DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim requires an elastic pressurizer but this is not sufficiently clear – for example, ‘elastic’ is a relative term and there are no clear boundaries on what is considered elastic for the sake of satisfying the claim. Claim 13 clarifies the issues.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung (2016/0348242).
Sung teaches a showerhead assembly comprising:
- a heater body, 104, made of ceramic [0051],
- a flow path plate 108 at the upper portion of the heater body (the entire showerhead is made of ceramic), including any number of flow paths, and
- there is 1 or, if plate 102 is also counted, are 2 flow path plates.
Regarding claim 2, the number of gases flowed is a matter of 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 could flow for example one gas such as a purge gas as part of a use of the system.
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 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Kasai (2005/0000423).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Sung are described above, including the flow plates – but Sung does not teach a path formed between two plates as claimed. Kasai, however, teaches a comparable showerhead with multiple plates – see showerhead 10 with plates 10a-c. The plates include a flow path at least formed between two plates, see for example as in Fig. 4. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the openings in between the plates of Sung as taught by Kasai as an effective manner of controlling gas flow in a multi-plate showerhead. The result would be the flow path formed as claimed in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the further requirements of claim 4 are an additional plate and/or an additional flow path. Wherein further plates are required, duplication of part is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. The use of any process gas is again intended use – it is held that the system is capable of using any number of process gases.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the system of Sung has a stem (180) through which gases are delivered [0048], the combined art includes a plurality of through-holes as claimed by claim 5 and to claim 7, as per above there are any number of operable flow path plates and gases.
Regarding claim 8, further to claim 4, the combined teachings include the claimed intermediate path flow plate and paths.
Regarding claim 11, the supply is connected to the lid – in regard to the material of construction, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a material is obvious for its intended use. Wherein ceramic materials are already known from above, to use the same would have been further obvious without showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 17, Kasai teaches that it is known to include an electrode in such a processing chamber for effecting plasma [0105].
Regarding claim 18, the elements of the second showerhead assembly are taught per above. The teachings of Sung do not include a portion to hold the substate, but the teachings of Kasai do, as per the cited Figures. As such, all elements of the claim are taught – the heater body is, as per claim 1, an element of the showerhead and is not actually required to have a heating element. In regard to the first showerhead assembly supplying gases to the lower surface of the substrate, examiner takes Official Notice that substate holders that supply backside gases are well known in the art, thereby teaching all elements of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, there is no reason for the central portion of the lowermost flow path plate to communicate with an outside of the flow path plate as claimed.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 14, the particularly claimed arrangement is not obvious based on the additional plates as per claims 4 and 8.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, there is no reason to modify the prior art chamber to include the claimed pressurizer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scholtmann (2004/0123800) teaches multiple plate showerhead…
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