DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3
A. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4
A. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0264516 (“Fujikawa”). 4
B. Claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,992,301 (“Shishiguchi”). 10
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 13
A. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of US 2017/0051408 (“Takagi”). 13
B. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Shishiguchi in view of JP 2012-023073 A (“Makoto”). 14
C. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Shishiguchi in view of JP 2011-29441-A (“Inada”). 16
V. Response to Arguments 17
A. Fujikawa 17
B. Inada 19
Conclusion 19
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
A. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 10 read,
8. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein the first opening and the second opening are configured such that the gas supplied from the second opening toward the peripheral edge of the substrate flows to cancel a flow of the gas from the first opening toward the peripheral edge of the substrate, within an in-plane region of the substrate.
10. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein the first opening and the second opening are configured such that the gas supplied from the second opening toward the peripheral edge of the substrate flows to suppress a flow of the gas from the first opening toward the peripheral edge of the substrate.
Fig. 6 of the Instant Application shows that the first opening 243a directs gas to at least a portion of the periphery of the wafer in direct line with the opening, as well as to the center of the wafer. In addition, the Instant Application shows that the flow from the second openings 243b neither “cancel” nor “suppress” said flow of gas directed at the portion of the periphery of the substrate at which gas flows from the first opening 243a.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0264516 (“Fujikawa”).
With regard to claim 1, Fujikawa discloses, for example in Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, and 12-14,
1. (Currently Amended) A gas supplier comprising:
[1] a nozzle [41 in Figs. 2, 3, 8; 40 in Fig. 9 (¶ 55); 64 in Figs. 13 and 14 (¶¶ 60-61)] that supplies gas [i.e. “forming gas” (¶ 28)] to a process chamber 11 in which a substrate W is arranged [¶¶ 27, 28, 31, 55, 60, 61],
[2] wherein the nozzle 41, 40, 64 comprises a first opening 42 and a second opening 43, 63 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate W,
[3] wherein the first opening 42 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas”] toward a center of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61] ,
[4] wherein the second opening 43, 63 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas”] toward a peripheral edge of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas [i.e. “forming gas”] supplied from the second opening 43, 63 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 42 [as shown in Figs. 8 and 12-14; ¶¶ 32, 60, 61].
With regard to claims 2-4, Fujikawa further discloses,
2. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein a flow rate of the gas supplied from the second opening is 0.7 or more and 49.0 or less with respect to a flow rate of the gas supplied from the first opening [i.e. ratio of flow rates is 1 in Fig. 8 because “[t]he diameter of the front gas discharge holes 42 and the diameter of the rear gas discharge holes 43 are equal to each other” (¶ 32)].
3. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein an area of the second opening 43 is 0.7 or more and 11.1 or less with respect to an area of the first opening 42 [i.e. ratio of areas is 1 in Fig. 8 because “[t]he diameter of the front gas discharge holes 42 and the diameter of the rear gas discharge holes 43 are equal to each other” (¶ 32)].
4. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1,
[1] wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 43 are made in a circular shape [as shown in Figs. 3 and 9], and
[2] wherein a hole diameter of the second opening 43 is 0.85 or more and 3.3 or less with respect to a hole diameter of the first opening 42 [“[t]he diameter of the front gas discharge holes 42 and the diameter of the rear gas discharge holes 43 are equal to each other” (¶ 32)].
Although the limitations are inherently disclosed in Fujikawa, claim 2, as currently drafted, is merely a statement of intended use that fails to require a structural feature, as there may be any number of structural means for controlling the relative flow rates output from the first and second openings. (See MPEP 2114(II).) The burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove that the flow rate out of equal size openings is not equal. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claim 6, Fujikawa further discloses,
6. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1,
[1] wherein the second opening 63 is installed in a plural number [as shown in Figs. 12-14], and
[2] wherein at least one selected from the group of flow rates of gases supplied from the plurality of respective second openings, hole diameters of the plurality of respective second openings, and areas of the plurality of respective second openings are substantially the same [¶ 32].
With regard to claim 7, bearing in mind the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), above, Fujikawa further discloses,
7. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1,
[1] wherein the nozzle 41, 40, 64 is arranged in the process chamber 11 so as to extend in a vertical direction with respect to the surface of the substrate W [as shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 9], the gas flowing in a vertical direction [as shown in Fig. 1],
[2] wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 43, 63 are installed on a wall of the nozzle 41, 40, 64, [as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, and 12-14], and
[3] wherein the gas supplier is configured to disperse and supply the gas in a direction intersecting the direction in which the gas flows in the vertical direction [as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, and 12-14].
With regard to claims 8 and 10, Fujikawa further discloses,
8. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 43, 63 are configured such that the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 toward the peripheral edge of the substrate W flows to cancel a flow of the gas from the first opening 42 toward the peripheral edge of the substrate W, within an in-plane region of the substrate W.
10. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 43, 63 are configured such that the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 toward the peripheral edge of the substrate W flows to suppress a flow of the gas from the first opening 42 toward the peripheral edge of the substrate W.
Each of claims 8 and 10 is primarily a statement of intended use that fails to require a structural feature beyond the configuration of the claimed first and second openings configured in a predetermine angle to each other to direct the flow of gas toward the center and periphery of the substrate that is claimed in claim 1. (See MPEP 2114(II).)
Bearing in mind the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 8 and 10 (supra), inasmuch as the first 42 and second 43, 63 openings in Fujikawa are configured at a predetermined angle to each other to direct the flow of gas toward the center (opening 42) and periphery (opening 43, 63) of the substrate W, it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that the gas supplied from the second opening(s) 43, 63 “cancels” or “suppresses” at least a portion of the gas from the first opening 42 from reaching at least a portion of the peripheral edge of the substrate W because of the flow from the second opening(s) 43, 63 would occupy the peripheral area, thereby preventing or reducing the gas from the first opening from reaching at least a portion of the periphery of the substrate W. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claim 9, Fujikawa further discloses,
9. (Currently Amended) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein the second opening 43, 63 is configured to form a flow of the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 toward the peripheral edge of the substrate W within an in-plane region of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61].
Fujikawa states,
The film forming gas discharged from the rear gas discharge holes 43 is discharged to the diffusion region 20. The film forming gas collides with the rear side wall of the inner tube 13 as described with reference to FIG. 7 and flows forward along the side wall while being heat-absorbed by the side wall of the inner tube 13. Thus, the PMDA monomer contained in the film forming gas is adsorbed by the peripheral edge portion of the wafer W in a relatively large amount.
(Fujikawa: ¶ 49; emphasis added)
Fujikawa states the gas supply along the outside edge of the wafer W adsorbs on the peripheral edge of the wafer, which includes an “in-plane region” of said wafer W. See also Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraphs [0060]-[0061] of Fujikawa.
With regard to claims 12 and 15, Fujikawa further discloses
12. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1,
[1] wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 43, 63 are installed in a plural number [plural in number in a vertical direction as shown in Figs. 3 and 9 or by plural gas supply pipes as shown in Fig. 12], and
[2] wherein gases supplied from the respective first openings 42 are mixed with each other [at least at the exit slits 15 or as shown in Fig. 12].
15. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 12, wherein the gases supplied from the respective first openings are mixed before reaching the center of the substrate W [as shown in Fig. 12].
With regard to claim 15, inasmuch as the limitations in feature [2] of claim 12 and claim 15 are statements of intended use, and because the flow from the first openings 42 in Fig. 12 are shown to mix, it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that there is inherently at least some mixing of the gas streams from the openings 42 before reaching the center of the substrate W because the flow out of the openings 42 is not limited to the narrow path of the arrow shown, as there inherently will be spreading in all directions of the gases from the circular-shaped openings 42 in a direction away from the axes of the arrows shown in Fig. 12, at least because of the flow at the perimeter of the openings 42 being necessarily different from that at the center, as dictated by the flow dynamics of a gas through a circular opening. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
Claim 16 reads,
16. (Currently Amended) A processing apparatus [title; Fig. 1], comprising:
[1] a first gas supplier a nozzle 41, 40, 64 that supplies gas to a process chamber 11 in which a substrate W is arranged,
[2] wherein the nozzle 41, 40, 64 comprises a first opening 42 and a second opening 43, 63 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate W,
[3] wherein the first opening 42 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas” (¶ 28)] toward a center of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61] ,
[4] wherein the second opening 43, 63 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas” (¶ 28)] toward a peripheral edge of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 42 [as shown in Figs. 8 and 12-14; ¶¶ 32, 60, 61].
Each of the features of claim 16 has been addressed under claim 1.
With regard to claim 17, Fujikawa further discloses,
17. (Original) The processing apparatus of Claim 16, wherein an angle formed by the direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 with respect to the direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 42 is determined based on an arrangement relationship between the first opening 42 of the first gas supplier and the substrate W [as shown in at least Figs. 3, 8, 9, 12-14].
Claim 18 reads
18. (Original) The processing apparatus of Claim 16,
[1] wherein the first gas supplier is installed in a plural number, and
[2] wherein the respective gases supplied from the first openings of the first gas suppliers are mixed with each other.
See discussion under claim 12.
Claim 20 reads,
20. (Currently Amended) A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1] processing a substrate by supplying a gas to a process chamber using a gas supplier including a nozzle that supplies gas to a process chamber in which a substrate is arranged,
[2] wherein the nozzle 41, 40, 64 comprises a first opening 42 and a second opening 43, 63 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate W,
[3] wherein the first opening 42 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas” (¶ 28)] toward a center of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61] ,
[4] wherein the second opening 43, 63 is configured to supply the gas [i.e. “forming gas” (¶ 28)] toward a peripheral edge of the substrate W [¶¶ 49, 60, 61], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 43, 63 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 42 [as shown in Figs. 8 and 12-14; ¶¶ 32, 60, 61].
Each of the features of claim 20 has been addressed under claim 1.
B. Claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,992,301 (“Shishiguchi”).
With regard to claim 1, Shishiguchi discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 6,
1. (Currently Amended) A gas supplier comprising:
[1] a nozzle 91 that supplies gas to a process chamber 7, 11 in which a substrate 5 is arranged [col. 5, lines 43-60],
[2] wherein the nozzle 91 comprises a first opening 94 and a second opening 95, 96 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate 5,
[3] wherein the first opening 94 is configured to supply the gas toward a center of the substrate 5 [“A gas-emitting-axis 94a of the gas-emission hole 94 passes just above the center of the Si wafer 5.” (col. 4, lines 26-28)],
[4] wherein the second opening 95, 96 is configured to supply the gas toward a peripheral edge of the substrate 5 [as shown in Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 28-38], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 95, 96 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening [as shown in Figs. 2B and 3; col. 4, lines 28-38].
With regard to claim 5, Shishiguchi further discloses,
5. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein an angle formed by the direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 96 with respect to the direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 94 is 20 degrees or more and 30 degrees or less [as shown in Fig. 3].
Shishiguchi states,
A gas-emitting-axis 96a of the gas-emission hole 96 is deviated from the center of the Si wafer 5 toward its right-hand side. The angle between this gas-emitting-axis 96a and the line connecting both the centers of the Si wafer 5 and the main nozzle 91 is designed at 30°.
(Shishiguchi: col. 4, lines 33-38; emphasis added)
Because “gas emitting axis 94a” of hole 94 passes over the center of the Si wafer 5, the angle between gas-emitting axes 94a and 96a is also 30°, as shown in Fig. 3.
With regard to claims 12 and 14, Shishiguchi further discloses,
12. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1,
[1] wherein the first opening 94 and the second opening 95, 96 are installed in a plural number [as shown in Figs. 1, 2A, and 6], and
[2] wherein gases supplied from the respective first openings 94 are mixed with each other.
14. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 12, wherein the gases supplied from the respective first openings 94 are mixed before reaching the substrate 5.
Because the first openings 94 are spaced 35 mm from the edge of the wafers 5 (col. 4, lines 7-9), it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that there is at least some mixing from the respective first openings 94 before reaching the substrate 5. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Shishiguchi discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 6,
16. (Currently Amended) A processing apparatus [Fig. 1; title, abstract], comprising:
[1] a first gas supplier including a nozzle 91 that supplies gas to a process chamber 7, 11 in which a substrate 5 is arranged [col. 5, lines 43-60],
[2] wherein the nozzle 91 comprises a first opening 94 and a second opening 95, 96 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate 5,
[3] wherein the first opening 94 is configured to supply the gas toward a center of the substrate 5 [“A gas-emitting-axis 94a of the gas-emission hole 94 passes just above the center of the Si wafer 5.” (col. 4, lines 26-28)],
[4] wherein the second opening 95, 96 is configured to supply the gas toward a peripheral edge of the substrate 5 [as shown in Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 28-38], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 95, 96 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening [as shown in Figs. 2B and 3; col. 4, lines 28-38].
17. (Original) The processing apparatus of Claim 16, wherein an angle formed by the direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 95, 96 with respect to the direction of the gas supplied from the first opening 94 is determined based on an arrangement relationship between the first opening 94 of the first gas supplier and the substrate 5 [as explained at col. 4, lines 3-37 associated with Fig. 3].
