DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 03/20/2023 is acknowledged. Upon reconsideration, the species requirement is withdrawn so all Group 1 claims are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda (2009/0130829).
Noda teaches a substate processing apparatus comprising:
- a reaction tube including a bottom opening thru which substrates are loaded – see Fig. 1 and related text,
- a first nozzle corresponding to a first region, see more particularly Fig. 9 and related text, in regard to nozzles N1 to 5, and
- a second nozzle arranged to the first region – any of the nozzles N1-N4, wherein the use to supply oxygen is intended use of the apparatus - it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case, the system is capable of use with any gases and is not limited in use, therefore any of the conduits could include oxygen as claimed;
- a third nozzle closer to the bottom – see N5 which when the substrates are raised is close to the seal cap and o-ring 30, 31 meeting the requirements of a heat insulator, the arguments over “dilution gas” are applied as intended use above, and
- an exhaust, line 17 [0047], wherein:
- there is a controller 22 [0048] that controls the steps and
- the controller controls the concentration of hydrogen in gas lines N1 to N5 [0083-90] wherein the teachings in general include controlling a H2 concentration and per [0203] include an embodiment wherein the concentration of H2 from nozzle N5 is lower than N1 (and it would be understood to be diluted with a dilution gas), and
- wherein the first nozzle includes a plurality of multi-hole nozzles including injection holes – see any of N1-N4 particularly with spray holes [0257-28]. In regard to the “divided region”, there are no particular structure requirements in regard to this region and therefore it is met by any region within the range of substrates.
Regarding claim 8, the system is capable of supplying, for example, nitrogen (and inert gas) [0083], but, in any case the claim is intended use (not a controller step).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is again drawn towards intended use – there is no controller step related to the control or requirement for oxygen and therefore without a specific structural requirement, the system can be used in the same manner.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the holes are understood to be opened towards the substrates and parallel as described [0257].
Regarding claim 13, the holes are understood to correspond to the product substrates – particularly wherein the correspondence is not limited.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (2009/0130829).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings are silent on the location of the injection holes, but in general the selection of a particular dimension or shape is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 A. and B. In this case, to arrange the holes in a desired manner would have been obvious wherein the prior art teaches to control a hydrogen concentration at different levels, such hole arrangement would further assist in controlling such concentration at different heights.
Regarding claim 6, as per claim 2 above, the selection of a size (in this case number of wafers) is obvious – there is no demonstrated criticality in selection of a particular number of substrates processed.
Regarding claim 12, as per above, the selection of size/shape is obvious – in this case the manipulation of the number of holes of each is likewise obvious.
Claims 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (2009/0130829) (and in view of Fukuda) in view of Choi (2016/0168704).
The teachings of Noda are described above – the teachings do not give details of the holes on the nozzles are modified at an end of the nozzle. Choi, however, teaches various embodiments in regard to controlling flow through a nozzle to different parts of a reactor (Fig. 1-3 and 7-11). Choi teaches that one manner of controlling flow is to modify the spacing of openings in the nozzle. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to modify the spacing of the holes in the nozzle of Noda as taught by Choi in order to control the flow. While Choi exemplifies a spacing increasing toward the bottom, the total teachings include that the control of the flow is controlled by such spacing and the combined teachings are not limited to one embodiment and/or use in any one process.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, without further guidance specifically by Noda, it would have been obvious likewise based on the teachings of Choi to have the openings arranged as per Choi, in the manner claimed.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (2009/0130829) (and in view of Fukuda) in view of Tateno (2015/0140835).
The teachings of Noda are described above – in claim 1, the Office holds that “heat insulator” is not specifically limited, but, for the purpose of compact prosecution and wherein the claim requires multiple heat insulators, the teachings of Tateno are added. Tateno teaches that it is useful to include heat insulations at the lower end of a substrate stack to control the temperature, see Fig. 1 and related text [0053]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heat insulators of Tateno in the apparatus of Noda for the noted purpose of temperature control. The heat insulators of Tateno include a cover 217b.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (2009/0130829) in view of Fukuda (2010/0035440).
The rejection above is made over Noda, the use of oxygen is not required but in the interest of compact prosecution, the teachings of Fukuda are applied.
All teachings of Noda are applied as above – in this case, Noda does not explicitly teach a second nozzle that provides oxygen, and also does not teach a second nozzle on the opposing side (not explicitly claimed). Fukuda, however, teaches a reaction tube system, see Fig. 12, the system includes a number of nozzles to provide hydrogen, and vary the hydrogen concentration by heigh [0049-50], as well as number of nozzles to provide oxygen. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the second (oxygen) nozzle(s) of Fukuda in the apparatus of Noda as it would provide more variety of processes and/or control of the system for carrying out processes on substrates. Both systems allow for control of the hydrogen concentration by elevation relative to the substrates, the system of Fukuda further including a heat insulation cap 12.
Claims 2, 6, and 10-13 are rejected as per the rejection above over Noda.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Fukuda also teaches that ceiling gas supply nozzles are useful, see Fig. 12 (and as per claim 5 there is an exhaust port at the bottom).
Regarding claim 8, the teachings include O2 as a dilution gas.
Regarding claim 9, as per above, the claim is generally drawn to intended use, however, Noda with Fukuda teaches nozzles on each side of the substrates and Fukuda teaches that diffusion toward the center is controllable [0076].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not reasonably convey the varied arrangement of the holes of the different nozzles as claimed, and to arrange the holes and nozzles as such is beyond routine reconfiguration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715