DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (6/27/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-8) were examined in a Non-Final in response to an election without traverse dated 11/28/2025. This office action is in response to a submission dated 5/4/2026. Claims were amended. Claim 6 was cancelled.
Response to amendments and Arguments
Applicant argues that
“A person having ordinary skill in the art cannot directly learn about the limitation "a fluid conduit partially covering an outside of the showerhead" as claimed through the teaching of Batzer as supplemented by Choi.”
This is not found persuasive since the cooling tube when wrapped around covers the cooled object only partially.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson et al (US 20080193673) in view of Yuda et al (US 20020000202), Batzer et al (US 20210269918) and Choi et al (US 20090071403).
Paterson et al disclose a deposition device (Fig 1), comprising:
a first chamber (15b) comprising a diffusion zone (near the showerhead) and a reaction zone (near the substrate), wherein the diffusion zone is above the reaction zone;
a substrate support disposed in the reaction zone (25);
a second chamber disposed over the first chamber (15a);
a showerhead disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber (10);
a first reactant inlet communicating with the second chamber (Fig 2, 112); and a precursor inlet communicating with the showerhead (76, 78).
Regarding a second reactant inlet communicating with the reaction zone of the first chamber, it is noted that gas coming off the showerhead would communicate with the reaction zone.
However, Yuda et al disclose a similar plasma processing chamber with an upper chamber and a lower chamber where reactant inlet could be an independent source like (Fig 1 or Fig 4, 22)) or introduced through the showerhead as an alternative arrangement (Fig 6 or Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have second reactant inlet communicating with the reaction zone of the first chamber as an alternative arrangement according to Yuda.
Paterson et al in view of Yuda et al do not disclose a fluid conduit partially covering an outside of the showerhead.
Batzer et al disclose a similar plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) with first chamber near the substrate (30), a second chamber (20) disposed over the first chamber; a showerhead disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber and cooling system (86) to cool the showerhead (Para 28).
Regarding fluid conduit partially covering an outside of the showerhead, it is noted that fluid conduit in thermal contact for cooling purpose was well known in the prior art.
For example, Choi et al disclose fluid conduit in thermal transfer contact with a cooling backing plate (See claim 2, Fig 1, 60-76 and para 27 ).
Having cooling system for Paterson showerhead for temperature control would have been obvious before the filing date of the application according to the teaching of Batzer as supplemented by Choi.
Regarding claims 2-5 associated RF power supplies are disclosed in Paterson et al as disclosed (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7 cooling fluid as being perfluoropolyether is disclosed in Batzer (Para 30).
Regarding claim 8 a vacuum pump (160) is disclosed in Paterson et al as disclosed (Fig 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hudson et al (US 9039911 Fig 1) disclose a first chamber (primary plasma 102) near the substrate, a substrate support disposed in the reaction zone; a second chamber (secondary plasma 120) disposed over the first chamber; a showerhead disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber and associated process gases and RF power.
Nguyen et al (US 20150170924 Fig 2) disclose a first chamber (270) near the substrate, a substrate support disposed in the reaction zone; a second chamber (292) disposed over the first chamber; a showerhead disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber and associated process gases and RF power.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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 at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights