DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/30/2026.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 18-20 are new.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-13, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the flow control ring” should be amended to “the annular flow control ring” for clarity.
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, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 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) comprising a wall (see Fig. 1); 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, an annular exhaust gas discharge member; an annular flow control ring, an annular channel (see annotated Miyama Fig. 1 below), 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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; [0057] and Fig. 3C as an alternative 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 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 the annular flow control ring (see Fig. 1, opening between angled wall of #30 and unlabeled ring directly beneath).
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 claims 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_image2.png
222
232
media_image2.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).
Regarding claim 18, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas outlet is disposed on a first side of the film forming apparatus, and wherein the exhaust gas outlet is not disposed on a second side opposite the first side (see Fig. 1, annotated Fig. 1 in claim 1).
Claims 5, 8, 12-13, 17, and 19 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, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 above, and further in view of Tsuji (US Pub. 2016/0237559).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 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 8, Miyama teaches wherein the exhaust gas inlet is disposed at or above the annular channel and disposed above the exhaust gas outlet (see Fig. 1).
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 annular 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 claims 13 and 19, 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) (see Miyama Fig. 1, space formed between #14 and #30, fluidly connected to space above #16 to #26).
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, Miyama modified by Bera does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Olgado teaches wherein a lower surface of the second portion is disposed at a same horizontal level as a lower surface of the exhaust gas discharge member (see Fig. 3C, lower surface of #180 at same level as lower surface of #114).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the horizontal level of the lower surfaces of the second portion and exhaust gas discharge member of modified Miyama to be the same, since Olgado teaches a member configured in this way prevents flaking of deposited material during processing (Olgado – [0057]).
Claim 9 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, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 above, and further in view of Lam (US Pub. 2010/0003406).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Miyama modified by Bera and Olgado does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Olgado teaches stainless steel, which has since been removed from claim 9).
However, Lam teaches wherein stainless steel and iron are art-recognized equivalent materials for pumping structures (Lam – [0072], referencing Fig. 9A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize/substitute either the stainless steel material of modified Miyama (Olgado) or the iron material of Lam since Lam establishes where the two materials are known equivalents for the same purpose (Lam – [0072]). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama (US Pub. 2020/0395199), Bera (US Pub. 2009/0230089), Olgado (US Pub. 2012/0009765), and Tsuji (US Pub. 2016/0237559), as applied to claims 5, 8, 12-13, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Zhao (US Patent 5,558,717).
The limitations of claims 5, 8, 12-13, 17, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, modified Miyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Miyama is silent as to the materials used in the ring).
However, Zhao teaches wherein the annular flow control ring comprises Al2O3 (Zhao – C15, L32-34: upper ring liner #234 comprises alumina).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the annular flow control ring of modified Miyama out of alumina as disclosed by Zhao in order to promote efficiency and uniformity of deposition (Zhao – C15, L41-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate to the rejection presented herein (and previously). Notably, Applicant looks to Olgado for features of the claimed annular exhaust gas introduction member (Remarks, pg. 7), when these features are taught by Miyama and relied thereupon in the current (and previous) rejections. For ease of comparison, below is reproduced the annotated instant Fig. 1 by Applicant in the most recent remarks side-by-side with the Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Miyama. The extraordinarily high structural similarity is noted as the basis of the Examiner’s rejection.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
415
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Applicant’s annotated instant Fig. 1) (Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Miyama)
Second, Applicant alleges that “Olgado does not generally teach that materials in an exhaust path are interchangeable anywhere on the exhaust path” (Remarks, pg. 7). Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees. Olgado explicitly teaches wherein two different materials can be used as part of the same exhaust path ([0057] and Fig. 3C).
Third, Applicant asserts that because insulating materials “may have a lower thermal conductivity” than conducting materials (Remarks, pg. 8, emphasis added), then the teachings of Olgado are not applicable because, allegedly, Olgado teaches “optimally” only “materials of low thermal conductivity” (Remarks, pg. 8). Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees. Olgado does not explicitly preclude the usage of other materials, nor does Olgado explicitly say that low thermal conductivity materials are “optimal”, as alleged by Applicant. Thus Applicant’s assertions do not appear to be consistent with the plain teachings of Olgado and what they would convey to a PHOSITA. Additionally, the Examiner notes that not all insulating materials have a “low” thermal conductivity as compared to all conducting materials. As such, a PHOSITA would not be dissuaded from considering a “conducting material” for Olgado simply based upon recitation of a relative term (“low”) with no concrete limits.
As an additional evidentiary reference, the Examiner submits Palagashvili (US Pub. 2011/0162803) as teaching wherein adjacent liners for an exhaust path comprise different materials (par. [0023]). The Examiner believes this reference further strengthens the Examiner’s position by further demonstrating the knowledge available to a PHOSITA prior to the instant filing.
Fourth, Applicant asserts that the Examiner’s “selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use” is not pertinent because, allegedly, the Examiner “has not shown why different components that have different functions and use may be made of interchangeable materials”. Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner relies on Olgado to teach this principle – see at least the exemplary embodiment depicted in Olgado Fig. 3C, wherein the structures present in the exhaust path comprise at least three different materials according to the drawings and disclosure (see citations present in the body of the rejection). The Examiner cited the “selection of a known material” rationale as supportive of the explicit obviousness determination made over the prior art even if, arguendo, the fact patterns of Sinclair and/or Leshin differ slightly from the instant fact pattern.
Finally, Applicant alleges that the Examiner has not shown where the prior art teaches the specific combination of materials recited in claim 1 (Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite any particular materials- merely that “an insulating material” and “a conductive material” be used for parts of the exhaust path. In accordance, the rejection of claim 1 need not rely on prior art for any specific combination of materials- merely that the same singular exhaust path comprise multiple materials. The specific materials recited in additional claims are all properly met by the prior art of record, as currently/previously set forth.
Conclusion
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 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