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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A). Young teaches a substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) comprising: a processing chamber (12; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) configured to process a substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) ; a substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) provided in the processing chamber (12; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) and configured to support a substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) ; a plasma source (24; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) configured to generate an electric field in a plasma processing region between a surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3) facing the substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) and the substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) , the electric field causing formation of a plasma; and process gas nozzles (34b-42b, 34c-42c; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63; Applicant’s 33,36; Figure 4; [0027]-[0028]) via which a gas is to be delivered to the plasma processing region, the process gas nozzles (34b-42b, 34c-42c; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63; Applicant’s 33,36; Figure 4; [0027]-[0028]) including a gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4) via which a gas mixture of an additive gas and a noble gas for forming the plasma is delivered, and a noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) via which the noble gas is to be delivered in a direction parallel (β=0; “…may be zero, with the gas being injected in direction substantially planar to the wafer surface.”; column 6; lines 47-49) to the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3), to contact the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3), such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3) and the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4), wherein the noble gas is not mixed (plenums 42a-c are unmixed; Figure 4) with the additive gas, and wherein the noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) is provided at a location closer to the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3) than the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4) is, as claimed by claim 1. The above and below italicized text are considered claim requirements of intended use in the pending apparatus claims. The gas(es) used by the claimed apparatus are not considered to further limit the claimed structure for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
With respect to Applicant’s claimed “..such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle..”, Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Young further teaches:
The substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4) and the noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) extend in parallel (alpha, 62; Figure 4) to each other to be along a planar direction of the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 3
The substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein a flow rate of the noble gas that is delivered via the noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) is greater than a flow rate of the gas mixture that is delivered via the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 4. Further, Young discusses variable flow rates in at least column 4; lines 1-11.
The substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein the noble gas includes argon gas or helium gas, as claimed by claim 6
The substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein the additive gas includes at least one of ammonia gas, oxygen gas (column 6; lines 59-63), or hydrogen gas, as claimed by claim 7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A) in view of Strang; Eric J. (US 7740704 B2). Young is discussed above and only discusses the control of process gas flow rates. As a result, Young does not teach the substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, further comprising a controller configured to control delivery of the gas from each of the process gas nozzles (34b-42b, 34c-42c; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63; Applicant’s 33,36; Figure 4; [0027]-[0028]), set a first timing at which the noble gas is delivered via the noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) to be before a second timing at which the gas mixture is delivered via the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4), and cause the noble gas to be continuously delivered via the noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3) during a period in which the gas mixture is delivered via the gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4).
Strang teaches a similar wafer processing apparatus (Figure 1) including a controller (150) for controlling gas injection timing (Figure 3) for nozzles (144A-C; Figure 5,6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Young to add Strang’s nozzle gas injection controller (150) at optimized timing.
Motivation for Young to add Strang’s nozzle gas injection controller (150) at optimized timing is for improving deposition characteristics as taught by Strang (column 2; line 53 – column 3; line 5).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A) in view of Kato; Hitoshi et al.( US 20190360093 A1). Young is discussed above. Young does not teach
The substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3) in the plasma source (24; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) is formed of quartz, as claimed by claim 9
Young’s substrate (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) processing apparatus (14; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) according to claim 1, wherein Young’s substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) includes recesses in which respective substrates (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) are accommodated in Young’s processing chamber (12; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) , and a rotary table configured to revolve Young’s respective substrates (22; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) accommodated in the recesses, and wherein Young’s processing chamber (12; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) includes Young’s plasma source (24; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) above a region where the recesses pass, Young’s gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4), and Young’s noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 10
Kato also teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1) including a rotatable and recessed substrate support (2; Figure 1,3; [0042]) and quartz facing surface (710; Figure 1; [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Young to replace Young’s substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) with Kato’s substrate support (2; Figure 1,3; [0042]) and use quartz as a facing surface as taught by Kato.
Motivation for Young to replace Young’s substrate support (20; Figure 1; column 2; line 65- column 3; line 15) with Kato’s substrate support (2; Figure 1,3; [0042]) and use quartz as a facing surface as taught by Kato is for “improving in-plane uniformity” as taught by Kato ([0087]) and for “little dust and high heat resistance” as taught by Kato ([0123]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
As described in the above-noted passage, and shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of Young, the nozzles 34 may inject the gas along the top plate 18 (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Young). The Office Action appears to respectively equate the nozzles 34 and the top plate 18 of Young with the noble gas nozzle and the facing surface, as recited in claim 1 as examined. However, according to Young, the gas is not delivered in a direction parallel to the facing surface to contact the top plate 18, such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the top plate 18 and the gas mixture nozzle (see, for example, Fig. I of Young).
Accordingly, the above features of amended claim 1, namely "a noble gas nozzle via which the noble gas is to be delivered in a direction parallel to the facing surface to contact the facing surface, such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle, wherein the noble gas is not mixed with the additive gas, and wherein the noble gas nozzle is provided at a location closer to the facing surface than the gas mixture nozzle is," are a distinction over Young.
“
In response, the Examiner’s grounds of rejection counter Applicant’s assertions. The Examiner again asserts that Young teaches each of Young’s three possible, unmixed gas, nozzles being equivalent to:
process gas nozzles (34b-42b, 34c-42c; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63; Applicant’s 33,36; Figure 4; [0027]-[0028])
gas mixture nozzle (34b-42b; Figure 4,5; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used.”- column 6; lines 59-63-Applicant’s 33; Figure 4)
noble gas nozzle (34a-42a; Figure 4,5; “argon and silane”; column 6; lines 59-63; “However, various other gaseous substances may be used”-Applicant’s 36; Figure 4; [0050]-Applicant’s 36; Figure 3)
whereas Young’s facing surface (18; Figure 1) is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s facing surface 93; Figure 3.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertion, Young’s noble gas is delivered in a direction parallel (β=0; “…may be zero, with the gas being injected in direction substantially planar to the wafer surface.”; column 6; lines 47-49) to the facing surface (18; Figure 1-Applicant’s 93; Figure 3). With respect to Applicant’s claimed “..such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle..”, Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plasma reactors with tubular gas injection include at least US 20080115728 A1; US 7806078 B2; US 20030000924 A1; US 20160083844 A1
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights