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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 16-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 21 are amended. Claims 1, 9 and 21 are independent claims. Claims 9-15 and 21-25 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "...a first portion… flowing a second portion of the purge gas through one or more outlet openings disposed between the isolation plate and the window…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul Soo Byun (US 20060263522 A1, ‘Byun”) in view of Shero et al (US 20030072975 A1, “Shero”) and Randhir P. S. Thakur (US 6808758 B1, “Thakur”).
Regarding claim 1, Byun teaches a method of processing substrates, suitable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the method comprising heating a substrate positioned on a susceptor (substrate support) (0005, 0008. 0010, 0063, 0069); flowing a purge gas under a reactive gas showerhead/ceiling of chamber (window) and over a purge gas showerhead comprising diffusion/bottom plate (an isolation plate) disposed above the substrate (figs 1-18, 0017-0019, 0042-0056, 0061, 0062, 0067), the flowing of the purge gas including diverting a first portion of the purge gas below the isolation plate through a plurality of holes/exits (perforations) in the isolation (diffusion/bottom) plate (fig 5, 0043, 0056), and flowing a second portion of the purge gas through channels (one or more outlet openings) (figs 15-17, 0062, 0063, 0067); and flowing reactive gases (one or more process gases) over the substrate to deposit a material on the substrate (0002, 0017-0019, 0041-0043, 0059, 0060, 0063-0069), the flowing of the one or more process gases over the substrate comprising guiding the one or more process gases through one or more channels/holes (flow paths) defined at least in part by a space between the isolation/ diffusion/bottom plate and the substrate (figs 1-18, 0043, 0056).
Byun teaches flowing the one or more process gases as addressed above, and further teaches flowing the one or more process gases to one or more inlets disposed between the isolation plate and the substrate and exhausting the one or more process gases through one or more exhaust outlets by vacuum pump (figs 15-17, 0018, 0019, 0040, 0043, 0056), but does not explicitly teach one or more exhaust outlets disposed between the isolation plate and the substrate, wherein the one or more exhaust outlets are disposed opposite the one or more inlets. However, Shero teaches a method of processing substrates, wherein process gas is injected/flowed to an inlet port disposed between an isolation plate and a substrate, the process gas is exhausted through an outlet port disposed between the isolation plate and the substrate, wherein the exhaust outlet port are disposed opposite the inlet port (figs 1 and 2; 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Byun per teachings of Shero in order to provide an improved process for semiconductor fabrication (Shero 0016, 0033, 0041).
Byun/Shero teaches flowing the second portion of the purge gas through the one or more outlet openings as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the one or more outlet openings disposed between the isolation plate and the window. However, Thakur teaches a method, wherein an inert/purge gas flows through one or more outlet openings disposed between a perforated plate (isolation plate) and a window 32 (fig 4, col 2 lines 36-67; col 6 lines 6-10 and lines 60-67; col 7 lines 30-38; col 8 lines 52-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Byun/Shero per teachings of Thakur in order to provide suitable conditions for prevent any unwanted materials/contaminations (Thakur col 2 lines 36-67 and col 7 lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 2, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches flowing a second purge gas through one or more perforations in a gas confining means having a left portion parallel to a right portion (a pair of parallel blocks) disposed below the isolation/diffusion plate (Byun figs 15-17, 0062, 0063, 0067), the pair of parallel blocks at least partially defining the space between the diffusion/isolation plate and the substrate (Byun figs 15-17, 0062, 0063, 0067). Furthermore, it is well established that regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). The court has also held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches flowing the purge gas with diverting a portion of the purge gas (first purge gas) below the isolation plate as addressed above, and further teaches flowing the first purge gas; meanwhile (simultaneously), the second purge gas is introduced/flowed (Byun 0062 and 0067), reading on the instantly claimed the flowing the second purge gas occurs simultaneously with diverting a portion of the purge gas below the isolation plate. Moreover, it is well-established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process. Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C).
Regarding claim 4, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches that the plurality of perforations is uniformly evenly distributed on the isolation plate (Byun figs 4-6, 9-11 and 18, 0043-0048, 0054, 0056). Furthermore, it is well established that regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). It has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has also held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches that the plurality of perforations comprises a first plurality of perforations having a first diameter and a second plurality of perforations having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter (Byun 0018, 0019, 0047, 0048). Furthermore, it is well established that regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). Furthermore, it is well-established that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 6, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches that the first plurality of perforations and the second plurality of perforations are evenly distributed on the isolation plate (Byun figs 4-6, 9-11 and 18). Furthermore, it is well established that regarding the apparatus limitations in the process claims, the court has held that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). It has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has also held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, as addressed above, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches the diverting the first portion of the purge gas below the isolation plate and flowing the one or more process gases, similar to the instantly claimed. Therefore, “forming forms gas curtain adjacent the isolation plate between the isolation plate and the one or more process gases” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Regarding claim 8, Byun/Shero/Thakur teaches that the purge gas flowing over the isolation plate from a purge gas inlet (for example 453) in a direction parallel to the isolation plate and flowing the one or more process gases from process gas inlet (for example 153/253) in a direction parallel to the isolation plate (Byun fig 5, 0043), reading on the instantly claimed “the purge gas flowing over the isolation plate is directed parallel to the one or more process gases”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714