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 filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the co-pending application and prior art of Jung HK fails to teach a plurality of first orifices, a plurality of second orifices, and a controller configured to performed the steps recited in claims 1, 11, and 20. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach “any geometry in which two different sets of orifices are arranged in an alternating pattern or in which orifices of one set are at least partially surrounded by orifices of another set. Jung does not teach or suggest a spatial configuration that produces such an interleaving relationship between distinct orifice groups. Moreover, Jung fails to teach the injection of different gases from separate, distinct groups of orifices” see Remarks page 8 second full paragraph . Note the claims do not specially recite two “different” sets of orifices nor do the claims specifically recite that the first and orifices are not the same in terms of size or are not located along the same plane (such that one is up while the other is down). It is noted that Figs. 6 and 8 of the present invention illustrate that the orifices “differ in size”. The claims were interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation where there are a plurality of orifices where all are located at different radial positions, see in Fig. 4 of Jung K H (KR 2009-117470) where the first orifices [401, 403, 404, 406] and second orifices [402. 405] are illustrated. In terms of Fig. 1B of Shono et al (US 2020/0240014) a plurality of orifices 151 are illustrated and delineated by the examiner below where the order is first orifice-second orifice-first orifice..
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No.18/442679 henceforth referred to as the co-pending application in view of Jung K H (KR 2009-117470 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1: The co-pending application in claims 12-14 recite a process chamber, a hydroxide radical (see claims 13, 14), and a controller that is configured to introduce an oxidation radical (inject a first gas), heat the chamber (see baking step in claim 12), and introduce a second gas (bake gas).
The co-pending application fails to recite a substrate support and a plurality of first orifices and a plurality of second orifices.
The prior art of Jung KH teaches a high density plasma CVD apparatus with a substrate support 200 see Figs. 1 and 3 and the plurality of first and second orifices (see side nozzles 401-406 and 441-443 located on a first gas injection ring 420) see Figs. 2 and 4-7 located in a process chamber 100. The motivation to provide a substrate support and a plurality of first and second orifices is that is improves uniformity of the process by enhancing gas distribution and the support of the wafer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a substrate support and orifices as suggested by the prior art of the KR patent held to Jung KH in the claims of the co-pending application.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Jung K H (KR 2009-117470)
PNG
media_image2.png
574
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Jung K H (KR 2009-117470)
Or another interpretation
Regarding claims 4-10 and 12-14 and the first/second/third location of the orifices. Recall the co-pending application fails to recite a substrate support and a plurality of first orifices and a plurality of second orifices.
See the prior art of KR patent held to Jung KH wherein the location of the orifices is illustrated at central opening of the chamber, an edge of the substrate support, and half a radius of the processing chamber see Figs. of KR patent held to Jung KH. The location of the orifices are oriented is a matter of design choice as their location affects the gas flow path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus derived from the co-pending application with the teachings of the prior art of KR patent held to Jung KH would have designed the orifices to be oriented as claimed in order to optimize the gas flow distribution path and enhance the uniformity of overall distribution of process gases.
PNG
media_image3.png
539
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3: The co-pending application fails to claim the actual number of orifices. The patent held to Jung KH illustrates in the Figures that the number of orifices fall within the claimed ranges. Note further that the number of orifices is a matter of design choice that could be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. The number of orifices is also a matter of optimization without a showing of criticality that would have been determined by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue routine experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus resulting from the claims of the co-pending application to enhance process gas distribution and uniformity of processing of the wafer as suggested by KR patent held to Jung KH.
