DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 3, 2025. Claims 19 and 25 are amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose the new material recited by independent claims 19 and 25 – namely, the feature of gas boxes which directly provide fluid to the shower head via dedicated conduit lines (p. 7).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization, as a mixing manifold (460) is disposed between each of Abel’s dedicated conduit lines (452) and the shower head (424) (Fig. 8). The outstanding rejections are withdrawn yet, subsequent further search, new rejections have been elaborated below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 19-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel et al., US 2020/0017967, in view of Hill et al., US 2015/0267301.
Claim 19: Abel discloses an apparatus for fabricating a structure comprising a plate (426), a showerhead (424), and a gas delivery system (450) ([0043-44]; Fig. 8). The gas delivery system (450) comprises a series of gas source boxes (452) which are capable of accommodating and delivering any type of gas [0047]. That is, the operator can charge one box with a precursor to generate the claimed “precursor box,” one box with a purge gas to generate a “purge box,” and one box with a reactant to generate a “reactant box.” This demonstration of the prior art’s structural capacity to reproduce the claimed fluid delivery function is sufficient to satisfy the threshold for rejection in an apparatus claim, as it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
It should be noted that Abel discloses an indefinite number of gas sources: 452-N, where “N is an integer greater than zero” [0047]. The reference, then, does not formally anticipate the three gas boxes enumerated above. Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill would understand the notation of “N” to plausibly encompass a quantity of gas sources exceeding the number depicted by Figure 8, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
The depicted embodiment of Figure 8 avails an RF source (440) to ionize selected gases upon their entrance to the reaction chamber, but this technique does not formally “provide the plasma to the shower head,” as claim 19 requires. Yet Abel contemplates an alternative embodiment in which the plasma is first generated remotely and then supplied to the reaction chamber [0046]. The Office is relying upon this embodiment for the purposes of rejection, whereby the remote plasma source may be taken as the claimed “plasma box.”
Lastly, regarding the new material, Abel couples each dedicated conduit to a mixing manifold (460) situated upstream of the shower head (424), whereas claim 19 now requires the direct provision of gas to the shower head from the gas source. In supplementation, Hill discloses an analogous plasma processing system comprising a series of precursor, purge, and reactant boxes (110, 112, 114) that supply fluid to a shower head (108) ([0002]; Fig. 1). And yet, rather than inserting a mixing manifold into the flow path, Hill directly couples each dedicated conduit line (116, 118, 120) to the shower head, thereby demonstrating the viability of this paradigm for purposes of gas provision. The examiner understands these competing designs, one with a mixing manifold and one without, as constituting art-recognized equivalents, whereby the selection of either design would have been obvious over the other. In other words, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the matter of gas distribution, each with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 20: By definition, a remote plasma source generates plasma within its confines.
Claims 21, 23-24, 29-30: The type of gas provided is a matter of intended use, whereby the operator can simply provide the appropriate fluid to the apparatus.
Claim 22: One of Abel’s 452-N gas sources can be charged with an etchant fluid by the operator, whereby the gas delivery system will supply the etchant to the shower head. In turn, the shower head will provide the etchant to the plate.
Claim 25: The rejection of claim 19, above, substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, it would have been obvious to allocate a sufficient number of Abel’s 452-N gas sources to constitute each of the five claimed gas boxes. Any one of the gas sources can be used to accommodate and deliver the nitrogen interface forming gas. Separately, Abel’s plate (426) comprises a heater (432) [0045].
Claim 27: As shown by Figure 8 of Abel, one may delimit an abstract boundary (450) about each of the gas sources and name this the “gas box.”
Claim 28: Abel provides a master controller (480) which regulates the operations of each gas box [0049].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel in view of Hill, and in further view of Forderhase, US 2019/0326139.
Abel is silent regarding the temperatures attained within the processing chamber. In supplementation, Forderhase, like Abel, discloses an etching apparatus comprising an electrostatic chuck (188) having a heater (186) embedded therein [0021]. During processing, the heater can elevate the reaction chamber temperature to 700 degrees Celsius [0031]. In view of this demonstration as to the suitability of the aforesaid temperature setting for purposes of etching, it would have been obvious to heat Abel’s apparatus to this threshold since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Albarede et al., US 2016/0314943. Albarede discloses an apparatus comprising a plate (106), a shower head (109), a plasma box (120), and a gas box (130) comprising plural gas sources ([0045]; Fig. 1).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights