DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I, Species B, Figs. 9-10, in the reply filed on 04/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicants designated claims 1-15 read into elected Species B. However, the examiner considers “a second concentric circular zone” of claim 13 is a feature of Fig. 11 and should also be withdrawn.
Claims 13 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention group II and Species C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/12/2026.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are ([0110], for example):
ΔSi may represent a side-length difference between an i-th rectangular pattern of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and a neighboring one of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns adjacent thereto, i.e., an i−1-th rectangular pattern. Consequently, a distance SS between two neighboring rectangular patterns are equal to ΔSi/2. ΔSi is positive, i is an integer index representing each of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and ranged between 1 to N, and ΔS1 is equal to a side-length of the first rectangular pattern …
For example, when i =1, ΔS1 is both a side-length difference between an i-th rectangular pattern of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and equal to a side-length of the first rectangular pattern.
Claim Interpretations
The “a plurality of holes arranged in the rectangular hole-configuring region and arranged concentrically to form a first to an N-th rectangular patterns“ of claim 1, the rectangular patterns of holes may have the same distance to the center as shown in Applicants’ Fig. 10 (in other words, each side of the rectangular patterns has one hole on the line of the rectangle). However, the alternative interpretation of claim also includes a rectangular pattern with multiple holes from the center within the rectangular patters (considering Fig. 3 of TW 201321549 as four rectangular patterns each patterns with multiple holes from center within the rectangular patterns). ‘549 reads into various claims in both interpretations. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the rejection of claim 2 used both interpretations. The examiner invites Applicants to clarify the claim to include the rectangular patterns of holes have the same distance to the center.
Note claim 4 clarify this relationship such that each group of rectangular patterns having holes at a same distance from the center.
The “a center zone, an outer zone and a first concentric circular zone between the center zone and the outer zone , the center zone covers the first to an M-th rectangular patterns, M is a positive integer, M is smaller than N/2, the area near the center of the rectangular hole-configuring region is located in the center zone, the outer zone covers the four corner areas of the rectangular hole-configuring region” of claim 10, the first concentric circular zone and the outer zone are abstract conceptual region as there is no requirement of hole patterns. The boundaries between these zones are not structurally defined. As long as “ϕ1 represents the diameter of any one of the holes of the center zone, ϕ2 represents the diameter of any one of the holes of the first concentric circular zone, and a condition of ϕ1 ≤ϕ2 is satisfied”, a diffusing plate is considered reads into the limitations of claim 10.
The “configured for being employed in a panel-level packaging process” of claim 8, an apparatus that is capable of being employed in a panel-level packaging process is considered read into the claim.
The “An etching equipment” of claim 14, an apparatus that is capable of etching is considered read into the claim.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters
Label “325” (perforated plate) and exhaust port 324 in Fig. 3B both point to a same hole.
(The list of inconsistency may not be exhaustive).
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.
Claims 2-7 are 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 2 recites “wherein ΔSi represents a side-length difference between an i-th rectangular pattern of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and a neighboring one of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns adjacent thereto, ΔSi is positive, i is an integer index representing each of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and ranged between 1 to N, ΔS1 is equal to a side-length of the first rectangular pattern”, the two bolded faced portion contradicts each other.
Claim 2 will be examined inclusive “i is an integer index representing each of the second to the N-th rectangular patterns and ranged between 2 to N” such to avoid contradiction.
Claim 3 recites “a condition of 0.3×ΔSi≤ CIi≤ 5×ΔSi is satisfied”, it is not clear as the upper limit can be larger than the size of the rectangular patterns.
Claim 3 will be examined inclusive no upper limit if 5×ΔSi is larger than the respective rectangular pattern.
Dependent claims 3-7 are also rejected under USC 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 2.
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, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (TW 201321549, from IDS, hereafter ‘549).
‘549 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: A Gas Diffuser (title, includes the claimed “A diffusing plate, comprising”):
The gas through holes 2 are formed through the substrate 1 for gas permeation (Fig. 3, English translation, P3, 2nd last complete paragraph), the gas diffusion device thereof comprises: a substrate comprising a first partition and a second partition (bottom of P2, i.e. substrate may refer to gas diffuser), The substrate 1 may be a plate or a disk made of a metal material such as stainless steel, aluminum or titanium … A partition 11 may be a square, a circle, or the like surrounded by various geometric shapes. The second partition 12 is adjacent to the outer periphery of the first partition 11. The substrate 1 may further be provided with a third partition 13 adjacent to the second partition. A periphery of 12; a fourth partition 14 adjoins the periphery of the third partition 13 (P3, last complete paragraph, includes the claimed “a plate body comprising a rectangular hole-configuring region; a plurality of holes arranged in the rectangular hole-configuring region and arranged concentrically to form a first to an N-th rectangular patterns from an inside to an outside sequentially”), The first aperture 21 and the second aperture 22 have a minimum aperture increased, and N is a positive integer, wherein one portion of the holes are located in an area near a center of the rectangular hole-configuring region, another portion of the holes are located in four corner areas of the rectangular hole-configuring region, each of the holes has a diameter, and the diameter of the one portion of the holes is smaller than the diameter of the another portion of the holes” and as shown in Fig. 3. Note a machine translation error is cross-out, evidenced by the 1st complete paragraph of P4).
Claim 9: the substrate 1 can serve as an upper electrode of the chemical vapor deposition apparatus 3 (2nd complete paragraph, P4, includes the claimed “wherein the diffusing plate is configured for being employed in a panel-level packaging process, and the diffusing plate is electrically floating, grounded or connected to an alternating current source”, note “employed in a panel-level packaging process” is an intended use of the apparatus, see claim interpretations above).
Claims 10-12: the first partition 11 occupies 40 to 60% of the total area ratio of the substrate 1 and the minimum aperture of the first through hole 21 is 0.3 to 0.45 mm. The second partition 12 occupies 15-20% of the total area ratio of the substrate 1, and the minimum aperture of the second through hole 22 is 0.5-0.6 mm; the third partition 13 accounts for 15-20% of the total area of the substrate 1. And the minimum aperture of the third through hole 23 is 0.7-0.75 mm; the fourth partition 14 is an area area of the substrate 1 minus the first partition 11, the second partition 12, and the third partition 13, and the The minimum aperture of the four through holes 24 is 0.8 mm (1st complete paragraph, P4, As explain in the claim interpretation above, one can define a first concentric circular zone and outer zone each with some holes 2 (claim 10 does not require a particular pattern of holes in the circular zone and the outer zone), reads into the claimed “wherein the rectangular hole-configuring region comprises a center zone, an outer zone and a first concentric circular zone between the center zone and the outer zone, the center zone covers the first to an M-th rectangular patterns, M is a positive integer, M is smaller than N/2, the area near the center of the rectangular hole-configuring region is located in the center zone, the outer zone covers the four corner areas of the rectangular hole-configuring region, ϕ1 represents the diameter of any one of the holes of the center zone, ϕ2 represents the diameter of any one of the holes of the first concentric circular zone, and a condition of ϕ1 ≤ϕ2 is satisfied” of claim 101, “
wherein, ϕ3 represents the diameter of any one of the holes of the outer zone, and a condition of 0.4 mm ≤ϕ1 <ϕ2 <ϕ3 ≤ 2.5 mm is satisfied” of claim 11, and the claimed “ wherein the first concentric circular zone has a first concentric circular boundary, D1 represents a first distance between the center of the rectangular hole-configuring region and the first concentric circular boundary, D0 represents a distance between the N-th rectangular pattern and the center of the rectangular hole-configuring region, and a condition of 0.7×D0 ≤ D1 ≤ D0 is satisfied” of claim 12).
Claim 14: Referring to FIG. 6, the chemical vapor deposition gas diffusion device of the present invention is applied to a chemical vapor deposition device 3, and the internal space of the chemical vapor deposition device 3 is a reaction chamber 31, the chemical gas. The upper end of the phase deposition apparatus 3 is provided with a process gas inlet end 32 (shown in the figure) for introducing a process gas into the reaction chamber 31 (2nd complete paragraph, P4, capable of being used for etching by feeding appropriate gas, includes the claimed “An etching equipment, comprising: a chamber; a gas inlet communicated with the chamber and configured for providing a processing gas; and the diffusing plate of claim 1 disposed in the chamber and located under the gas inlet”).
Claim 15: Fig. 6 shows the outermost holes 2 is outside the edge of the substrate 34 on a stage, reads into the claimed “further comprising a substrate carrier disposed in the chamber and located under the diffusing plate, the substrate carrier comprising a rectangular effective processing region for containing at least one substrate, wherein a side-length of the N-th rectangular pattern of the diffusing plate is larger than a side-length of the rectangular effective processing region, and a ratio of the side-lengths thereof is ranged between 1.0 to 2.0”,
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘549, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of Park et al. (US 20110300716, hereafter ‘716).
‘549 further teaches that Referring to Figures 3 and 5, the principle of the substrate 1 of the chemical vapor deposition gas diffusion device of the present invention is based on the assumption that the area of each partition is the same (1st complete paragraph), but ‘549 is silent on the dimension of the diffuser and does not teach the limitation of:
Claim 2: wherein ΔSi represents a side-length difference between an i-th rectangular pattern of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and a neighboring one of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns adjacent thereto, ΔSi is positive, i is an integer index representing each of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns and ranged between 1 to N, ΔS1 is equal to a side-length of the first rectangular pattern, and a condition of 3 mm ≤ΔSi≤ 50 mm is satisfied.
Claim 3: wherein CIi represents a circumferential hole distance between one of the holes that is located in the i-th rectangular pattern and a neighboring one of the holes adjacent thereto along a side-length direction of the i-th rectangular pattern, and a condition of 0.3×ΔSi≤ CIi≤ 5×ΔSi is satisfied.
‘716 is analogous art in the field of semiconductor fabrication process equipment to distribute process gasses across the surface of a wafer or substrate during deposition, etching, and other processes ([0002]), a showerhead to deliver a gas to the chamber (abstract), other geometries of a showerhead faceplate, such as a rectangular, square, or oval geometry, may be appropriate, depending on the geometry of the wafer substrate or work piece being processed ([0034], last sentence). ‘716 teaches that a showerhead configured for processing 200 millimeter wafer substrates ([0031]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted size about 200 mm of ‘716 as the dimension of the square diffuser of ‘549, for the purpose of processing the geometry and size of the semiconductor substrate, as taught by ‘716 ([0034], last sentence). As the area of each partition is the same (‘549, 1st complete paragraph), ΔS1 = 200*(sqrt(2)-1) = 41 mm, ΔS2 = 200*(sqrt(3)-sqrt(2)) = 31 mm, and ΔS3 = 200*(sqrt(3)-sqrt(2) = 27 mm) (see claim interpretations, alternative). On the other hand, by assigning all holes at equal distance from center for each of the plurality of patterns, Fig. 3 of ‘549 shows 19 patterns (7 holes in the firs first partition 11, 4 each in the second, third and fourth partitions 12, 13, 14), therefore, ΔSi [Symbol font/0x40] 200/19 = 10.5 mm, although holes separation grows slightly larger progressive outward, the relationship of 3 mm ≤ΔSi≤ 50 mm is easily met). The separation of holes within partition 11 is about 100/14 [Symbol font/0x40] 7.1 mm, which meets the condition 0.3×ΔSi≤ CIi≤ 5×ΔSi while ΔSi [Symbol font/0x40] 10.5 mm).
‘549 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 7: Fig. 3 shows the outermost holes in the outermost rectangular pattern has one hole at each edge, which is much larger than the hole distances of the inner partitions (includes the claimed “wherein the side-length difference corresponding to the first to an M-th rectangular patterns is different from the side-length difference corresponding to an M+1-th to the N-th rectangular patterns, M is a positive integer, and M is smaller than N/2“).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘549 and ‘’716, as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, in view of FAGUET (US 20080241377, hereafter ‘377).
Fig. 3 of ‘549 shows larger holes at outer partitions instead of hole density variation. The combination of ‘549 and ‘716 does not teach the limitation of:
Claim 4: wherein the first to the N-th rectangular patterns are partitioned into a plurality of groups each indexed by an integer j ranged from 1 to J, each of the groups comprising an integer dj of neighboring rectangular patterns, starting from an imin,j-th to an imax,j-th rectangular patterns, wherein imax,j = imin,j+dj-1, the circumferential hole distances CIi of the rectangular patterns of each of the groups are increased as the corresponding integer index i increases, the imin,j-th to the imax,j-th rectangular patterns belong to one of the groups, an imax,j+1-th rectangular pattern belongs to another one of the groups adjacent thereto, the circumferential hole distance of the imax,j+1-th rectangular pattern is smaller than the circumferential hole distance of the imax,j-th rectangular pattern.
Claim 6: wherein the circumferential hole distance of a largest one of the rectangular patterns of one of the groups that is away from the first rectangular pattern is smaller than the circumferential hole distance of a largest one of the rectangular patterns of another one of the groups that is near the first rectangular pattern.
‘377 is analogous art in the field of material processing, such as semiconductor device manufacturing for production of integrated circuits ([0004]), a gas distribution plate 141 (Fig. 2A, [0037]). ‘377 teaches that the plurality of openings 144 can be distributed in various density patterns on the gas distribution plate 141. For example, more openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 and fewer openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141. Alternatively, for example, more openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution slate 141 and fewer openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141. Additionally yet, the size of the openings can vary on the gas distribution plate 141. For example, larger openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 and smaller openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141. Alternatively, for example, smaller openings -an be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141 and larger openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 ([0040], i.e. either hole size or hole density are equivalent is gas distribution control). Note this is the same as Applicants’ description “the overall densities of holes 720 of the rectangular patterns are increased further away from the center of the rectangular hole-configuring region 711” ([0114], last sentence).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the larger hole diameter at the outer partitions of ‘549 to a larger hole density at the same hole diameter, as taught by ‘377, for its suitability for gas distribution control with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
‘549 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 5: Fig. 3 shows four partitions each with same hole diameters (includes the claimed “wherein a condition of 4 ≤ dj≤ N is satisfied”).
Claim 8, and alternatively claims 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘549, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of He (US 20200083025, hereafter ‘025).
In case Applicants argue that etching is not an intended use of the apparatus for claim 14. As the holes partitions is rotated 45 degree from the square diffuser in ‘549, holes at the corners of the outer partitions are missing. ‘549 does not teach the limitation of:
Claim 8: wherein each of four corner points of each of the first to the N-th rectangular patterns comprises one of the holes.
‘025 is analogous art in the field of ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND ETCHING APPARATUS (title), The first electrode plate is arranged in the chamber and having a first central region and a first edge region. First gas inlet holes extend through the first central region, second gas inlet holes extend through the first edge region, and a cross sectional area of the first gas inlet hole is smaller than a cross sectional area of the second gas inlet hole (Fig. 1, abstract, i.e. the electrode is a gas diffuser/showerhead). Fig. 1 of ‘377 shows the holes are concentric to the border of the gas diffuser.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the gas diffuser in Fig. 3 of ‘549 to be concentric to the border of the gas diffuser with holes in every corner of each zone, as taught by ‘025, and applied it for etching, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Alternatively, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘549, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of Hao (US 20220336191, hereafter ‘191).
In case Applicants argue that “configured for being employed in a panel-level packaging process” is not an intended use of the apparatus.
‘191 is analogous art in the field of LOW TEMPERATURE PLASMA ENHANCED CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION PROCESS INCLUDING PREHEATED SHOWERHEAD (title). ‘191 teaches that the showerhead 202 includes the RF electrode 234 (Fig. 2, [0043]), the plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process while the showerhead is in the preheated state to package previously fabricated integrated circuits disposed on the substrate (abstract).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the diffuser plate of ‘549 for packaging previously fabricated integrated circuits disposed on the substrate, as taught by ‘191, for the purpose of packaging.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20080112594 is cited for rectangular gas distribution plate 30 with rectangular hole patterns and larger holes at edge (Fig. 6), with high frequency power supply 15 connected to the gas distribution plate (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights