DETAILED ACTION
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 03/31/2026.
4. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
5. Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura et al (US 2007/0272154) in view of Tiner et al (US 10,087,524) with substantiating evidence provided by Lei et al (US 2006/0196603).
Regarding claim 1:
Amikura teaches a substrate processing apparatus (film deposition apparatus, 2) [fig 1 & 0033] comprising: a chamber (4) [fig 1 & 0033]; a substrate supporting unit (table, 28) supporting at least one substrate (W), in the chamber (4) [fig 1 & 0038]; a first injection unit (70) injecting a first gas (supporting gas) toward the substrate supporting unit (28), over the substrate supporting unit (28) [fig 1, 6-7 & 0043, 0060-0061]; a second injection unit (64) injecting a second gas (source gas) toward the substrate supporting unit (28), over the first injection unit (70) [fig 1, 6-7 & 0043, 0060-0061]; and a buffer unit (62) formed between the first injection unit (70) and the second injection unit (64), wherein the first injection unit (70) comprises a plurality of first injection holes (10C/10D), the second injection unit (64) comprises a first supply hole (66B) supplying the first gas (supporting gas) to the buffer unit (62) and a second injection hole (68A) through which the second gas (source gas) flows, and the outlet (outlet of 66B) is formed to face a space between the first injection holes (see fig 1) [fig 1, 6-7 & 0041, 0043, 0060-0061].
Amikura does not specifically disclose centers of an inlet and an outlet of the first supply hole are disposed apart from each other with respect to a vertical direction, and wherein the center of the inlet and the center of the outlet are disposed to be staggered, wherein the first supply hole injects the first gas towards a top surface of the first injection unit between the first injection holes.
Tiner teaches centers of an inlet (inlet of 162) and an outlet of the first supply hole (outlet of 162 is a slope path) are disposed apart from each other with respect to a vertical direction (see annotated figure 2), and wherein the center of the inlet (inlet of 162) and the center of the outlet (outlet of 162) are disposed to be staggered (see annotated figure 2), wherein the first supply hole (162) injects the first gas towards a top surface of the first injection unit (145) between the first injection holes (175) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 60-14].
PNG
media_image1.png
464
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first supply hole of Amikura with the structure of Tiner to achieve a uniform distribution of the first gas [Lei – fig 3A-3B & 0021].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Amikura teaches the first supply hole (162) comprises a slope path disposed between the inlet and the outlet, and the slope path is formed diagonally between the inlet and the outlet (see annotated fig 2) [Tiner - fig 2].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Amikura teaches the first supply hole (162) further comprises a vertical path extending vertically in the vertical direction from the inlet (see annotated fig 2) [Tiner - fig 2].
Regarding claims 4 and 10:
Modified Amikura teaches a slope path of the first supply hole (162) is formed in plurality, and the slope paths are formed to extend in different directions (see annotated fig 2) [Tiner - fig 2].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Amikura teaches the slope paths of the first supply hole (162) are formed to extend in directions opposite to each other (see annotated fig 2) [Tiner - fig 2].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Amikura teaches the slope paths of the first supply hole (162) are formed to extend in directions vertical to each other (see annotated fig 2) [Tiner - fig 2].
Regarding claim 9:
The claim limitations “wherein the first injection unit or the second injection unit is connected to a radio frequency (RF) power source” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
9. Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura et al (US 2007/0272154) in view of Tiner et al (US 10,087,524) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al (US 2018/0286696).
The limitations of claims 1-6 and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Amikura does not specifically teach the first supply hole is formed in plurality.
Ogawa teaches a first supply hole (75/77) is formed in plurality (see fig 21-22) [fig 21-22 & 0088].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first supply hole of modified Amikura to be formed in plurality, as in Ogawa, to enable the concentration distribution of the first gas to be adjusted across the diameter of the substrate [Ogawa – 0091].
It is noted that modifying the first supply hole of modified Amikura to be formed in plurality results in “one of the slope paths of one of the first supply holes is formed to extend in a direction which differs from at least one of the slope paths of another one adjacent first supply hole” because the first supply hole of the modified structure includes slope paths extending in different directions (see annotated figure 2). The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claims 8 and 11:
Modified Amikura does not specifically teach the first supply hole is formed in plurality.
Ogawa teaches a first supply hole (75/77) is formed in plurality (see fig 21-22) [fig 21-22 & 0088].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first supply hole of modified Amikura to be formed in plurality, as in Ogawa, to enable the concentration distribution of the first gas to be adjusted across the diameter of the substrate [Ogawa – 0091].
It is noted that modifying the first supply hole of modified Amikura to be formed in plurality results in “the slope path of one of the first supply holes and the slope path of another one adjacent first supply hole are formed to extend in different directions” because the first supply hole of the modified structure includes slope paths extending in different directions (see annotated figure 2). The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tiner’s bore 162 does not target any “blocked top surface” between holes. Tiner’s macroscopic structure would not lead to the unique, fine-tuned collision and diffusion mechanism of the claimed arrangement.
In response, it is noted that the examiner agrees that Tiner does not target any “blocked top surface” between the holes. However, this does not change the fact that Tiner’s structure “injects the first gas towards a top surface of the first injection unit between the first injection holes”. Specifically, Tiner injects the gas between the first injection holes AND toward the first injection holes. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Furthermore, applicant’s assertion that Tiner’s macroscopic structure would not lead to the unique, fine-tuned collision and diffusion mechanism of the claimed arrangement is irrelevant. ("[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventors.") In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murakami et al (US 6,169,032), Kasai et al (US 6,436,193), and Kang (WO 2019/212270) teach a second injecting unit injecting a second gas [fig 1, 12, and 5 respectively].
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896