Regarding claim 11: See claim 1 of the co-pending application wherein the step of introducing a first gas via plurality of first and second orifices and producing an oxidation radical is recited. See also claims 9-11 and 19 of the co-pending application and the cycling of method steps which insinuates repetition and adjustable time periods of process steps. The method of the co-pending application fails to recite performing a second oxidation process. See also the prior art of KR patent held to Jung KH where in the number of times the oxidation process takes place is adjustable and a matter of optimization as the prior art of Jung KH teaches the gas is introduced at various times throughout the process and oxidation occurs with introduction of the gas. See Fig. 2 of Jung KH illustrates the plurality of the first orifices and a plurality of second orifices where the plurality of second orifices are oriented in an alternating pattern such that second orifice of the plurality of second orifices is at least partially surrounded by the at least a first orifice of the plurality of first orifices to promote mixing of the first gas and the second gas: and producing a radical as a function of the first gas and the second gas while heating the chamber. Recall the co-pending application in claims 12-14 a hydroxide radical (see claims 13, 14).
Regarding claim 15: See claims 2 and 8 of the claims of the co-pending application.
Regarding claim 16-18: See claim 16 of the co-pending application and the range of pressure in Torr.
Regarding claim 19: See claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 of the co-pending application and the range of temperatures of the oxidation process.
Regarding claim 20: See claim 20 of the co-pending application.
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.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono et al (US 2020/0240014) in view of Mukai et al (US 2003/0017267).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Shono eta l teaches a process chamber 100 for hydroxyl driven combustion (see [0003], [0024], [0031], [0032], [0038] the mention of oxygen and hydrogen based gas and hydrogen and oxygen radicals) , comprising: a substrate support 138; a plurality of alternating orifices (injecting holes 151) see Fig. 1A and 1B below, wherein the plurality of alternating orifices includes: a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location of the chamber; and a plurality of second orifices positioned along the first side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location of the chamber, wherein the plurality of first orifices and the plurality of second orifices are oriented in an alternating pattern such that each second orifice of the plurality of second orifices is at least partially surrounded by at least a first orifice of the plurality of first orifices; and a controller 107 configured to: heat (via lamp source 108) the processing chamber; inject a first gas 153 from the plurality of first orifices; inject a second gas 154 from the plurality of second orifices; and produce a radical as a function of the heat, the first gas, and the second gas.
The prior art of Shono et al briefly teaches controller 107 and mentions in [0019] that the controller controls the heating source 108.
PNG
media_image4.png
664
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
514
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Shono et al fails to teach that the controller controls the injection of process gas.
The prior art of Mukai et al teaches a system controller 20 that controls all activities of the substrate processing system see [0022] and [0023]. According to [0023] of Mukai et al the controller controls the heat via the lamp power levels, injection of the process gases including the timing. The motivation to substitute the controller of Shono et al with the controller of Mukai et al is that it extends the capacity of the controller to automatically and autonomously control the entire process/method steps with little human operator intervention which increases throughput and improves efficiency and quality of the process result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus Shono et al with the controller of Mukai et al.
Regarding claim 2. The chamber of claim 1, wherein the plurality of alternating orifices comprise a range of about 1 to about 15 orifices per side of the chamber. See Fig. 1B of Shono et al which illustrates the orifices.
Regarding claim 3. The chamber of claim 2, wherein the plurality of alternating orifices is about 3 to about 8 orifices per side of the chamber. See Fig. 1B of Shono et al which illustrates the orifices
Regarding claim 4. The chamber of claim 1, wherein the first location comprises a central opening of the chamber. See Fig. 1B of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 5. The chamber of claim 1, wherein the first location comprises an edge of the substrate support. See Fig. 1B of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 6. The chamber of claim 1, wherein the first location comprises half a radius of the processing chamber. See Fig. 1B of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 7. The chamber of claim 1, further comprising: the plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a second location of the chamber; and the plurality of second orifices positioned along the first side of the chamber and oriented towards the second location of the chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A of Shono et al and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al
Regarding claim 8. The chamber of claim 7, wherein the second location is selected from: a central opening of the chamber, an edge of the substrate support, or half a radius of the processing chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 9. The chamber of claim 1, further comprising: the plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a third location of the chamber; and the plurality of second orifices positioned along the first side of the chamber and oriented towards the third location of the chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al
Regarding claim 10. The chamber of claim 9, wherein the third location is selected from: a central opening of the chamber, an edge of the substrate support, or half a radius of the processing chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A of and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 11. Shono et al teaches a method of hydroxyl driven combustion, comprising; introducing a first gas 153, via a controller 107, using at least a first orifice positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location of the chamber into a processing chamber having a substrate support; introducing a second gas 154, via the controller, into the processing chamber 100 using a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location, wherein the plurality of first orifices and the plurality of second orifices are oriented in an alternating pattern such that each second orifice of the plurality of second orifices is at least partially surrounded by the at least a first orifice of the plurality of first orifices to promote mixing of the first gas and the second gas: and producing a radical as a function of the first gas and the second gas while heating the chamber (see [0003] of Shono et al and the mention of oxygen and hydrogen based gas and hydrogen and oxygen radicals). See Fig. 1B of Shono et al above.
