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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 19-36 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/21/25 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 19-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakawa in view of Huang (US 20130001330).
As to claim 19, Murakawa discloses an ALD substrate processing device for supplying first and second precursors (abstract; paragraph 133: providing two precursor gases) comprising:
A substrate support having a support surface supporting one or more substrates (figure 5: substrate support [susceptor] for substrates 4);
A precursor supply having an output face with a at least two reaction zones to which precursors are supplied (figure 5: showing gas/precursor supplies to shower plates 212; figure 7/8: showing closer view of shower heads and ‘reaction zone’ between supply and substrate 4; figure 4, 10: showing embodiments with multiple reaction zones 23, 25);
The support surface of the substrate support and output face of precursor supply arranged such that a reaction gap is provided between each (figures 7/8: gap ‘g’ between precursor supply [showerhead] and substrate support [susceptor] surface);
A rotating mechanism to rotate the substrate support relative to the precursor supply (figure 5: rotation mechanism 37 for rotating susceptor 3 relative to showerheads);
The reaction zone open to the supply, and a suction zone open to the output face of the precursor supply and arranged to surround the precursor supply zone at the output face of the precursor supply head (figure 5, figures 7-8: vacuum/suction ports 214 to exhaust port 215 surrounding precursor supply zones).
Murakawa, while disclosing a precursor supply, suction zone, and purge gas supplies (paragraph 121, figure 5-9, is silent as the to the claimed specific orientations).
Huang discloses an ALD deposition device (paragraph 24) in which a deposition zone is provided an output face with central precursor supply, surrounding suction zone, and surrounding inert/purge gas supply (figure 1: reactive deposition precursor supply 11, vacuum/suction 12, air curtain [inert] gas supply 13 with concentric arrangement) to prevent reaction gases from leaking to unwanted areas (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the concentric orientation of Huang, in the system on Murakawa, because this prevents reactive gas leaking to unwanted areas.
As to claim 20, Murakawa discloses the rotation mechanism attached to the substrate support to rotate the substrate support (figure 5: motor 37 for rotating susceptor 3 [unlabeled arrow showing rotational direction]).
As to claim 21, Murakawa discloses a parallel output face of the precursor supply and substrate support for a uniform gap therebetween (figures 7-8: showing showerhead output face and substrate support orientation with uniform, parallel relationship).
As to claim 22, Murakawa discloses the rotational mechanism comprises a rotation axis perpendicular to both the output face and support surface (figures 5, 7-8: showing vertical rotation axis perpendicular to z-axis [into/out of figures surface] orientation of output and support surfaces]).
As to claim 23, Murakawa discloses supplying precursor to a central area of the reaction zone (figures 7-8: supply to showerhead 212/211 at central area for reaction zone above substrate).
As to claim 24, Murakawa discloses the precursor supply zone is provided as a recess to the output face of the precursor supply head, the recesses open to the output face of the head (figures 7-8: openings to and through showerhead structure to outer surface [output face] of the showerhead).
As to claim 25, Murakawa discloses a plurality of precursor supply openings to the precursor supply zone (figures 7-8: showerhead structure with a plurality of openings).
As to claim 26, Murakawa discloses a head center point in line with the rotation mechanism and the width of the precursor supply zone increases away from the center (figure 10: top down view showing reaction zones centered around rotation center point (center of support 3 holding substrates 4) with width of precursor supply zone increasing away from the center [pie-shaped zones]).
As to claim 27, Murakawa discloses the suction zone surrounds the precursor zone on the output face of the precursor supply head (figures 7-8: showing suction/vacuum exhaust from showerhead bottom at 214/224 surrounding precursor supply zone).
As to claims 28-29, Murakawa discloses an ALD deposition apparatus with precursor supply, surrounding vacuum/suction zone and outer peripherally-surrounding purge gas supply (figure 10: peripheral purge gas supply 25).
As to claim 30, Murakawa discloses first and second reaction zones on opposite sides of a center point (figures 11-12, opposing reaction zones across center [figure 10: adjacent reaction zones]).
As to claim 31-32, Murakawa discloses purge gas feeding nozzles arranged adjacent and between the reaction zones in a curved structure (figure 10: purge gas supply 24; figure 6: output through ‘slot’ [nozzle structure]).
As to claim 33, Murakawa discloses a plurality of substrate recesses (figure 4: substrates 1-6, figure 7: showing ‘recess’ 32 in susceptor/support 3).
As to claim 34, Murakawa discloses the substrate support vertically below the precursor supply head (figure 7: location of susceptor 3 below precursor supply showerhead).
As to claims 35-36, Murakawa discloses a process chamber containing the supply head and substrate support with an exhaust [discharge] for the chamber gases (figure 5: vacuum chamber containing precursor supply showerheads 211 and substrate support 3 with vacuum exhaust port at 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as discussed above.
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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794