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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 30, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the gas holes of the noble gas nozzle include elongated holes extending along a longitudinal direction of the noble gas nozzle” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A) in view of Yoshimori; Kazuya et al. (US 20170110326 A1). 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 to be 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]) 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), 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]) 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, 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]) 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), 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]) is configured to deliver the noble gas to form a flow layer of the noble gas between the facing surface 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) - 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).
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 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]) 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
Young does not teach Yong’s nozzles with gas holes (Applicant’s 36a; Figure 3) arranged in respective longitudinal directions, as claimed by claim 1. As result, Young also does not teach the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the gas holes (Applicant’s 36a; Figure 3) of 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]) include elongated holes extending along a longitudinal direction of 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]), as claimed by claim 12
Yoshimori also teaches a wafer processing apparatus (Figure 1, 3) with similar nozzles (5A-F; Figure 1,3,5) to Young and each having gas holes (6B; Figures 1,3,5-Applicant’s 36a; Figure 3) arranged in respective longitudinal directions, as claimed by claim 1.
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 gas holes, at optimized geometry, to Young’s nozzles as taught by Yoshimori.
Motivation for Young to add gas holes, at optimized geometry, to Young’s nozzles as taught by Yoshimori is for introducing plural unmixed gases at optimized angles of injection as taught by Yoshimori ([0031]). Further, it is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A) and Yoshimori; Kazuya et al. (US 20170110326 A1) and further in view of Strang; Eric J. (US 7740704 B2). Young and Yoshimori are discussed above and only discusses the control of process gas flow rates. As a result, Young and Yoshimori do 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]) 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]) 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) and Yoshimori; Kazuya et al. (US 20170110326 A1) and further in view of Kato; Hitoshi et al.( US 20190360093 A1). Young and Yoshimori are discussed above. Young and Yoshimori do 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]), 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]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young; Lydia J. et al. (US 5851294 A) in view of Yoshimori; Kazuya et al. (US 20170110326 A1). Young and Yoshimori are discussed above. Young does not teach the relative distances between Young’s nozzles. As a result, Young does not teach the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a distance between 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]) is shorter than a diameter of each of 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]).
Yoshimori further teaches using “M” injectors thus optimizing the relative spacing between injectors ([0015]).
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 more of Young’s injectors and/or optimize the spacing between Young’s injectors as taught by Yoshimori.
Motivation for Young to add more of Young’s injectors and/or optimize the spacing between Young’s injectors as taught by Yoshimori is for optimizing gas branches ([0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
As shown in Fig. 4 of Young, nozzles 34, which the Office Action equates with the gas mixture nozzle and the noble gas nozzle as recited in claim 1 as examined, do not have gas holes arranged in respective longitudinal directions. Thus, the applicant submits that Young does not teach "the gas mixture nozzle and the noble gas nozzle ...include gas holes arranged in respective longitudinal directions, and wherein the noble gas nozzle is configured to deliver the noble gas via the gas holes to form a flow layer of the noble gas between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle."
“
In response, the Examiner agrees and notes the above new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant states:
“
With regard to "such that a flow layer of a single nozzle gas is formed between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle" as recited in claim 1 as examined, the Office Action on page 4 asserts that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. However, as discussed above, the structure of Young is not substantially identical to that of amended claim 1. Thus, the applicant respectfully submits that Young's structure does not inherently produce "a flow layer of the noble gas between the facing surface and the gas mixture nozzle."
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. In view of the distinction of claim 1 noted above, at least one claimed element is not present in Young. Hence, Young does not anticipate claim 1.
“
First, the Examiner again notes above that the claimed gas identity is considered intended use. Further, the claimed invention does not structurally distinguish from the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plasma reactors with tubular gas injections include at least US 20080115728 A1; US 7806078 B2; US 20030000924 A1; US 20160083844 A1
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