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 01/09/2026.
4. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3, and 7-8 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “the reaction chamber the chamber liner”. It appears this limitation is missing a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2003/0079757) in view of Nguyen et al (US 2014/0374024) and Fukiage (US 7,862,683) with substantiating evidence provided by Nguyen et al (US 2010/0108263).
Regarding claim 1:
Shibata teaches a substrate processing apparatus (10) [fig 4 & 0101-0102], comprising: a reaction chamber (reaction chamber, 12) [fig 4 & 0103]; a susceptor (18) positioned within the reaction chamber (12) [fig 4 & 0102]; a remote plasma unit (30) [fig 4 & 0103]; a cleaning gas line (32) configured to fluidly couple the remote plasma unit (30) to the reaction chamber (12) [fig 4 & 0103]; wherein the cleaning gas line (32) is connected to the sidewall of the reaction chamber (chamber side wall, 12b) through a cleaning gas opening located below the susceptor (position is not limitative – for example may be effected from positions of different heights of the chamber side wall 12b) [fig 4 & 0098, 0103].
Shibata does not specifically disclose a remote plasma unit disposed above the reaction chamber; and a chamber liner disposed in a sidewall of the reaction chamber and extending adjacent to and along a bottom of the reaction chamber.
Nguyen’024 teaches a remote plasma unit (remote plasma system, 146) disposed above the reaction chamber (200) [fig 8 & 0037]; and a chamber liner (204 and lower liner) disposed in a sidewall of the reaction chamber (202) and extending adjacent to and along a bottom of the reaction chamber (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0029, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the remote plasma unit of Shibata to be disposed above the reaction chamber, as in Nguyen’024, since the particular placement of the remote plasma unit is an obvious matter of design choice because shifting the position of the remote plasma unit would NOT have modified the operation of the apparatus. It has been held that mere rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Shibata to comprise a chamber liner, as in Nguyen’024, to prevent byproducts from directly depositing on the chamber wall [Nguyen’263 – 0002].
Additionally, similar to Shibata, Nguyen’024 teaches a remote plasma unit (146) may be coupled to the chamber in any location desired [0029]. Therefore, annotated location x is one such obvious location.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shibata modified by Nguyen’024 does not specifically disclose the chamber liner is provided with a plurality of holes, being fluidly coupled to the cleaning gas opening.
Fukiage teaches a chamber liner (255) is provided with a plurality of holes (supply holes, 225A), being fluidly coupled to the cleaning gas opening (210) [fig 2A-2B & col 6, lines 13-22].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liner (at annotated location x) of modified Shibata to be provided with a plurality of holes, as in Fukiage, to control flow direction, flow rate, or both for the remote plasma [Fukiage – col 6, lines 13-22].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Shibata teaches the holes (supply holes, 225A) are equally spaced on the chamber liner (see fig 2A-2B) [Fukiage - fig 2A-2B & col 6, lines 13-22].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Shibata teaches a gap provided between the bottom of the reaction chamber and a bottom of the chamber liner (see annotated location x) [Nguyen’024 – fig 2 & 0029].
Regarding claim 4:
Shibata teaches a shower plate (20) to be constructed and arranged to face the susceptor (18) [fig 4 & 0102-0103].
Regarding claims 5-6:
Shibata teaches a second cleaning gas line (33) disposed upstream of the shower plate (20) and between the remote plasma unit (30) and the shower plate (20) [fig 4 & 0103]; and wherein the second cleaning gas line (33) is provided with a process gas line (via 28) to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the shower plate (20) [fig 4 & 0103].
Regarding claim 7:
Shibata teaches a substrate processing apparatus (10) [fig 4 & 0101-0102], comprising: a reaction chamber (reaction chamber, 12) [fig 4 & 0103]; a remote plasma unit (30) [fig 4 & 0103]; a susceptor (18) positioned within the reaction chamber (12) [fig 4 & 0102]; a cleaning gas line (32) configured to fluidly couple the remote plasma unit (30) to the reaction chamber (12) [fig 4 & 0103]; wherein the cleaning gas line (32) is connected to the sidewall of the reaction chamber (chamber side wall, 12b) through a cleaning gas opening (position is not limitative – for example may be effected from positions of different heights of the chamber side wall 12b) [fig 4 & 0098, 0103].
