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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13, drawn to an apparatus) in the reply, filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Across the claim list, the “the plurality of annular buffer members is” should be “the plurality of annular buffer members are”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno et al. (US 20190256974, hereafter ‘974).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘974 teaches:
The gas introduction pipe 408 (Fig. 3, [0031], the claimed “A gas supply assembly comprising: a nozzle that has an attaching portion on one end and discharges a gas supplied to the attaching portion”);
a process furnace 400 (Fig. 1, [0014]), and The joint part 415 (Fig. 3, [0043], the claimed “a nozzle adapter that is attachable to and detachable from a processing chamber of a substrate processing apparatus and is clearance-fitted to an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion with a predetermined gap”);
the joint part 415 is fixed to the gas introduction pipe 408 via an O-ring 417 ([0052], note see also O-ring 416/418, the claimed “and a plurality of annular buffer members disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter, wherein at least one of the annular buffer members is compressed and deformed in a radial direction of the corresponding annular buffer member in a state where the attaching portion of the nozzle is attached to the nozzle adapter”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 3 of ‘974 shows plural O-rings 416-418 along a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion of the pipe 408 (the claimed “wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
Fig. 3 of ‘974 shows due to the O-rings, the attaching portion of the pipe 408 and the joint box 415 are not directly contacted with each other (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape, and the annular buffer members are disposed to separate an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion of the nozzle and the nozzle adapter from each other by a predetermined amount to prevent the outer peripheral surface and the nozzle adapter from coming into contact with each other”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘974 teaches the joint part 415 is fixed to the gas introduction pipe 408 via an O-ring 417 ([0052], note Fig. 3 shows the pipe 408 has an upright portion, therefore, the joint part also supports the upright portion of the pipe 408, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter supports the nozzle in an upright state”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 3 of ‘974 shows each of the pipe outer diameter and joint part inner diameter is constant in a longitudinal direction (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion has a constant outer diameter in a longitudinal direction, and a portion of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted has a constant inner diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘974 further teaches The substrate support 30 supports, for example, 50 to 175 wafers including the wafer 14, in a horizontal manner in multiple stages ([0022], note Fig. 2 shows the pipe 408 extends along the vertical arrangement direction of the wafers, thus the gas from the pipe 408 is discharged at a right angle to the arrangement direction, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle extends in an arrangement direction of a plurality of substrates loaded into the processing chamber, and discharges a gas at a substantially right angle to the arrangement direction”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘974 further teaches the gas introduction pipe 408 is made of a heat resistant non-metallic material ([0044]) and The joint part 415 is made of a metal ([0048], the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter is made of metal, and the nozzle is made of non-metal”).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (US 20090205783, hereafter ‘783) in view of Cooperberg et al. (US 20150235811, hereafter ‘811).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘783 teaches:
the process furnace 53 of the substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3, [0064]), and a gas supply nozzle 66 is vertically supported by the nozzle holder 65 (Fig. 4, [0070], the claimed “A gas supply assembly comprising: a nozzle that has an attaching portion on one end and discharges a gas supplied to the attaching portion; a nozzle adapter that is attachable to and detachable from a processing chamber of a substrate processing apparatus and is clearance-fitted to an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion with a predetermined gap”);
O-ring 103 (a seal member) ([0103], the claimed “and a annular buffer member disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter, wherein at least one of the annular buffer members is compressed and deformed in a radial direction of the corresponding annular buffer member in a state where the attaching portion of the nozzle is attached to the nozzle adapter”).
‘783 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: and a plurality of annular buffer members disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter.
‘811 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate (abstract). ‘811 teaches A preferred removable mounting arrangement is one in which the gas injector is simply slidably fitted in the window with only one or more O-rings between the window and gas injector ([0032]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted plural O-rings, to the outer surface of the gas supply nozzle 66 of ‘783, for the purpose of providing preferred removable mounting arrangement by simply slidably fitted into the injector holder, and/or for its suitability as known method of use of plural O-rings with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Further note, use of plural O-rings is commonly well-known feature in the art, for instance see ‘974 cited above. Lastly, MPEP also clearly guides that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claim 2,
Note plural O-rings cannot be positioned at the exact same location. When one is positioned in a first spot, another one is intrinsically positioned at different spot. Even they are connected each other, each one is still positioned at different location.
Therefore, when additional O-rings are provided to the gas supply nozzle 66, the additional O-ring would be intrinsically positioned at different location from the original O-ring 103 along the longitudinal direction of the nozzle 66, such as the position for the flange 66a when the flange 66a is omitted as disclosed by ‘783, see [0098] (the claimed “wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion”).
Regarding to Claim 3,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, plural O-rings are disposed.
‘783 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 3: wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed in grooves formed on an outer periphery near both ends of the attaching portion, respectively, and protrudes from the grooves, respectively.
