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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (apparatus), drawn to claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois et al (US 2018/0237915) in view of Ranish et al (US 2013/0284097).
Regarding claim 1:
DuBois teaches a substrate processing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 1) for performing a substrate processing on a substrate (substrate, 102) [fig 1 & 0020], comprising: a processing chamber (processing chamber, 100) having an internal space (interior, 105) configured to accommodate the substrate (substrate, 102) [fig 1 & 0020]; a substrate holder (substrate support, 122) configured to hold the substrate (102) in the internal space (105) and rotate the substrate (rotated during processing) [fig 1 & 0020-0021]; a first nozzle mechanism (movable diffuser assembly, 144) swingably provided in the internal space (105) and configured to discharge a first processing gas (flow process gas) to the substrate (102) held by the substrate holder (122) when the first nozzle mechanism swings (movable at any point along arc path 188) [fig 1-3B & 0024, 0031]; and a controller (controller, 180) configured to control the substrate holder (122) and the first nozzle mechanism (144) [fig 1 & 0028].
DuBois does not specifically disclose a second nozzle mechanism swingably provided in the internal space, separately from the first nozzle mechanism, and configured to discharge a second processing gas to the substrate held by the substrate holder when the second nozzle mechanism swings; and a controller configured to control the second nozzle mechanism, wherein the controller, during the substrate processing, causes the first nozzle mechanism and the second nozzle mechanism to swing independently of each other in a state where the substrate is rotated by the substrate holder.
Ranish teaches a second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115) swingably provided in the internal space (swept along path 250), separately from the first nozzle mechanism (first gas diffusion device 115), and configured to discharge a second processing gas (adapted to provide additional process gas) to the substrate (substrate, 108) held by the substrate holder (support, 106) when the second nozzle mechanism swings (swept along path 250) [fig 1-2 & 0022-0023, 0029]; and a controller (controller, 260) configured to control the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115), wherein the controller (260), during the substrate processing, causes the first nozzle mechanism and the second nozzle mechanism to swing independently of each other in a state where the substrate is rotated by the substrate holder (gas diffusers 115 may be utilized when the substrate is rotating) [fig 2 & 0028-0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus and controller of DuBois to comprise a second nozzle mechanism to swing independently of the first nozzle mechanism in a state where the substrate is rotated by the substrate holder, as in Ranish, to enable sufficient distribution of process gas across the substrate [Ranish – 0028].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified DuBois teaches the first nozzle mechanism (144) includes a first nozzle (movable arm, 146) extending in the internal space (105), a first nozzle operating device (support housing, 150) provided at a base end of the first nozzle (146) and configured to swing the first nozzle (pivotally mounted), and a first head (deposition head, 164) provided at a tip end of the first nozzle (146) and configured to discharge the first processing gas [DuBois – fig 1-3B & 0026-0027], and the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115) includes a second nozzle (body of 115) extending in the internal space, a second nozzle operating device (mount, 117) provided at a base end of the second nozzle (body of 115) and configured to swing (pivot) the second nozzle (body of 115), and a second head (portion of 115 having holes) provided at a tip end of the second nozzle (body of 115) and configured to discharge the second processing gas [Ranish - fig 2-3 & 0029, 0032].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified DuBois teaches the first nozzle mechanism (144) causes the first head (deposition head, 164) to reciprocate at least in a range between a center of the substrate held by the substrate holder and an outer edge of the substrate (movable at any point along arc path 188) [DuBois – fig 2 & 0027, 0031], and the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115) causes the second head (portion of 115 having holes) to reciprocate at least in a range between the center of the substrate held by the substrate holder and the outer edge of the substrate (adapted to be moved across the substrate as shown by arrows 250) [Ranish – fig 2 & 0028-0029].
Regarding claim 11:
Modified DuBois teaches the processing chamber (100) includes a purge gas supply (136 may supply purge gas) configured to supply a purge gas (purge gas) with respect to the internal space (105) from above the first nozzle mechanism (144) [DuBois - fig 1 & 0023] and the second nozzle mechanism in a vertical direction (second gas diffusion device 115 may be vertically offset below a first gas distribution device 115) [Ranish – fig 2 & 0028].
Regarding claim 12:
The claim limitations “wherein the first nozzle mechanism discharges an adsorption gas to be adsorbed on the substrate, as the first processing gas, and the second nozzle mechanism discharges a reaction gas that reacts with the adsorption gas adsorbed on the substrate, as the second processing gas” 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).
Regarding claims 13-14:
Dubois does not specifically teach a third nozzle mechanism swingably provided in the internal space, separately from the first nozzle mechanism and the second nozzle mechanism, and configured to discharge a third processing gas to the substrate held by the substrate holder when the third nozzle mechanism swings.
Ranish teaches a third nozzle mechanism (third gas diffusion device 115) swingably provided in the internal space (swept along path 250), separately from the first nozzle mechanism (first gas diffusion device 115) and the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115), and configured to discharge a third processing gas (adapted to provide additional process gas) to the substrate (substrate, 108) held by the substrate holder (support, 106) when the third nozzle mechanism swings (swept along path 250) [fig 1-2 & 0022-0023, 0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus of DuBois to comprise a third nozzle mechanism, as in Ranish, to enable sufficient distribution of process gas across the substrate [Ranish – 0028].
