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 04/27/2026.
4. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 4, and 7 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankarakrishnan et al (US 2010/0012273) 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:
Sankarakrishnan teaches a substrate processing apparatus (200) [fig 1-2 & 0029], comprising: a plurality of ALD reactors (202) [fig 1-2 & 0025, 0029], each ALD reactor (202) comprising: a reaction chamber (walls defining 202) [fig 2 & 0029]; a susceptor (230) positioned within the reaction chamber (walls defining 202) [fig 2 & 0030]; a remote plasma unit (RPS, 262) disposed above the reaction chamber (walls defining 202) [fig 2 & 0034]; a cleaning gas line (292) configured to fluidly connect the remote plasma unit (RPS, 262) to the reaction chamber (walls defining 202) [fig 2 & 0035]; wherein the cleaning gas line (292) is connected to the sidewall of the reaction chamber (extend downward through the chamber walls) through a cleaning gas opening (296) located below the susceptor (230) [fig 2 & 0035].
Sankarakrishnan does not specifically disclose 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 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 apparatus of Sankarakrishnan to comprise a chamber liner, as in Nguyen’024, to prevent byproducts from directly depositing on the chamber wall [Nguyen’263 – 0002].
Furthermore, 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 (It is noted this is the location depicted in fig 2 of Sankarakrishnan).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sankarakrishnan 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 Sankarakrishnan 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].
Although taught by the combination of references, the claim limitations “ALD” and “wherein the plurality of holes is configured to introduce the cleaning gas into a lower region of the reaction chamber below the susceptor” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Specifically, “ALD” merely describes the process to be performed in the chamber (ALD is a type of CVD) [Sankarakrishnan – 0025], and the claimed location is the location of the plurality of holes fluidly coupled to the cleaning gas opening in the modified structure [Sankarakrishnan – fig 2]. Furthermore, said location substantially prevents the stagnation of cleaning plasma below the susceptor and the cleaning efficiency below the susceptor can be improved [Sankarakrishnan – 0035]
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Sankarakrishnan 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 Sankarakrishnan 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:
Sankarakrishnan teaches a shower plate (270) to be constructed and arranged to face the susceptor (230), wherein the shower plate (270) spans a top surface of the reaction chamber (walls defining 202) [fig 2 & 0034].
Regarding claims 5-6:
Sankarakrishnan teaches a second cleaning gas line (260) disposed upstream of the shower plate (270) and between the remote plasma unit (262) and the shower plate (270) [fig 2 & 0034]; and wherein the second cleaning gas line (260) is provided with a process gas line (via 261) to supply a process gas to the reaction chamber through the shower plate (270) [fig 2 & 0034].
Regarding claims 12-13:
Sankarakrishnan teaches the cleaning gas line (292) and the second cleaning gas line (260) are coupled to a central cleaning gas line (line connected to outlet of 262) [fig 2 & 0034-0035]; and a second reaction chamber (walls defining second 202) fluidly coupled to the central cleaning line (line connected to outlet of 262) [fig 2 & 0030, 0034-0035].
8. Claim(s) 7-11 and 14-15 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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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
9. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim(s) 7 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim(s) 7.
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-6 and 12-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Sankarakrishnan et al (US 2010/0012273) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 7-11 and 14-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references, whether alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “wherein the gap extends along the bottom surface of the rection chamber and is configured to fluidly couple to the cleaning gas opening”. Specifically, applicant argues that Nguyen does not teach a gap beneath the upper liner 204.
In response, it is noted that Nguyen clearly depicts a gap and the examiner specifically pointed to the gap in the annotated drawings. Nevertheless, the examiner has circled the annular gap in Nguyen.
PNG
media_image2.png
613
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Fukiage gives no motivation to place the gap in a lower region beneath the susceptor and does not suggest that a location beneath a susceptor would be effective at allowing plasma species to flow into the chamber.
In response, it is noted that nowhere does the examiner rely on Fukiage to teach the location of the gap. Fukiage is merely relied upon to teach that coupling a gap behind a liner to a cleaning gas opening effectively allows for the plasma species to flow into the chamber [Fukiage – col 5, lines 54-61] because one may modify the liner to include a plurality of holes in communication with a gap behind a liner, as in Fukiage, to control flow direction, flow rate, or both for the remote plasma [Fukiage – col 6, lines 13-22].
The location of the gap is taught by Shibata modified by Nguyen (see annotated location x). Specifically, Shibata teaches the position of the cleaning gas opening is not limitative [fig 4 & 0098]. 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hawrylchak et al (US 2017/0294292) teaches a plurality of reactors, each reactor comprising: a remote plasma unit disposed above the reaction chamber [fig 1].
13. 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.
14. 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
Prosecution Insights