DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (2/14/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-7) were examined in a Non-Final on 9/4/2025. This office action is in response to Applicants submission on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-6 were amended, claim 4 cancelled and new claims 8-13 were added.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Noorbakhsh Hamid (US 20110162800).
Noorbakhsh Hamid discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a plasma processing chamber (Fig 1);
a substrate support provided inside the plasma processing chamber (108);
and a shower head facing the substrate support (100),
wherein the shower head includes a shower plate formed with a gas flow path for discharging a gas (204),
the shower plate includes a base member (204) including:
plurality of recessed portions (220);
a plurality of first embedded members (310);
a plurality of second embedded members (308),
the plurality of first embedded members and the plurality of second embedded members are disposed into the plurality of recessed portions and are bonded to the plurality of recessed portions since it is held in two plates 204 and 202 fastened together (See the description).
a bottom surface of each of the plurality of recessed portions is in contact with a lower surface of a respective one of the plurality of first embedded members (310),
an upper surface of each of the plurality of first embedded members is in contact with a lower surface of a respective one of the plurality of second embedded members (308) and
the gas flow path includes:
a plurality of first flow paths (210) formed in the base member and communicating with the plurality of recessed portions;
a plurality of second flow paths formed in each of the plurality of first embedded members (314);
a plurality of communication paths (208) formed in the plurality of first embedded members and communicating the plurality of first flow paths with the plurality of second flow paths; and
a plurality of third flow paths (306) formed in the plurality of second embedded members and communicating with the plurality of second flow paths.
Regarding claim 2 flow paths 210 and 314 are non-coaxial.
Regarding claim 7 the holding plate would be as in (Fig 2, 202).
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, 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.
Claims 4-6, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh Hamid (US 20110162800) in view of Augustino et al (US 8702866).
Regarding claims 4-6, Noorbakhsh Hamid does not explicitly disclose showerhead members comprise silicon or silicon carbide.
Augustino et al disclose a showerhead comprising a laminated structure for example as in Fig 5A (having three layers 12, 14 and 16) and bonding using thermally and electric conductive elastomer material (Col 4 line 61-Col 5 line 3). Electrodes comprise silicon or silicon carbide (Col 3 lines 60-Col 4 line 8).
Therefore, having a laminated structure comprising, silicon or silicon carbide as claimed in claims 4-6 for advantages of use in semiconductor apparatus would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 9, 11-13 plurality of branch flow paths communicating with other flow paths are understood as depicted in Fig 2 and Fig 4 of the specification. The specification does not define first and second embedded members or third flow path. The specification appears to be disclosing gas flow path which increases in number from top member to bottom member.
This Type of flow pattern is disclosed by Augustino et al in Fig 4A where one flow path in top member is branched to plurality of paths in lower member. Further regarding the number of flow paths being three from top to bottom member, it is only a duplication of parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such division would help to diffuse the gas to the plasma uniformly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used flow paths as disclosed in Augustino et al before the filing dated of this application for diffusion of gas to the plasma for uniform processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh Hamid (US 20110162800) in view of Nguyen et al (US 20140113084).
Regarding claim 8 bonding of embedded members is disclosed inherently but Nguyen et al disclose welding to join parts of its showerhead (Para 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used welding to bind inserts 308 and 310 to the base unit in Noorbakhsh Hamid before the filing dated of this application.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh Hamid (US 20110162800) in view of Nagakubo et al (US 8858712) and Carducci et al (US 20090179085).
Regarding these claims, plurality of branch flow paths communicating with other flow paths are understood as depicted in Fig 2 and Fig 4 of the specification. The specification does not define first and second embedded members or third flow path. The specification appears to be disclosing gas flow path which increases in number from top member to bottom member.
This Type of flow pattern is disclosed by Nagakubo et al in Fig 3 where one flow path in top member is connected to at least three paths in lower member (Fig 2, 3 and 4).
As discussed above, regarding the number of flow paths being three from top to bottom member, it is only a duplication of parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such division would help to diffuse the gas to the plasma uniformly.
Further Carducci et al disclose a showerhead where one flow path in top plate 212 divides to three in middle plate 214 and each flow path in middle plate to three in the lower plate 216 (Fig 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used flow paths as disclosed in Nagakubo et al as modified by Carducci et al in Noorbakhsh Hamid before the filing dated of this application for diffusion of gas to the plasma for uniform processing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh Hamid (US 20110162800) in view of Augustino et al (US 8702866) and Nguyen et al (US 20140113084).
Regarding claim 10 which depends on claim 9 Nguyen et al disclose welding to join parts of its showerhead (Para 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used welding to bind inserts 308 and 310 to the base unit in Noorbakhsh Hamid before the filing dated of this application.
Conclusion
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716