DETAILED ACTION
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a pressure gauge and a throttle valve disposed between the outer wall of the first portion and the pumping line; and a controller capable of monitoring the pressure inside the body part using the pressure gauge and controlling movement of the throttle valve, wherein the pressure gauge connected to the outer wall of the first portion, and the throttle valve connected between the pressure gauge and the pumping line (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 18 requires “a pressure gauge and a throttle valve disposed between the outer wall of the first portion and the pumping line”, while claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, requires “a pumping line connected to an outer wall of the first portion”. It is not clear how the pumping line can be attached to the outer wall of the first portion as required in claim 17 and a pressure gauge and a throttle valve disposed between the outer wall of the first portion and the pumping line as required in claim 18.
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, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al, US 10,643,839 B2.
Suzuki et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a deposition apparatus 1 comprising: a gas supply 42 comprising a plurality of gas injection ports 45; a plate 31 disposed to face the gas supply and to move up and down toward the gas supply (by elevation unit 35), wherein a target substrate W is seated on the plate 31; a body part 11, 14 comprising: a first portion 14 defining a reaction space 40 between the plate 31 and the gas supply 42; a second portion 11 disposed below the first portion 14 and defining a lower space; and an inner wall spaced apart from the plate (Column 3 lines 59-63), and a plurality of first exhaust parts 16 provided on an outer wall of the first portion (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, an inner wall of the first portion defines a plurality of flow paths (one flow path for each exhaust part 16) through which a gas supplied from the gas supply 42 to the reaction space 40 flows to the plurality of first exhaust parts 16, and the plurality of flow paths gradually decrease in width in a direction from a center of the first portion toward the plurality of first exhaust parts. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 13, a portion of gas supplied from the gas supply 42 to the reaction space 40 flows into the lower space 11 through the inner wall of the body part 11, 14 and the plate 31.
Regarding claim 14, an amount of the gas supplied from the gas supply 42 to the reaction space 40 and discharged to the plurality of first exhaust parts 16 is greater than an amount of the portion of the gas flowing into the lower space 11 through a space between the inner wall of the body part 11, 14 and the plate 31.
Regarding claim 15, the body part is capable of performing an Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) process.
Regarding claim 17, a deposition apparatus 1 comprising: a gas supply 42 comprising a plurality of gas injection ports 45; a plate 31 disposed to face the gas supply and to move up and down toward the gas supply (by elevation unit 35), wherein a target substrate W is seated on the plate 31; a body part 11, 14 comprising: a first portion 14 defining a reaction space 40 between the plate 31 and the gas supply 42; a second portion 11 disposed below the first portion 14 and defining a lower space; and an inner wall spaced apart from the plate (Column 3 lines 59-63), and a plurality of first exhaust parts 16 provided on an outer wall of the first portion (Figure 1); a pumping line 16 connected to an outer wall of the first portion 14; and a pump 17 connected to the pumping line 16.
Regarding claim 18, a pressure gauge and a throttle valve 171 disposed between the outer wall of the first portion 14 and the pumping line 16; and a controller 171 capable of monitoring the pressure inside the body part using the pressure gauge and controlling movement of the throttle valve, wherein the pressure gauge connected to the outer wall of the first portion, and the throttle valve connected between the pressure gauge and the pumping line.
Regarding claim 19, a third portion (start of pumping line 16 in Figure 1) protruding from the outer wall of the first portion 14, wherein the pumping line 16 is connected to the third portion.
Regarding claim 20, an inner wall of the third portion is formed to gradually decrease in width from the first portion toward the pumping line. (Figure 1)
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 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al, US 10,643,839 B2, in view of Takagi, US 2010/0279008 A1.
Regarding claim 4,
Suzuki et al was discussed above.
Suzuki et al differs from the present invention in that Suzuki et al does not teach a shadow frame disposed on the plate.
Takagi teaches a shadow frame 36 disposed on the plate 31.
The motivation for adding the shadow frame of Takagi to the plate of Suzuki et al is to protect the exposed edge of the plate as taught by Takagi and well known in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the shadow frame of Takagi to the plate of Suzuki et al.
Regarding claim 5, Takagi teaches a shadow frame 36 comprises: a fixing part defining an opening exposing the target substrate (horizontal ring surrounding the wafer W in Figure 1); and a wall part 361 extending downward along the inner wall of the body part from a lower surface of the fixing part. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 6, Takagi differs from the present invention in that Takagi does not teach that the fixing part has an N-gonal shape that is point symmetric with respect to the center of the first portion in a plan view, N being a natural number equal to or greater than 3. It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04.IV.B) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to change the shape of the fixing part of Takagi so that it has an N-gonal shape that is point symmetric with respect to the center of the first portion in a plan view, N being a natural number equal to or greater than 3.
Regarding claim 7, Takagi teaches that the wall part 361 is disposed along an outer boundary of the body part in the plan view.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al and Takagi teaches a third portion protruding from the outer wall of the first portion, wherein each of the plurality of first exhaust parts is connected to the third portion, and a diameter of an inner wall of the third portion gradually decreases in a direction from the first portion toward each of the plurality of first exhaust parts, and a length from a lower surface of the wall part to an upper surface of the fixing part is formed longer than a diameter in an elevating direction of the plate at a position where the third portion physically contacts the first portion.
Regarding claim 9, Takagi et al teaches a distance between an inner wall of the second portion and the shadow frame is constant.
Regarding claim 10, Takagi et al does not specifically teach the distance between the inner wall of the second portion and the shadow frame is about 0.5 mm or more and about 5 mm or less. It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the distance between the inner wall of the second portion and the shadow frame about 0.5 mm or more and about 5 mm or less.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al, US 10,643,839 B2, in view of Yang et al, WO213/115471 A1.
Suzuki et al was discussed above.
Suzuki et al differs from the present invention in that Suzuki et al does not teach a second exhaust part provided on a bottom surface of the second portion.
Yang et al teaches outer exhaust port 34 located in the first area and a second exhaust port 32 provided on a bottom surface of the second portion (Figures 1 and 4)).
The motivation for adding a second exhaust to the apparatus of Suzuki et al is to exhaust gases in the second portion as taught by Yang et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a second exhaust to the apparatus of Suzuki et al as taught by Yang et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The deposition apparatus as claimed in claim 2 was not found in or suggested by the art, specifically, the plate has an N-gonal shape that is point symmetric with respect to a center of the first portion in a plan view, and the plurality of first exhaust parts are disposed at positions corresponding to N vertices of the plate.
The deposition apparatus as claimed in claim 11 was not found in or suggested by the art, specifically, the inner wall of the first portion comprises a first inner wall and a second inner wall defining any one of the plurality of flow paths, and an angle between the first inner wall and the second inner wall is greater than about 45 degrees and less than about 90 degrees.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. Takagi, US 2010/0279008 A1 could be used to replace Suzuki et al in the above rejections. Huh et al, US 2016/0258060 A, or Choi et al, KR20040048618 A, could be used to replace Yang et al in the above rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716