DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/02/2026.
2. Claims 1-6 and 17-24 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1, 3-6, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
4. Claims 7-16 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-6 and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao et al (US 2020/0017971) in view of Inoue et al (JPH11240794A) and Takasuka et al (US 2012/0024227).
Regarding claim 1:
Kao teaches a lid (lid assembly, 104) configured for a cross-flow semiconductor process chamber (100) [fig 1 & 0020], the lid (104) comprising: a precursor inlet (110) on a an inlet side of the lid (left side of 104) and a precursor outlet (112) on an outlet side of the lid (right side of 104) opposite a center of the lid from the precursor inlet side (see fig 1), the precursor inlet (110) configured to allow a cross-flow of a precursor from the precursor inlet side of the lid to an exhaust side of the lid in a generally linear fashion (process gases flow in the processing region 120 across the substrate 101) [fig 1 & 0020].
Kao does not specifically disclose at least one purge gas inlet on the lid, the at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening configured to provide a flow of purge gas at a center of a substrate along the generally linear cross-flow of the precursor in the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber when the lid is assembled to the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber.
Inoue teaches at least one purge gas inlet (reference gas inlet, 14) on the lid (ceiling region of the reaction chamber), the at least one purge gas inlet (14) in fluid communication with a purge gas channel (flow path, 13) having at least one opening (17) configured to provide a flow of purge gas (reference gas) at a center of a substrate (19) along the generally linear cross-flow of the precursor in the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber when the lid is assembled to the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber (see fig 3) [fig 3 & 0032-0033].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid of Kao with at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening, as in Inoue, to act as a barrier preventing adhesion of the precursor on the ceiling region of the reaction chamber and therefore, adhesion product does not drop [Inoue – 0034].
Although directed to an intended use, the structure of Kao modified by Inoue does not appear to be capable of providing “an adjustable flow of purge gas … so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid”.
Takasuka teaches a structure capable of providing an adjustable flow of purge gas (flow rate control device 36 connected to each of buffer chamber 23 to 25 can independently control a flow rate of the purge gas) … so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid (capable of adjusting a flow rate distribution of the purge gas) [fig 1 & 0052-0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of the at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening of modified Kao to include a structure capable of providing an adjustable flow of purge gas so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid, as in Takasuka, to optimize a flow condition for supplying the purge gas to achieve a uniform film deposition rate or quality of the film formed [Takasuka – 0054].
Regarding claims 2-6:
The limitations of claim(s) 2-6 do NOT impart any additional structure to the claimed lid. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). Specifically, the “purge plate” is NOT a positively recited structure of the lid. The “purge plate” is merely what applicant intends to connect to the lid. Therefore, said limitations are NOT structurally limiting of the lid.
Regarding claim 17:
Kao teaches a cross-flow process chamber (chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0018] comprising: a chamber body (chamber body, 102) having at least one sidewall and a bottom (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0018]; a lid (lid assembly, 104) on the chamber body (102) enclosing a process volume (interior of 100) [fig 1 & 0020], the lid (104) comprising: a precursor inlet (110) on a an inlet side of the lid (left side of 104) and a precursor outlet (112) on an outlet side of the lid (right side of 104) opposite a center of the lid from the precursor inlet side (see fig 1), the precursor inlet (110) configured to allow a cross-flow of a precursor from the precursor inlet side of the lid to an exhaust side of the lid in a generally linear fashion (process gases flow in the processing region 120 across the substrate 101) [fig 1 & 0020]; and a substrate support (pedestal, 116) within the process volume (interior of 100) [fig 1 & 0020].
Kao does not specifically disclose at least one purge gas inlet on the lid, the at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening configured to provide a flow of purge gas at a center of a substrate along the generally linear cross-flow of the precursor in the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber when the lid is assembled to the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber; and the substrate support configured to rotate a substrate around a central axis of the substrate support with a surface of the substrate remaining in a process plane.
Inoue teaches at least one purge gas inlet (reference gas inlet, 14) on the lid (ceiling region of the reaction chamber), the at least one purge gas inlet (14) in fluid communication with a purge gas channel (flow path, 13) having at least one opening (17) configured to provide a flow of purge gas (reference gas) at a center of a substrate (19) along the generally linear cross-flow of the precursor in the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber when the lid is assembled to the cross-flow semiconductor process chamber (see fig 3) [fig 3 & 0032-0033]; and a substrate support (18) configured to rotate (rotating) a substrate (19) around a central axis of the substrate support (18) with a surface of the substrate (19) remaining in a process plane [fig 3 & 0036].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid of Kao with at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening, as in Inoue, to act as a barrier preventing adhesion of the precursor on the ceiling region of the reaction chamber and therefore, adhesion product does not drop [Inoue – 0034]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate support of Kao to rotate, as in Inoue, to ensure uniformity of film thickness and resistivity by rotating [Inoue – 0060].
Although directed to an intended use, the structure of Kao modified by Inoue does not appear to be capable of providing “an adjustable flow of purge gas … so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid”.
Takasuka teaches a structure capable of providing an adjustable flow of purge gas (flow rate control device 36 connected to each of buffer chamber 23 to 25 can independently control a flow rate of the purge gas) … so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid (capable of adjusting a flow rate distribution of the purge gas) [fig 1 & 0052-0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of the at least one purge gas inlet in fluid communication with a purge gas channel having at least one opening of modified Kao to include a structure capable of providing an adjustable flow of purge gas so that a flow of the purge gas is greater at the center of the substrate than at the outlet side and the inlet side of the lid, as in Takasuka, to optimize a flow condition for supplying the purge gas to achieve a uniform film deposition rate or quality of the film formed [Takasuka – 0054].
Regarding claims 18-20:
The limitations of claim(s) 18-20 do NOT impart any additional structure to the claimed cross-flow process chamber. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). Specifically, the “purge plate” is NOT a positively recited structure of the cross-flow process chamber. The “purge plate” is merely what applicant intends to connect to the lid of the cross-flow process chamber. Therefore, said limitations are NOT structurally limiting of the cross-flow process chamber.
Regarding claims 21-23:
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim(s) 21-23 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 24:
Kao teaches the central axis of the substrate support (116) is configured to be aligned with the center of the substrate (substrate, 101) during processing of the substrate (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0019].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim(s) 24 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 1-6 and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi et al (JPH05-175135) teaches at least one purge gas inlet connected to a purge plate [fig 1].
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights