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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 3 July 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 15-17 are added. Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are: shared remote plasma unit, wherein Applicant has stated on the record that the remote plasma unit is term of art as exemplified by cited and relied upon prior art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 and 15-17 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1 uses “second cleaning line” and “second cleaning gas line” seemingly interchangeably. They appear to refer to the same feature. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed they are meant to refer to the same feature and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0012273 to Sankarakrishnan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0162366 to Yanagisawa.
Regarding claim 1: Sankarakrishnan et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a plurality of reaction chambers (Fig. 2, 202x2); a shared remote plasma unit (262) configured to (i.e. capable of) receiving a cleaning gas (see, e.g., paras. 37 and 47); a plurality of first cleaning gas lines (e.g., 292x2, 294x2 and 296x2) configured to fluidly couple the shared remote plasma unit to the reaction chambers, wherein each of the first cleaning gas lines is provided with a respective valve (e.g. 300; also see e.g., para. 35) and is connected to a sidewall (212) of each reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers.
Additionally, Sankarakrishnan et al. further disclose the apparatus comprising a plurality of second cleaning lines (each 290 and each 260) each of which is disposed between the shared remote plasma unit (262) and a respective shower plate (276)
Sankarakrishnan et al. fail to explicitly teach and/or explicitly illustrate either 1) each of the first cleaning gas lines is provided with a respective valve; and 2) each of the second cleaning gas lines is provided with a process gas line and a respective gate valve to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the respective shower plate.
With respect to the plurality of first cleaning gas lines, paragraph 35 of Sankarakrishnan et al. states: “It is also contemplated that each region 202 may have gas delivery thereto controlled by a separate dedicated valve 300 so that the flow of cleaning gas may be delivered selectively and independently to each region 202, including delivering cleaning gas to one of the regions 202 and not the other.” Note: each region 202 corresponds to individual ones of the plurality of reaction chambers.
Thus, although not illustrated, Sankarakrishnan et al. teaches each of the first gas cleaning gas lines is provided with a respective valve.
Sankarakrishnan et al. do teach second cleaning gas lines (each 290 and each 260) each of which is disposed between the shared remote plasma unit (262) and a respective shower plate (276).
Additionally, Yanagisawa teach a cleaning gas line disposed between a remote plasma unit (e.g. Fig. 1, 42) and a shower plate (e.g. 20) of a reaction chamber (12), wherein the cleaning gas line is provided with a process gas line (e.g. 50 and 51) and a respective gate valve (62) to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the respective shower plate for the purpose of preventing mixing of cleaning gas supplied via an RPU with a material gas (i.e. process gas) by shutting of the remote plasma unit and a reaction chamber from one another (see, e.g., para. 37). Also see, e.g., MPEP 2143 example rationales A, C, D and G.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Sankarakrishnan et al. each of the second cleaning gas lines disposed between the remote plasma unit and the shower plate of the reaction chamber, wherein the cleaning gas line is provided with a process gas line and a respective gate valve to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the respective shower plate in order to prevent mixing of cleaning gas supplied via the RPU with a material gas (i.e. process gas) by shutting of the remote plasma unit and the reaction chamber from one another as taught by Yanagisawa.
With respect to claim 2, which is drawn to the identity of a gas used (e.g. a cleaning gas) in the apparatus during an intended use thereof, it is noted that the courts have ruled expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Nevertheless, it is also noted that Sankarakrishnan et al. teach the cleaning gas may be at least one of the claimed gases (see, e.g., para. 44).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Sankarakrishnan et al., Sankarakrishnan et al. further disclose the apparatus comprising a susceptor (230) positioned within each reaction chamber of the plurality of reaction chambers, each susceptor constructed and arranged to support a substrate. See, e.g., Fig. 2
With respect to claims 4-5, in modified Sankarakrishnan et al., Sankarakrishnan et al. further disclose each respective shower plate constructed and arranged to face the respective susceptor and is provided with a plurality of holes (284) and capable of supplying the cleaning gas. See, e.g., Fig. 2.
With respect to claims 8 and 16-17, which are drawn to intended uses of the claimed apparatus and which modified Sankarakrishnan et al. is capable of performing, it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Sankarakrishnan et al., Yanagisawa discloses the process gas line is between the gate valve and the shower plate. Thus, in modified Sankarakrishnan et al., it would be obvious to provide each process gas line between the respective gate valve and the respective shower plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the claimed remote shared remote plasma unit of claim 1, Applicant has stated on the record that the remote plasma unit is term of art as exemplified by, e.g., relied upon prior art. Examiner accepts this characterization and had withdrawn previous rejections under 25 USC 112a, b with respect to language interpreted under 35 USC 112f. See MPEP 2181.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record previously and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pubs. 2006/0266288; 2014/0374024; and 2017/0294292 disclose apparatus wherein a remote plasma unit is shared by a plurality of reaction chambers. No additional more relevant prior art was located at the time the present office action was issued.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, 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.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights