DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Groups III, claims 13-20 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes the amendment to cancel non-elected claims 1-12 and add new claims 21-32. Claims 21-32 are directed towards elected Group III. Claims 13-32 are pending and examined on the merits.
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 (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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 13-18, 20-22, 24-25, 27-29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application 20240189856 by Kodama et al.
Claim 13: Kodama discloses a method, comprising:
positioning a substrate on a plate (Figure 4 and accompanying text, see e.g. 0024-0026 heating plate with pins);
directing a coating gas through a first gas inlet channel to coat back side edges of the substrate (0027, see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text, discharge port 32);
directing an inert purge gas through a second gas inlet channel to a top surface of the substrate (0029, see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text, discharge port 51a, 43a); and
directing the inert purge gas and the coating gas away from the substrate to an exhaust port (0033, see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text, exhaust path 6,5).
Claim 14: Kodama discloses directing the coating gas through the first gas inlet channel comprises flowing an organosilicon gas to coat the back side edges of the substrate (see 0027 HDMS).
Claim 15: Kodama discloses directing the coating gas through the first gas inlet channel comprises flowing the coating gas away from the substrate so that the coating gas contacts the substrate solely at the back side edges of the substrate (Figure 4 and accompanying text, 0040 related to only on edges on backside “possible to prevent the infiltration of the HMDS vapor to the frontal surface.”).
Claim 16: Kodama discloses directing the inert purge gas through the second gas inlet channel comprises flowing nitrogen gas (N2) downward across the top surface of the substrate to prevent the coating gas from contacting the top surface of the substrate (Figure 4 and accompanying text, 0029 related to N2, 0040 related to prevent the coating gas from contacting the top surface of the substrate, “possible to prevent the infiltration of the HMDS vapor to the frontal surface.”).
Claim 17: Kodama discloses directing the inert purge gas through the second gas inlet channel comprises flowing N2 to fill an enclosure above the top surface of the substrate (See Figure 4, accompanying text, 0040 related to gas coverage over the top surface of substrate). Additionally, the filling the enclosure will necessarily occur based on the gas phase properties in a volume.
Claim 18: Kodama discloses flowing N2 between the first gas channel and the top surface of the substrate (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, 0029 related to N2, 0040 related to prevent the coating gas from contacting the top surface of the substrate, “possible to prevent the infiltration of the HMDS vapor to the frontal surface.”, i.e. N2 is flowed between the top surface and the first gas channel to prevent infiltration).
Claim 20: Kodama discloses directing the inert purge gas through the second gas inlet channel comprises flowing N2 laterally and vertically above the top surface of the substrate (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, lateral flow will be a necessary result of the gas flow and exhaust flow, i.e. from 43a vertically towards substrate surface and exhaust through port 6 will result in lateral flow).
Claim 21: Kodama discloses positioning a substrate on a plate; forming a hexamethlydisilazane (HMDS) coating on an edge of the substrate; and directing an inert gas towards a central region of the substrate (see all the citations above, 0027 related to HMDS, Figure 4 and accompanying text related to N2 at center region and edge coating).
Claim 22: Kodama discloses forming the HMDS coating comprises directing a HMDS vapor at the edge (Figure 4 and accompanying text, 0027).
Claim 24: Kodama discloses forming the HMDS coating comprises reducing a friction at the edge of the substrate. (abstract “friction reducing film” 0027)
Claim 25: Kodama discloses directing the inert gas comprises providing a nitrogen gas in an enclosure above the substrate (Figure 4 and accompanying text).
Claim 27: Kodama discloses positioning a substrate on a plate; providing a coating vapor towards an edge of the substrate; and providing an inert gas downwards and towards a central region of the substrate and radially outwards towards the edge of the substrate (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, radial flow will be a necessary result of the gas flow and exhaust flow, i.e. from 43a vertically towards substrate surface and exhaust through port 6 will result in radial flow).
Claim 28: Kodama discloses 1 mm (0039, “height of the gap pins 23 is set to 1 mm from the surface of the heating plate”)
Claim 29: Kodama discloses forming the HMDS coating comprises directing a HMDS vapor at the edge (Figure 4 and accompanying text, 0027).
Claim 32: Kodama discloses exhausting the coating vapor and the inert gas at the edge of the substrate (Figure 4, accompanying text, see exhaust port 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 23, 26, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama.
Claims 19, 23 and 26: Kodama discloses directing the inert purge gas comprises flowing N2 at a flow rate and a flow rate of the coating gas (Figure 4 and accompanying text, i.e. flow rate necessarily exists). Kodama discloses the flow rate of the inert gas that overlaps and thus makes obvious the claimed amount (see 0046, 0047, the supply flow rate from the second discharge hole 43a was also incrementally varied by 1 [L/min] within the range of 1 to 5 [L/min].)
Kodama fails to explicitly disclose the flow rate of the HMDS; however, as outlined above, the HDMS will necessarily have a flow rate and the flow rate of such would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to be a result effective variable, directly affecting film formation (too little HDMS will result in insufficient coating and too much HDMS will result in waste and/or infiltration to the front). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum HDMS flow rate through routine experimentation, including that as claimed (i.e. half of the inert gas flow or about 2.25 liters / minute to about 2.75 liters / minute) to reap the benefits of providing the friction reducing film on the edge of the wafer while the inert gas prevent the coating gas to the front surface.
Claim 30-31: Kodama discloses a coating vapor and an inert gas vapor and each will necessarily have a pressure as claimed (i.e. their mere presence as a supply will result in a pressure). Here, the pressure of the gases in the chamber will be a recognized result effective variable, directly affecting the deposition of the coating as well as the prevention of the gas flow to the frontal surface. Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art familiar with coating and vapor pressure, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation to determine the optimum pressure of the gases in the chamber through routine experimentation to optimally provide HDMS vapor to provide the deposition and inert gas to prevent deposition gas to the frontal surface.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20200058487 by Chang et al.
Claim 31: Examiner maintains the position as set forth above; however, for the sake of compact prosecution cites here Chang. Chang, also in the art of applying HDMS as a friction reducing layer (0020) and discloses using inert gas walls to control deposition location of the coating (0028) and discloses the gas pressure to prevent friction reducing material from pass across the gas wall (0028) and therefore discloses the inert gas wall gas pressure is a result effective variable and determination of the optimum gas pressure would have been obvious through routine experimentation to control HDMS deposition location.
Claim 32: Examiner maintains the position as set forth above; however, for the sake of compact prosecution cites here Chang. Chang, also in the art of applying HDMS as a friction reducing layer (0020) and discloses using HDMS supply overlapping the pressure as claimed (0044) and therefore using the claimed gas pressure would have been obvious as predictable. Additionally, Chang discloses the gas pressure of the friction reducing material for coating efficiency (0044, related to pressure and time of deposition) and therefore discloses HDMS pressure is a result effective variable and determination of the optimum gas pressure would have been obvious through routine experimentation to control HDMS deposition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights