas flow paths [0054].
To clarify the notation immediately above, the two flow paths branching from the gas unit are not given a reference character save for the reference character of the flow rate controllers (23-3, 23-4) respectively embedded within each path, hence the notation of the tilde to signify proximate.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Gelatos et al., US 2003/0003696. Gelatos provides a plasma processing chamber (100) having a substrate support (124), a shower head (120) having a plurality of gas inlets, a gas supply (104) configured to supply a gas to the inlets, a plasma generator (128), and an injection unit (298) configured to supply an injection gas to a selected gas inlet (Figs. 1-2; [0025]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716