DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/23/2026 and the RCE filed 3/4/2026.
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 12-17 are new.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
To clarify the record, the Examiner notes claims 10 and 11 reciting: “wherein the insulating material has a relative permittivity of 3 or more” and “20 or less” can be met by alumina, quartz, or aluminum nitride (see par. [0023] of the instant PG-Pub).
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US Pub. 2020/0395199) in view of Bera (US Pub. 2009/0230089) and Olgado (US Pub. 2012/0009765).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Miyama teaches a film forming apparatus ([0015] and Fig. 1, apparatus #10), comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #12); a susceptor placed in the chamber (Fig. 1, susceptor #16); an electrode placed inside the susceptor (Fig. 1, electrode #16b); a conductive shower head arranged above the susceptor apart from each other (Fig. 1, metal plate #14); an annular exhaust gas introduction member disposed radially outward from the outer edge of the susceptor (Fig. 1, inwardly angled wall of #30), wherein the exhaust gas introduction member forms at least a portion of an exhaust inlet (see Fig. 1, small space between angled wall and ring; leading to exhaust port #26), an annular exhaust gas discharge member disposed radially outward from the outer edge of the susceptor (Fig. 1, remaining portion of #30); an annular flow control ring disposed radially outward from the outer edge of the susceptor and beneath the exhaust gas introduction member (Fig. 1, unlabeled ring directly outward from #16), wherein the exhaust gas discharge member forms an exhaust gas outlet that fluidly connects the exhaust gas inlet to an exhaust port (see Fig. 1, leading to exhaust port #26), and wherein the film forming apparatus is configured to form a plasma in the chamber in a space between the susceptor and the conductive shower head (Fig. 4, plasma #50), wherein the space is fluidly connected to the exhaust gas inlet (see Fig. 4).
Miyama does not teach an AC power supply that supplies AC power to the susceptor electrode.
However, Bera teaches where a showerhead and a susceptor may be alternatively powered or coupled to ground (Bera – [0032], [0033], and Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Miyama to comprise a grounded showerhead/exhaust duct and a powered susceptor as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as provided by the teachings of Bera (see [0031]-[0035]: details various schemes of grounding/powering showerheads and susceptors that would all be used to generate capacitive plasma).
Modified Miyama does not explicitly teach wherein the exhaust gas introduction member is made of only an insulating material, nor wherein the exhaust gas discharge member is made of only a conductive material (Miyama is silent as to the materials used in the exhaust duct #30).
(Examiner’s note: claims 6 and 7 list alumina, quartz, and aluminum nitride for the introduction member; stainless steel, iron, aluminum, tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, niobium, ruthenium, and hafnium for the discharge member).
However, Olgado teaches this limitation (Olgado – [0061] and Fig. 2, upper liner assembly includes #112 and comprises quartz as an example; chamber body #111 comprises stainless steel as an example, and forms part of the exhaust flow path not on the leading edge).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the unitary exhaust member of modified Olgado to comprise multiple segments with different materials in order to protect chamber bodies from process gases (Olgado – [0040]) and to provide thermal insulation for chamber bodies ([0044]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas introduction member has an inclined portion that rises outward from the susceptor side in a side view, and the exhaust gas discharge member is engaged with the radial end of the inclined portion of the exhaust gas introducing member (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas discharge member is in contact with the conductive shower head (see Fig. 1).
Miyama does not teach wherein at least one of the exhaust gas discharge member and the conductive shower head is connected to a ground wiring (Miyama only teaches a powered showerhead structure).
However, Bera teaches where a showerhead and a susceptor may be alternatively powered or coupled to ground (Bera – [0032], [0033], and Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Miyama to comprise a grounded showerhead/exhaust duct and a powered susceptor as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as provided by the teachings of Bera (see [0031]-[0035]: details various schemes of grounding/powering showerheads and susceptors that would all be used to generate capacitive plasma).
Regarding claim 4, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas inlet is formed between the exhaust gas introduction member and a flow control ring (see Fig. 1, opening between angled wall of #30 and unlabeled ring directly beneath).
Regarding claim 9, Miyama modified by Bera does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Olgado teaches wherein the exhaust gas discharge member is made of stainless steel (Olgado – [0061] and Fig. 2, chamber body #111 comprises stainless steel as an example, and forms part of the exhaust flow path not on the leading edge).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the unitary exhaust member of modified Olgado to comprise multiple segments with different materials in order to protect chamber bodies from process gases (Olgado – [0040]) and to provide thermal insulation for chamber bodies ([0044]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 10-11, Miyama modified by Bera does not teach the added limitations of the claims.
However, Olgado teaches wherein an insulating material has a relative permittivity of 3 or more and 20 or less (Olgado – [0061] and Fig. 2, upper liner assembly includes #112 and comprises quartz as an example; see Claim Interpretation section).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the unitary exhaust member of modified Olgado to comprise multiple segments with different materials in order to protect chamber bodies from process gases (Olgado – [0040]) and to provide thermal insulation for chamber bodies ([0044]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Miyama modified by Bera does not teach wherein the flow control ring comprises one or more of alumina, quartz and aluminum nitride (Miyama is silent as to the materials used in the ring).
However, Olgado teaches this limitation (Olgado – [0061] and Fig. 2, upper liner assembly includes ring-shaped member #113a and comprises quartz as an example).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the unitary exhaust member of modified Olgado to comprise multiple segments with different materials in order to protect chamber bodies from process gases (Olgado – [0040]) and to provide thermal insulation for chamber bodies ([0044]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas introduction member comprises a concave portion configured to engage with a convex portion of the exhaust gas discharge member (see below, A engages with B; met due to the breadth of the word “portion”).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas introduction member and the conductive shower head are electrically connected (Fig. 4, despite O-ring #32 creating a physical separation between #14 and #30, there would exist an electrical coupling/connection between the two members during operation of the apparatus with high-frequency power application due to the metal plate #14 and the close proximity to #30).
Claims 5, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US Pub. 2020/0395199), Bera (US Pub. 2009/0230089), and Olgado (US Pub. 2012/0009765), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Tsuji (US Pub. 2016/0237559).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Miyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein an exhaust gas inlet (Tsuji – [0026] and Fig. 10, annular slit #30a) is formed in the inclined portion (see Fig. 10, portion above and below said slit, therefore can reasonably be said to be in the “inclined portion”), wherein a first portion of the exhaust gas introduction member is disposed above the exhaust gas inlet (see Fig. 10, long portion above) and wherein a second portion of the exhaust gas introduction member is disposed below the exhaust gas outlet (see Fig. 10, short portion below).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Miyama apparatus to locate the exhaust gas inlet in the inclined portion in order to tune the gas flow rate at the stage edge as desired (Tsuji – [0055]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Miyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein the exhaust gas introduction member comprises a vertical portion disposed beneath the inclined portion, wherein the vertical portion contacts the flow control ring (Tsuji – Fig. 10, obstacle #70b) contacting lower ring).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Miyama apparatus to locate the exhaust gas inlet in the inclined portion in order to tune the gas flow rate at the stage edge as desired (Tsuji – [0055]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Miyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein a channel is disposed between the inclined portion and the conductive shower head (see Fig. 2, narrow space between #30 and #14), wherein the exhaust gas inlet fluidly connects the channel to the exhaust gas outlet (if embodied as in Fig. 10, at least a portion of the slit #30a would form a fluid connection to the “channel”, thus connecting it with the exhaust).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Miyama apparatus to locate the exhaust gas inlet in the inclined portion in order to tune the gas flow rate at the stage edge as desired (Tsuji – [0055]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Miyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein a lower surface of the second portion is connected to a lower surface of the exhaust gas discharge member (Tsuji – Fig. 10, each and every portion of the structure is “connected to” each other portion of the structure; the Examiner notes this interpretation is consistent with Fig. 5 of the disclosure, which shows #43 “connected to” a lower surface of #46 in the same way- no direct physical connection is disclosed; ring #60 is not disclosed as being part of the discharge member).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Miyama apparatus to locate the exhaust gas inlet in the inclined portion in order to tune the gas flow rate at the stage edge as desired (Tsuji – [0055]-[0058]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US Pub. 2020/0395199), Bera (US Pub. 2009/0230089), and Olgado (US Pub. 2012/0009765), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Choi (US 6,183,563).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Miyama does not teach wherein the shortest distance between the exhaust gas inlet and the susceptor is within the range of 10 mm or more and 30 mm or less.
However, Choi teaches wherein this distance is between 30 mm and 50 mm (Choi – C3, L28-30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the distance between the exhaust gas inlet and the susceptor of modified Miyama to between 10 mm and 30 mm since the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, and/or are merely close to those disclosed in the prior art, prima facie obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Olgado remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights