DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 02/03/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 8, and 14-18 have been amended.
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515).
Regarding claim 1:
Citla teaches a gas-delivery assembly (lid assembly, 112) [fig 1 & 0024] comprising: a transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), and a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024].
Citla does not specifically disclose a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, the baffle comprising: a first region; and a second region radially exterior the first region.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), the baffle (250) comprising: a first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040]; and a second region (region defined by D1) radially exterior the first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the second region is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the first region” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional 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 2:
Citla teaches a first flange (bottom flange of 120) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120) and to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 3:
Citla teaches the first flange (bottom flange of 120) is integral with (see fig 1) the second end (bottom of 120) [fig 1 & 0024].
It is noted that the limitations “wherein the first flange is welded to the second end” are directed to the process of making the first flange integral with the second end. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Citla teaches the baffle (250) is welded to the first flange (friction stir welded) [Madsen - fig 5-6 & 0044].
Regarding claim 6:
Citla teaches a second flange (top flange of 120) coupled to the first end (top of 120) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claims 9:
Modified Citla teaches the second region (region defined by D1) comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions (regions between 254) [Madsen - fig 4-5 & 0040].
Regarding claims 11-12:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) further comprises a tube coating (108) on an interior surface of the transport tube (120) [fig 1 & 0024]; and the tube coating (108) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, electroless nickel phosphorous, and yttrium oxide (Al2O3) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 15:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) comprises a first substantially straight section and an adjacent second frustoconical section that terminates at the second end (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 18:
Citla teaches a gas-delivery assembly (lid assembly, 112) [fig 1 & 0024] comprising: a transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024], a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024].
Citla does not specifically teach a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, wherein a second region of the baffle comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), wherein a second region of the baffle (region defined by D1) comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions (regions between 254) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of a second region of the baffle is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of a first region of the baffle” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional 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).
9. Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Kurokawa et al (JP-H01283315).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the first flange comprises a first flange cooling fluid channel.
Kurokawa teaches a first flange (flange, 4) comprises a first flange cooling fluid channel (8 cools) [fig 2-3 & abstract].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first flange of modified Citla to comprise a first flange cooling fluid channel, as in Kurokawa, to provide a cooling and sealing device for a flange to prevent air leakage when an O-ring crack occurs [Kurokawa – 0001].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Citla teaches a first flange (bottom flange of 120) [Citla - fig 1 & 0024].
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the first flange comprising a first flange cooling fluid channel.
Kurokawa teaches a first flange (flange, 4) comprising a first flange cooling fluid channel (8 cools) [fig 2-3 & abstract].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first flange of modified Citla to comprise a first flange cooling fluid channel, as in Kurokawa, to provide a cooling and sealing device for a flange to prevent air leakage when an O-ring crack occurs [Kurokawa – 0001].
10. Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Tong (US 2022/0122819).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the second flange comprises a second flange cooling fluid channel.
Tong teaches a second flange (406) comprises a second flange cooling fluid channel (fluid tube, 505, may deliver a fluid for cooling) [fig 3, 5 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second flange of modified Citla to comprise a second flange cooling fluid channel, as in Tong, to cool the base of the remote plasma unit seated thereabove [Tong – 0045].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Citla teaches a second flange (top flange of 120) [Citla - fig 1 & 0024].
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the second flange comprising a second flange cooling fluid channel.
Tong teaches a second flange (406) comprising a second flange cooling fluid channel (fluid tube, 505, may deliver a fluid for cooling) [fig 3, 5 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second flange of modified Citla to comprise a second flange cooling fluid channel, as in Tong, to cool the base of the remote plasma unit seated thereabove [Tong – 0045].
11. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Citla teaches the first region (region defined by D2) comprises a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes (holes, 270) therethrough [Madsen - fig 4-5 & 0040].
Modified Citla does not specifically teach wherein holes of the plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle.
Kulshreshtha teaches holes of a plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle (inner region 522 is circular in shape and has a greater density of holes 520 relative to the density of holes 520 of the outer region 524) [fig 5A & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of holes in the baffle of modified Citla to be closer together near a center of the baffle relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle, as in Kulshreshtha, to modulate the gas flow profile to compensate for local stress and overlay error [Kulshreshtha – 0049].
12. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Meinhold et al (US 2009/0095220).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the top plate comprises a top plate conduit and a heater therein.
Meinhold teaches a top plate (back plate, 306) comprises a top plate conduit and a heater therein (heater 314 may be embedded in 306) [fig 3A & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top plate of modified Citla to comprise a top plate conduit and a heater therein, as in Meinhold, to maintain the showerhead at the desired temperature for a given process [Meinhold – 0047].
13. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Shanbhag et al (US 2019/0185999).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 13-14:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the baffle further comprises a baffle coating on a surface of the baffle; and the baffle coating comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous.
Shanbhag teaches a baffle (chamber component) further comprises a baffle coating (protective coating) on a surface of the baffle (chamber component) [abstract & 0005]; and the baffle coating (protective coating) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous (aluminum oxide) [abstract & 0005].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the baffle of modified Citla to comprise a coating, as in Shanbhag, to help reduce contamination on wafers processed using the coated baffle [Shanbhag - abstract].
14. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Rathi et al (US 2022/0310360) and Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515).
Regarding claim 16:
Citla teaches a reactor system (processing chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0022] comprising: a remote plasma unit (remote plasma source, 104) [fig 1 & 0023]; a transport tube (120), the transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), and a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a reaction chamber (chamber body, 130) adjacent the showerhead plate (118) fig 1 & 0026].
Citla does not specifically disclose the transport tube fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit.
Rathi teaches a transport tube (218) fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit (RPS unit, 210) [fig 2 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transport tube of Citla to be fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit, as in Rathi, to provide additional stability and support against the remote plasma unit which may otherwise damage the tube coating from the support weight [Rathi – 0028].
Citla modified by Rathi does not specifically disclose a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, the baffle comprising: a first region; and a second region radially exterior the first region.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), the baffle (250) comprising: a first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040]; and a second region (region defined by D1) radially exterior the first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of modified Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the second region is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the first region” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional 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 17:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) is coated with a material (108) selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous (Al2O3) [fig 1 & 0024].
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim(s) 17 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 17.
16. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains that the amended limitations of claims 1, 16, and 18 are directed to functional limitations.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional 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).
Applicant argues that neither Citla or Madsen include an o-ring. As such, it would not be obvious to include a flange with a cooling channel to mitigate damage to the o-ring. Furthermore, there is no suggestion of how to modify the collar of Madsen to include a cooling fluid channel.
In response, it is noted that the apparatus of both Citla and Madsen are under vacuum. The modification proposes adding an o-ring AND cooling channel to ensure an effective seal. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply include a cooling channel within the collar of Madsen. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments 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
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al (US 9,484,202), Chandrasekharan et al (US 10,378,107), and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2015/0315706) teach a transport tube comprising: a first end having a first end cross-sectional dimension, and a second end having a second end cross-sectional dimension [fig 2, 1, and 1, respectively].
18. 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.
19. 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