DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yakota et. al (US 2006/0223315) in view of Muller et. al (US 2012/0141946 A1).
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 8, and 20 overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection presented in the Non-Final rejection dated 06/30/2025, therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et. al (US 2006/0223315 A1) and further in view of Muller et. al (US 2012/0141946 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Yokata discloses a process chamber [reference character 50] for hydroxyl driven combustion1, comprising: a substrate support [reference character 30]; a plurality of orifices, wherein the plurality of orifices includes: at least a first orifice [reference character 122] positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location of the chamber; and a second orifice [reference character 120] positioned along a second side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location; and a controller [reference character 116] , wherein the controller is configured to: heat the process chamber [paragraph 0035]; (a controller to)2 inject a first gas from the at least a first orifice [via mass flow controller 194]; (a controller to) inject a second gas from the second orifice [via pass flow controller 132], wherein a radical is produced within the process chamber; as a function of the heat, the first gas, and the second gas [paragraph 0038].
Yokata does not disclose a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third.
Muller discloses a counter-flow combustor having a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other [see annotated Fig. below]; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third [see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Yokata by forming the process chamber with the injection configuration taught by Muller because the configuration taught by Muller because it is of small dimensions and is inexpensively produced [paragraph 0006].
With respect to claim 2 Yokata discloses that the first gas is a reactive gas comprising H2 [see Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 3 Yokata discloses that the second gas comprises O2 [see Fig. 6 and paragraphs 0038-0039] and that the second gas is different from the fist gas [see Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Yokata and Muller disclose that the plurality of second orifices comprise a range of about 1 to about 15 orifices per side of the chamber [see Fig. 5 of Muller].
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Yokota and Muller disclose the plurality of second orifices is about 3 to about 8 orifices per side of the chamber [see Fig. 5 of Muller].
With respect to claim 6 Yokota discloses that the first gas is injected at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the first gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the first gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the first gas is injected at a velocity of 1 m/s to about 20 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the first gas at a velocity of about 1m/s to about 20m/s since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7 Yokota discloses that the second gas is injected at a pressure of greater than 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the second gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the second gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the second gas is injected at a velocity of 1 m/s to about 20 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the second gas at a velocity of about 1m/s to about 20m/s since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et. al (US 2006/0223315 A1) and further in view of Muller et. al (US 2012/0141946 A1) and further in view of Ganguly et. al (US 2011/0061810 A1).
With respect to claim 8 Yokota discloses a method of hydroxyl driven combustion5, comprising; introducing, a first gas using at least a first orifice [reference character 122] positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location [reference character 18] of the chamber into the processing chamber [via mass flow controller 194]; introducing, a second gas into the processing chamber [via mass flow controller 132] using a second orifice [reference character 120] positioned along a second side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location [see Fig. 6], wherein the second orifice is substantially perpendicular to the at least a first orifice such that the first gas and the second gas intersect in the first location; and producing a radical as a function of the first gas and the second gas while heating the chamber [paragraph 0038 and 0033].
Yokota does not disclose that the first gas and second gas are introduced into the process chamber using a single controller.
Ganguly discloses an apparatus for oxidation and etching which includes a single controller [reference character 2124] for controlling both the atmosphere inside the process chamber and the flow rates of input gasses [see paragraph 0143].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Yokota by consolidating the process chamber controllers [reference characters 116, 124, etc] and the gas flow controllers [reference characters 194 and 132] in to a single controller, as taught by Ganguly, in order to reduce the component count and make the assembly simpler to repair and replace.
Yokata does not disclose a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third.
Muller discloses a counter-flow combustor having a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other [see annotated Fig. below]; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third [see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Yokata by forming the process chamber with the injection configuration taught by Muller because the configuration taught by Muller because it is of small dimensions and is inexpensively produced [paragraph 0006].
With respect to claim 9 Yokata discloses that the first gas is a reactive gas comprising H2 [see Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 10 Yokata discloses that the second gas comprises O2 [see Fig. 6 and paragraphs 0038-0039] and that the second gas is different from the fist gas [see Fig. 6].
With respect to claim 11 Yokata does not disclose that the first as is injected at a volumetric flow of about 5 slm to about 40 slm.
However, the flow rate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the first gas at a volumetric flow of about 5 slm to about 40 slm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12 Yokata does not disclose that the first gas is injected at a volumetric flow of about 9.4 slm.