Shibata does not specifically disclose a chamber liner disposed in a sidewall of the reaction chamber, the chamber liner extending adjacent to and along a bottom surface of the reaction chamber; and a gap provided between a bottom of the reaction chamber and a bottom of the chamber liner, wherein the chamber liner extends from above a top of the susceptor to below the susceptor, and wherein the gap extends along the bottom surface of the reaction chamber.
Nguyen’024 teaches a chamber liner (204 and lower liner) disposed in a sidewall of the reaction chamber (202), the chamber liner (204 and lower liner) extending adjacent to and along a bottom surface of the reaction chamber (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0029, 0030]; and a gap provided between a bottom of the reaction chamber and a bottom of the chamber liner (see annotated location x) [Nguyen’024 – fig 2 & 0029], wherein the chamber liner (204 and lower liner) extends from above a top of the susceptor to below the susceptor (see fig 2), and wherein the gap extends along the bottom surface of the reaction chamber (see annotated location x) [fig 2 & 0029, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Shibata to comprise a chamber liner, as in Nguyen’024, to prevent byproducts from directly depositing on the chamber wall [Nguyen’263 – 0002].
Furthermore, similar to Shibata, Nguyen’024 teaches a remote plasma unit (146) may be coupled to the chamber in any location desired [0029]. Therefore, annotated location x is one such obvious location.
Shibata modified by Nguyen’024 does not specifically disclose the gap configured to fluidly couple to the cleaning gas opening.
Fukiage teaches a gap (plasma supply space, 220) configured to fluidly couple to the cleaning gas opening (210) [fig 2A-2B & col 5, lines 54-61].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gap (at annotated location x) of modified Shibata to fluidly couple to the cleaning gas opening, as in Fukiage, because such a configuration effectively allows for the plasma species to flow into the chamber [Fukiage – col 5, lines 54-61].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Shibata teaches the cleaning gas opening (opening of 32) is below the susceptor (position is not limitative – for example may be effected from positions of different heights of the chamber side wall 12b) [Shibata - fig 4 & 0098, 0103] and above the gap (may be coupled to the chamber in any location desired) [Nguyen’024 - 0029].
Regarding claim 9:
Shibata teaches a shower plate (20) to be constructed and arranged to face the susceptor (18) [fig 4 & 0102-0103].
Regarding claims 10-11:
Shibata teaches a second cleaning gas line (33) disposed between the remote plasma unit (30) and the shower plate (20) [fig 4 & 0103]; and wherein the second cleaning gas line (33) is provided with a process gas line (via 28) to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the shower plate (20) [fig 4 & 0103].
Regarding claims 12-13:
Shibata teaches the cleaning gas line (32) and the second cleaning gas line (33) are coupled to a central cleaning gas line (line connected to outlet of 30) [fig 4 & 0103].
Shibata does not specifically disclose a second reaction chamber fluidly coupled to the central cleaning line.
Nguyen’024 teaches a second reaction chamber fluidly coupled to the central cleaning line (single remote plasma system, 146, is shared between two process chambers) [fig 3 & 0033].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the central cleaning line of Shibata to be fluidly coupled to a second reaction chamber, as in Nguyen’024, to reducing an overall footprint and cost of the apparatus [Nguyen’024 – 0028].
Regarding claims 14-15:
Shibata teaches the cleaning gas line (32) and the second cleaning gas line (33) are coupled to a central cleaning gas line (line connected to outlet of 30) [fig 4 & 0103].
Shibata does not specifically disclose a second reaction chamber fluidly coupled to the central cleaning line.
Nguyen’024 teaches a second reaction chamber fluidly coupled to the central cleaning line (single remote plasma system, 146, is shared between two process chambers) [fig 3 & 0033].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the central cleaning line of Shibata to be fluidly coupled to a second reaction chamber, as in Nguyen’024, to reducing an overall footprint and cost of the apparatus [Nguyen’024 – 0028].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 3, 8-11, and 14-15 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 3, 8-11, and 14-15 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 3 and 8.
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does NOT set forth a reasoned argument as to why the combination of references fail to teach the limitations of the claim. Applicant merely underlines limitations and makes a conclusory statement that the individual references fail to teach said limitations.
It is noted that all limitations are addressed in the body of the rejection above and are taught by the combination of references. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xi et al (US 2003/0198754) teaches a gap provided between a bottom of the reaction chamber and a bottom of the chamber liner [fig 1].
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