DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 3/2/2026.
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 and 3-20 are pending.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended.
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, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg (US Patent 9,171,702) in view of Fischer (US Pub. 2010/0159703).
Regarding claim 1, Kellogg teaches a showerhead (Fig. 3A, #302-#305) comprising: an inner plate (Fig. 3A, center electrode plate #303) comprising at least one gas hole that penetrates the inner plate in a first direction (C2, L28-30: gas holes provided in the showerhead electrode; not depicted); and an outer plate (Fig. 3A, annular outer electrode #304) at least partially surrounding the inner plate, the outer plate having a ring shape with an axis that extends in the first direction (vertically), wherein the outer plate comprises:
a first inner surface that extends downward and forms an acute angle with a line corresponding to the first direction; a first bottom surface that extends outward from the first inner surface; and a first outer surface that extends upward from the first bottom surface (see identifications in annotated Fig. 3A below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
216
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a first angle between the first inner surface and a line corresponding to the first direction (as above, appears to be ~45° relative to the vertical) is greater than a second angle between the first outer surface of the outer plate and a line corresponding to the first direction (as above, appears to be ~0° relative to the vertical; 45>0).
wherein the outer plate further comprises: a second inner surface contacting the inner plate; and a second bottom surface that extends outward from the second inner surface and is connected to the first inner surface (see annotated Fig. 3A as presented in claim 1).
Kellogg does not explicitly teach wherein the second bottom surface is at a level that is the same as a level of a first bottom surface of the inner plate, and wherein the second bottom surface is on a plane that is substantially the same as a plane of the first bottom surface of the inner plate.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that the only difference between the Kellogg showerhead and the claimed showerhead is the placement of the interface between the inner plate and outer plate.
The Examiner notes that if the Kellogg showerhead were sub-divided as suggested below:
PNG
media_image2.png
160
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
instead of:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
then the Kellogg showerhead (particularly #304) would meet the limitations of the claim and substantially resemble the instant showerhead (particularly #33):
PNG
media_image4.png
215
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The Examiner respectfully submits Fischer teaches a showerhead ring structure with the longer flat front surface in question (Fischer – Figs. 1-2, flat surface to the left of choke point #126). Fischer teaches wherein the structure #102b is utilized to adjust gas flow conductance and plasma formation/sustaining (Fischer – [0028]-[0056]).
Thus, in consideration of the totality of the evidence, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kellogg apparatus to comprise a longer leading edge of the ring #304 (similar to that of Fischer) as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Kellogg teaches wherein the inner plate further comprises: a first outer surface that extends upward from an edge of the first bottom surface of the inner plate; a protruding bottom surface that extends outward from an upper end of the first outer surface of the inner plate; a second outer surface that extends upward from an edge of the protruding bottom surface and is connected to a top surface of the inner plate (see Fig. 3A, outer/upper portions of #303 to the left), wherein the outer plate further comprises: a protruding top surface that extends upward from an upper end of the second inner surface; and a third inner surface that extends upward from an outer edge of the protruding top surface and is connected to a first top surface of the outer plate, and wherein the protruding bottom surface contacts the protruding top surface (see Fig. 3A, outer/upper portions of #304 to the left).
Regarding claim 4, Kellogg teaches wherein no hole is provided on each of the protruding bottom surface and the protruding top surface (see Fig. 3A, no holes depicted; no mention of any holes disclosed in the specification in that location).
Regarding claim 5, Kellogg appears to teach wherein the first angle is in a range of about 45° to about 65° (see Fig. 3A, appears to be approximately 45° relative to vertical).
Regarding claim 7, Kellogg appears to teach wherein the second angle is equal to or less than about 10° (see Fig. 3A, appears to be approximately 0° relative to vertical).
Regarding claim 8, Kellogg teaches wherein a diameter of the first outer surface of the outer plate is equal to or greater than about 300 mm (C2, L50-52: describes exemplary substrate support #150 as capable of supporting a 300mm wafer, when comparing to #204 of Fig. 2 or #312 of Fig. 4A, the outer diameter of #304 appears to be greater than that of #312, thus the outer diameter would be greater than about 300mm).
Alternatively, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg (US Patent 9,171,702) and Fischer (US Pub. 2010/0159703), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 above, further in view of Dhindsa (US Patent 6,391,787).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, alternatively, Kellogg does not explicitly teach wherein the first angle is in a range of about 45° to about 65° (Kellogg appears to teach this as set forth above, but lacks a specific mention of this angle).
However, Dhindsa teaches wherein this angle is 60° (Dhindsa – C8, L9-12 and Fig. 2A, alpha is 150°, thus is 60° relative to vertical).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the first angle of Kellogg to the claimed ranges as a matter of obviousness due to overlapping values as disclosed by Dhindsa (Dhindsa – C8, L9-12). See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg (US Patent 9,171,702) and Fischer (US Pub. 2010/0159703), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 above, further in view of Foster (US Patent 5,628,829).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Kellogg does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Foster teaches wherein the inner plate comprises a plurality of gas holes, the at least one gas hole being among the plurality of gas holes, and wherein the plurality of gas holes is 300 gas holes to 410 gas holes (Foster – C12, L17-20: 200-1200 holes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the number of gas holes of Kellogg to the claimed range as a matter of obviousness due to the overlapping range as disclosed by Foster (Foster - C12, L17-20). See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning Kellogg, as previously applied to claim 2, have been carefully considered and are persuasive. All §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn.
The Examiner continues to utilize Kellogg to teach the majority of amended claim 1 along with the additional reference Fischer in a §103 rejection. As this constitutes a new ground of rejection not necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, this action is non-final.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of criticality (Remarks, pgs. 10-11) of the “second bottom surface” relative to the “first bottom surface”, the remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant points to pars. [0096]-[0097] as evidence of the criticality of the aforementioned limitation of claim 1. However, these citations do not provide any criticality for the specific relationship between the first/second bottom surfaces.
The Examiner understands these paragraphs as demonstrating where a contiguous surface must be established across the bottom of the combined showerhead structure, where the angled surface is critical for deflecting particulates, not the bottom surfaces. As such, Applicant is improperly extending the disclosed criticality (“preventing contamination”) to cover the argued limitation.
While not presently relied upon, the Examiner notes this particular feature appears to be a simple matter of design choice for at least the reasons set forth herein and in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s other arguments are not germane to the §103 rejections herein, particularly in regards to Fischer, thus require no further rebuttal by the Examiner at this time.
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