‘811 further teaches an O-ring can be provided in a groove around a lower part of the gas injector to provide a seal between the gas injector and the opening in the window. If desired, another O-ring can be provided in a groove in an upper part (not shown) of the gas injector to provide a seal between the gas injector and an exterior surface of the window ([0032]). Note, when the O-ring is disposed in the groove, a portion of the O-ring protrudes from the groove, for the purpose of providing seal between the attaching parts by compressing.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, instead of the chamfered part for the O-ring 103 of ‘783, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted grooves, to the outer surface of the nozzle of ‘783, for the purpose of providing fixed position for each O-ring, thus preventing unexpected movement of the O-ring, and/or for its suitability as known O-ring installment method with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 4,
Fig. 4 of ‘783 shows due to the O-ring, the attaching portion of the nozzle 66 and the holder 65 are not directly contacted with each other (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape, and the annular buffer members are disposed to separate an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion of the nozzle and the nozzle adapter from each other by a predetermined amount to prevent the outer peripheral surface and the nozzle adapter from coming into contact with each other”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘783 teaches a gas supply nozzle 66 is vertically supported by the nozzle holder 65 ([0070], the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter supports the nozzle in an upright state”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 4 of ‘783 shows each of the nozzle outer diameter and holder inner diameter is constant in a longitudinal direction (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion has a constant outer diameter in a longitudinal direction, and a portion of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted has a constant inner diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
‘783 further teaches the lower end of the gas supply nozzle 66 can be placed against the O-ring 117 (Fig. 11, [0134]).
Therefore, when one of the O-ring disposed against the lower end of the nozzle, it prevents the bottom of the nozzle from coming into contact with the nozzle adapter (the claimed “wherein: one of the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed at a lower end of the attaching portion to prevent a bottom of the nozzle from coming into contact with the nozzle adapter”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘783 further teaches wafers 4 can be charged into and discharged from a substrate holding device (hereinafter, referred to as a boat 43) ([0045], note Fig. 3 shows the nozzle 66 extends along the vertical arrangement direction of the substrates, thus the gas from the nozzle 66 is discharged at a right angle to the arrangement direction, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle extends in an arrangement direction of a plurality of substrates loaded into the processing chamber, and discharges a gas at a substantially right angle to the arrangement direction”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘783 further teaches The nozzle holder 65 is an elbow-shaped hollow metal pipe ([0099]), and the gas supply nozzle 66 made of a material such as quartz ([0140], the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter is made of metal, and the nozzle is made of non-metal”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
‘783 teaches the process furnace 53 of the substrate processing apparatus ([0064], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”);
The feature of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above (the claimed “comprising the gas supply assembly of claim 1”);
Fig. 3 of ‘783 shows the connection portion of the nozzle holder 65 is disposed in the process furnace (the claimed “wherein the nozzle adapter is installed in the processing chamber of the processing apparatus”).
Regarding to Claim 12, ‘783 teaches:
a gas supply nozzle 66 is vertically supported by the nozzle holder 65 (Fig. 4, [0070], the claimed “A nozzle comprising: an attaching portion formed in a straight pipe at one end and which is inserted into a nozzle adapter, and into which a gas is supplied from the nozzle adapter”);
It is commonly well-known feature that plural gas supply holes are disposed along the longitudinal direction of the nozzle, for instance, see the “Gases such as the process gas are supplied through the plurality of gas supply holes into the process space 402”, [0031] of ‘974 cited above and further see Fig. 2 showing plural holes on the side wall of the pipe 408, therefore, it is obvious that the nozzle 66 would have the same plural holes, the claimed “a gas supply hole that discharges the gas supplied to the attaching portion at a substantially right angle to a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion”);
As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, the O-rings are disposed in the grooves (the claimed “and two grooves which are formed on an outer periphery near both ends of the attaching portion and to which annular buffer members are attached, respectively”).
Regarding to Claim 13,
As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, the O-rings are disposed in the grooves, thus a shape of each groove can be interpreted to be a U shape (the claimed “wherein: the grooves are formed in U-shape”);
‘783 teaches the gas supply nozzle 66 made of a material such as quartz ([0140], the claimed “and the entire nozzle is made of non-metal”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘783 and ‘811, as being applied to Claim 2 rejection above, further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 20170137942, hereafter ‘942).
Regarding to Claim 5,
‘783 and ‘811 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 5: wherein: a fixing holder for making a direction of the nozzle correct is disposed between the annular buffer members.
‘942 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (title). ‘942 teaches the inner peripheral surface of the insertion hole 92 or 92a and the peripheral surface of the injector 110 may be provided with catching structures 94 engaged with each other to prevent the rotation of the injector ([0066]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added catching structures between the O-ring members, for the purpose of preventing unwanted rotation of the nozzle, thus maintaining direction of the nozzle to be correct. Positioning of the O-rings does not require special higher skill beyond an ordinary skill. MPEP also clearly guides rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718