With regard to claim 20, Shishiguchi discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 6,
20. (Currently Amended) A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device [i.e. a CVD coated Si wafer 5 (title, abstract)], comprising:
[1] processing a substrate 5 by supplying a gas to a process chamber 7, 11 using a gas supplier including a nozzle 91 that supplies the gas to the process chamber 7, 11 in which the substrate 5 is arranged,
[2] wherein the nozzle 91 comprises a first opening 94 and a second opening 95, 96 that are arranged in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate 5,
[3] wherein the first opening 94 is configured to supply the gas toward a center of the substrate 5 [“A gas-emitting-axis 94a of the gas-emission hole 94 passes just above the center of the Si wafer 5.” (col. 4, lines 26-28)],
[4] wherein the second opening 95, 96 is configured to supply the gas toward a peripheral edge of the substrate 5 [as shown in Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 28-38], and
[5] wherein a direction of the gas supplied from the second opening 95, 96 forms a predetermined angle with respect to a direction of the gas supplied from the first opening [as shown in Figs. 2B and 3; col. 4, lines 28-38].
IV. 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 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.
A. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of US 2017/0051408 (“Takagi”).
Claim 13 reads,
13. The gas supplier of Claim 12, wherein
[1] a plurality of supply pipe portions in which the first openings and the second openings are formed are installed, and
[2] the plurality of supply pipe portions are connected by a U-shaped or Y-shaped connecting portion.
The prior art of Fujikawa, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claims 1 and 12.
Fujikawa does not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Takagi, like Fujikawa, batch wafer processing apparatus (Takagi: Fig. 1) having a gas suppliers 249a, 249b with plural openings 250 (Takagi: Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6A, 6B). The gas suppliers 249a, 249b meet the limitations of claim 13, as follows:
13. The gas supplier of Claim 12, wherein
[1] a plurality of supply pipe portions [as shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6A, 6B of Takagi] in which the first openings 250 and the second openings 205 are formed are installed, and
[2] the plurality of supply pipe portions are connected by a U-shaped or Y-shaped connecting portion 273 [Takagi: ¶ 70].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the gas supply pipes 41 of Fujikawa having the first and second openings to have the U-shaped configuration shown in Takagi “so that it is possible to lengthen the heating time or the distance of the processing gas introduced into the gas supply nozzle, and it is possible to uniformly supply the activated processing gas to the wafer”, as explained in Takagi (at ¶ 166). As such, Takagi may be seen as an improvement to Fujikawa, in this aspect. (See MPEP 2143.)
B. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Shishiguchi in view of JP 2012-023073 A (“Makoto”).
Claim 11 reads,
11. (Original) The gas supplier of Claim 1, wherein a flow rate of the gas supplied from the second opening, a hole diameter of the second opening, and an area of the second opening are made larger than a flow rate of the gas supplied from the first opening, a hole diameter of the first opening, and an area of the first opening, respectively.
The prior art of Shishiguchi, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 1.
Shishiguchi does not disclose different diameters/areas or flow rates for the first 94 and second 95, 96 openings.
Makoto, like Shishiguchi, teaches a batch CVD wafer processing apparatus for coating a plurality of wafers 200 vertically stacked in a wafer boat (Makoto: Figs. 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18; ¶¶ 21-22, 194), including plural nozzles 2321c, 2321d, with the nozzle 2321c having openings 2322 directing gas toward the center of the substrates 200 and the nozzle 2321d having openings 2322 directing gas toward the periphery of the substrate (Makoto: ¶ 178; Fig. 16). Makoto teaches another embodiment in Fig. 17 for supplying gas to each of the periphery and center of the wafer 200, in which the diameter of a second opening 2322b in second nozzle 2321e has a larger diameter than the first opening 2322a in the first nozzle 2321c, the larger diameter opening 2322b preventing the gas supply from reaching the center of the wafer 200 (Makoto: ¶ 184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the diameter of at least one of the second openings, 95 and 96, larger than the diameter of the first opening 94 or, otherwise, to combine the second openings, 95 and 96, into a single opening of larger diameter, in order to supply gas to the periphery and the center in order to form a uniform thickness across the substrate 5, as taught in Makoto: ¶ 184). In other words, the diameter of the openings sets the extent of projection of the gas out of the opening. As such, with regard to the relative dimensions of the first and second of opening diameters in the nozzles, Makoto may be seen as the substitution of one configuration for another, with the same expected result of forming a CVD coating of uniform thickness across the wafer.
The diameter of the opening sets the area, (i.e. area = πr2); therefore, a larger diameter opening necessarily has a larger opening area than that of a smaller diameter opening.
In addition a larger diameter opening inherently allows a larger flow rate than a smaller diameter opening in the same nozzle, therefore having the same pressure, at least as evidenced by instant claim 11. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
This is all of the features of claim 11.
C. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Shishiguchi in view of JP 2011-29441-A (“Inada”).
Claim 19 reads,
19. (Original) The processing apparatus of Claim 16, further comprising: second gas suppliers installed on both sides of the first gas supplier and configured to supply a gas different from the gases supplied from the first gas supplier to the process chamber.
The prior art of Shishiguchi, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 16.
Shishiguchi teaches a second gas supplier 81(8) installed on one side of the first gas supplier 91(9) that supplies a different gas (Shishiguchi: col. 4, lines 38-41).
Shishiguchi does not teach second gas suppliers on both sides of the gas supplier 91(9).
Inada, like Shishiguchi, teaches a batch CVD wafer processing apparatus for coating a plurality of wafers 10 vertically stacked in a wafer boat (Inada: Fig. 1; ¶¶ 1-3), including plural nozzles 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d (Inada: ¶¶ 25, 26; Figs. 1 and 2) for supplying gases to the wafers 10. Inada further teaches that the center two nozzles 22a and 22b provide reactive gases, while each of nozzles 23c and 23d, positioned on either side of each of nozzles 22a and 22b, provide an inert gas (Inada: ¶¶ 25-26; Fig. 2). Inada explained the benefit of using the inert gas supply nozzles 24c and 24d is to sandwich the reaction gas flows from nozzles 24a and 24b over the wafer 10 and thereby increase the overall amount of reactive gas over the wafers 10 (Inada: ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include inert reactive gas nozzles on either side of the first 91(9) and second 81(8) reactive gas nozzles in Shishiguchi, in order to sandwich the reaction gas flows from nozzles 91 and 81 over the wafers 5 and thereby increase the overall amount of reactive gas over the wafers 5, as taught by Inada (Inada: id.). As such, Inada may be seen as a benefit to Shishiguchi in this aspect. (See MPEP 2143.)
V. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26//2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
A. Fujikawa
Applicant argues that Fujikawa does not anticipate claim 1, as currently drafted, for allegedly failing to disclose that
However, the gas supplied from the gas outlet (63) formed perpendicular to the gas outlet (42) toward the center of the wafer (W) in Fujikawa is merely supplied along the outside of the edge of the wafer (W), but not toward a periphery or edge of the upper side of the substrate (see FIGS. 8, 13 and 14 of Fujikawa below). Therefore, Fujikawa fails to disclose or suggest a configuration in which the gas supplied from the second opening is supplied toward the peripheral edge of the substrate of amended Claim 1.
(Remarks: p. 12; emphasis added)
First, Applicant clearly acknowledges that the gas is supplied to the edge of the wafer. The “outside edge of the wafer” in Fujikawa is the same the “peripheral edge of the substrate” in claim 1, absent explicit claim language making the distinction, which does not currently exist in the claim.
Second, there is no requirement in claim 1 that the gas from the second opening direct gas, to the upper side, i.e. “a periphery or edge of the upper side of the substrate”, as argued by Applicant (id.).
Third, even if, arguendo, claim 1 were amended to clarify (1) a distinction between an “outside edge of the wafer” and a “peripheral edge of the substrate” and/or (2) directing gas to “a periphery or edge of the upper side of the substrate”, Fujikawa explicitly discloses this in each of Figs. 8, 13, and 14 with the dotted-line arrow showing the “film forming gas” supplied “toward a peripheral edge of the substrate” as required in claim 1. Fujikawa further states that the gas supposed from the second opening 43 is adsorbed on the “peripheral edge”—which necessarily includes the upper peripheral edge—of the wafer W:
The film forming gas discharged from the rear gas discharge holes 43 is discharged to the diffusion region 20. The film forming gas collides with the rear side wall of the inner tube 13 as described with reference to FIG. 7 and flows forward along the side wall while being heat-absorbed by the side wall of the inner tube 13. Thus, the PMDA monomer contained in the film forming gas is adsorbed by the peripheral edge portion of the wafer W in a relatively large amount.
(Fujikawa: ¶ 49; emphasis added)
Fujikawa states the gas supply along the outside edge of the wafer adsorbs on the peripheral edge of the wafer in regard to the claimed “second openings” 63 in each of Figs. 13 and 14 (Fujikawa: ¶¶ 60-61).
As to the asserted “advantage” regarding the suppression of return flow in the Instant Application (Remarks: paragraph bridging pp. 12-13) is directed to a statement of intended use of the claimed structure and fail to require a structure. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (See MPEP 2114(II).) In addition, Applicant fails to claim a structure that suppresses return flow. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
B. Inada
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 16, and 20 renders the rejection over Inada alone moot.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814