The prior art of Shono et al briefly teaches controller 107 and mentions in [0019] that the controller controls the heating source 108 but not specifically the control of the injection or flow of gas.
The prior art of Mukai et al teaches a system controller 20 that controls all activities of the substrate processing system see [0022] and [0023]. According to [0023] of Mukai et al the controller controls the heat via the lamp power levels, injection of the process gases including the timing. The motivation to substitute the controller of Shono et al with the controller of Mukai et al is that it extends the capacity of the controller to automatically and autonomously control the entire process/method steps with little human operator intervention which increases throughput and improves efficiency and quality of the process result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of Shono et al with the controller of Mukai et al.
Regarding claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the first location comprises a central opening of the chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A of and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 13. The method of claim 11, wherein the first location comprises an edge of the substrate support. . See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A of and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 14. The method of claim 11, wherein the first location comprises half a radius of the processing chamber. See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 3A of and [0032] and [0036] -[0039] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 15. The method of claim 11, wherein the first gas and the second gas are each independently injected at a volumetric flow of about 5 slm to about 40 slm. See [0024] which teaches of the volumetric flow of Shono et al .
Regarding claim 16. The method of claim 11, wherein the first gas and the second gas are each independently injected at a velocity of 1 m/s to about 20 m/s at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. See [0025], [0027], and [0031] of which teach the velocity and pressure ranges of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the first gas is injected at a velocity of 10 m/s at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. See [0025], [0027], and [0031] which teach the velocity and pressure range of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the second gas is injected at a velocity of 10 m/s at a pressure of greater than about 50 Torr. See [0025], [0027], and [0031] which teach the velocity and pressure ranges of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 19. The method of claim 11, further comprising heating the processing chamber to a temperature of about 700 °C to about 1,000 C. See [0025] of Shono et al.
Regarding claim 20: The prior art of Shono et al fails to teach a computer readable medium. See the rejections of claims 1 and 11 above regarding the processing steps and structure used to perform them. The prior art of Mukai et al teaches a computer readable medium such as memory 22. See there is a plurality of first orifices positioned along a first side of the chamber and oriented towards a first location of the chamber into a processing chamber having a substrate support; introduce a second gas, via the controller, into the processing chamber using a plurality of second orifices positioned along a second side of the chamber and oriented towards the first location, wherein the plurality of first orifices and the plurality of second orifices are oriented in an alternating pattern such that each second orifice of the plurality of second orifices is surrounded by the at least a first orifice of the plurality of first orifices to promote mixing of the first gas and the second gas: and produce a radical as a function of the first gas and the second gas while heating the chamber. See Fig. 2 of Mukai et al above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of Shono et al to use a computer readable medium as suggested by Mukai et al is that medium provides repeatable well-articulated steps that can be automated and performed efficiency by the system controller of Shono et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lubomirsky et al (US 2007/0281106) teaches short nozzles 404 and long nozzles 402 which can be interpreted as orifice nozzles see Figs. 4A and 4B.
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716