However, the flow rate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the first as at a volumetric flow of about 9.4 slm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 13 Yokota discloses that the first gas is injected at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the first gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the first gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the first gas is injected at a velocity of 1 m/s to about 20 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the first gas at a velocity of about 1m/s to about 20m/s since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 14 Yokota discloses that the first gas is injected at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the first gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the first gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the first gas is injected at a velocity of about 10 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate9. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the first gas at a velocity of 10m/s since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 15 Yokata does not disclose that the second gas is injected at a volumetric flow of about 5 slm to about 40 slm.
However, the flow rate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the second gas at a volumetric flow of about 5 slm to about 40 slm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 16 Yokata does not disclose that the second gas is injected at a volumetric flow of about 22 slm.
However, the flow rate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate11. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the second gas at a volumetric flow rate of a volumetric flow of about 22 slm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 17 Yokota discloses that the second gas is injected at a pressure of greater than 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the second gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the second gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the second gas is injected at a velocity of 1 m/s to about 20 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the second gas at a velocity of about 1m/s to about 20m/s since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 18 Yokota discloses that the second gas is injected at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. Specifically, Yokota discloses that the process chamber pressure “…may be reduced to between about 1 and 160 Torr” [paragraph 0036] which is inclusive of greater than about 50 Torr. Since the pressure at which the second gas is injected must be larger than the pressure in the process chamber the pressure of the first gas must also be inclusive of the range of greater than 50 Torr.
Yokota does not disclose that the second gas is injected at a velocity of about 10 m/s. However, the gas injection velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result. In this case the reactant flow rate would be optimized in order to achieve a desired oxidation rate of the substrate13. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to inject the second gas at a velocity of 10m/s since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 19 Yokota discloses heating the processing chamber comprises heating to a temperature of about 700 °C to about 1,000 °C [paragraph 0054].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et. al (US 2006/0223315 A1) and further in view of Muller et. al (US 2012/0141946 A1) and further in view of Ganguly et. al (US 2011/0061810 A1).
With respect to claim 20 Yokota discloses introducing, a first gas using at least a first orifice [reference character 122] positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location [reference character 18] of the chamber into the processing chamber [via mass flow controller 194]; introducing, a second gas into the processing chamber [via mass flow controller 132] using a second orifice [reference character 120] positioned along a second side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location [see Fig. 6], wherein the second orifice is substantially perpendicular to the at least a first orifice such that the first gas and the second gas intersect in the first location; and producing a radical as a function of the first gas and the second gas while heating the chamber [paragraph 0038 and 0033].
Yokota does not disclose a computer readable medium configured to introduce via a controller the first gas and second gas into the process chamber.
Ganguly discloses an apparatus for oxidation and etching which includes a single controller [reference character 2124] for controlling both the atmosphere inside the process chamber and the flow rates of input gasses [see paragraph 0143] where the controller includes a computer readable medium [reference character 2126].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Yokota by consolidating the process chamber controllers [reference characters 116, 124, etc] and the gas flow controllers [reference characters 194 and 132] in to a single controller, as taught by Ganguly, in order to reduce the component count and make the assembly simpler to repair and replace.
Yokata does not disclose a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third.
Muller discloses a counter-flow combustor having a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side and a third side of the process chamber and oriented towards a first location of the process chamber, wherein the first side and the third side are substantially parallel to each other [see annotated Fig. below]; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the process chamber and oriented towards the first location of the process chamber, wherein the second side is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third [see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Yokata by forming the process chamber with the injection configuration taught by Muller because the configuration taught by Muller because it is of small dimensions and is inexpensively produced [paragraph 0006].
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 While Yokata does not explicitly disclose combustion, the presence of hydrogen, oxygen, and a heat source could be used to produce a combustion reaction, and therefore meets the intended use limitations of the claims.
2 See 112(b) rejection above.
3 “Gaseous hydrogen from a gas source 192 is metered by a mass flow controller 194 into the processing chamber 50 via the second gas inlet 122 to increase the oxidation rate” [paragraph 0049 of Yokota]; “Gaseous oxygen may be supplied from the oxygen gas source 130 through another mass flow controller 198 to the second gas inlet 122 to act as a diluent to reduce the oxidation rate, which may be desired for very thin gate oxides” [paragraph 0050 of Yokota]; “Ozone flow rates need to be maximized to achieve high oxidation rates.” [paragraph 0052 of Yokota].
4 See footnote 3.
5 Since Yokata can be used to perform a combustion reaction, and the body of the claim does not require a combustion reaction Yokata satisfies the preambular requirements of the claim. See footnote 1.
6 See footnote 3.
7 See footnote 3.
8 See footnote 3.
9 See footnote 3.
10 See footnote 3.
11 See footnote 3.
12 See footnote 3.
13 See footnote 1.