The claim limitations “wherein the third nozzle mechanism discharges an etching gas for etching the substrate, as the third processing gas” 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).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois et al (US 2018/0237915) in view of Ranish et al (US 2013/0284097) as applied to claims 1-3 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Honma (JP 2016122788A).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 11-14 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified DuBois teaches the controller (180) controls the moving speed of the first head (rate of rotation of the movable diffuser) and the moving speed of the second head (movement of diffusers 115 is controlled by controllers 260) [Dubois – 0063 and Ranish - 0029].
Modified DuBois does not specifically teach the controller controls the moving speed of the first head and the moving speed of the second head to become higher at a position opposing the center of the substrate than at a position opposing the outer edge of the substrate.
Honma teaches controlling the moving speed of a head (adjusting rotational speeds of the gas supply head 62) to become higher at a position opposing the center of the substrate than at a position opposing the outer edge of the substrate (smaller when passing over the peripheral portion of the wafer) [0041].
It would have ben obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control of the moving speeds of the first and second heads of modified DuBois to become higher at a position opposing the center of the substrate than at a position opposing the outer edge of the substrate, as in Honma, to improve uniformity of the film thickness to compensate for a substrate in which the film thickness of the peripheral portion is larger than that of the central portion [Honma – 0035].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified DuBois does not specifically teach each of the first head and the second head includes a processing gas discharger configured to discharge the first processing gas or the second processing gas, a purge gas discharger surrounding the processing gas discharger at an outer side of the processing gas discharger, and configured to discharge a purge gas, a gas suction part surrounding the purge gas discharger on an outer side of the purge gas discharger, and configured to suck a gas.
Honma teaches a head (source gas supply head, 62) includes a processing gas discharger (source gas discharge port, 64) configured to discharge the first processing gas or the second processing gas (source gas), a purge gas discharger (purge gas discharge port, 66) surrounding the processing gas discharger (64) at an outer side of the processing gas discharger (64), and configured to discharge a purge gas (purge gas), a gas suction part (exhaust port, 65) surrounding the purge gas discharger on an outer side of the purge gas discharger (65 may be provided outside 66), and configured to suck a gas [fig 6, 9 & 0023, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each of the first head and the second head of modified DuBois to include a purge gas discharger and gas suction part arranged as claimed in order to isolate the area to which source gas is supplied [Honma – 0070].
Regarding claims 9-10:
Modified Dubois teaches a gas exhauster (vacuum pump, 142) connected to each of the first nozzle mechanism (144 of DuBois) and the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115 of Ranish was modified to include 65 of Honma), and configured to suck the gas of the gas suction part by applying a negative pressure to the gas suction part (may provide vacuum suction for the arm exhaust flow path) [Dubois – fig 3A-3B & 0035, Ranish – fig 2, and Honma – 0070]; and wherein the gas exhauster (vacuum pump, 142) is connected to a bottom surface of the processing chamber and a periphery of the substrate holder (see fig 1 of Dubois), in addition to the first nozzle mechanism (144 of DuBois) and the second nozzle mechanism (second gas diffusion device 115 of Ranish was modified to include 65 of Honma), and is configured to exhaust the gas in the internal space (105) [Dubois – fig 1, 3A-3B & 0035, Ranish – fig 2, and Honma – 0070].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois et al (US 2018/0237915) in view of Ranish et al (US 2013/0284097) as applied to claims 1-3 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Horinouchi (JP H07321057A).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 11-14 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified DuBois does not specifically disclose the first head forms a first processing point region having a rectangular shape that is elongated in a radial direction of the substrate, and the second head forms a second processing point region having a rectangular shape that is elongated in the radial direction of the substrate.
Horinouchi teaches a head forms a first processing point region having a rectangular shape that is elongated in a radial direction of the substrate (forms a rectangular section) [fig 3 & 0027].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first head and the second head of modified DuBois to have a rectangular shape, as in Horinouchi, because such a shape is effective for a head of a nozzle mechanism [Horinouchi – 0027]. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois et al (US 2018/0237915) in view of Ranish et al (US 2013/0284097) and Honma (JP 2016122788A) as applied to claims 4, 6, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al (US 2019/0037678).
The limitations of claims 4, 6, and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 7-8:
Modified DuBois does not specifically teach the processing gas discharger includes a heater configured to heat the first processing gas or the second processing gas; and wherein the processing gas discharger includes an antenna configured to generate plasma in the first processing gas or the second processing gas.
Schmidt teaches a processing gas discharger (nozzle) includes a heater (induction coil) configured to heat the first processing gas or the second processing gas (heating the gas) [fig 2-3 & 0004]; and wherein the processing gas discharger (nozzle) includes an antenna (induction coil) configured to generate plasma in the first processing gas or the second processing gas (generating the plasma flame) [fig 2-3 & 0004].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing gas discharger of modified Dubois to include a heater/antenna, as in Schmidt, to allow for precise control over the deposition [Schmidt – 0029].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakazato et al (JP 2018062703A) teaches a rectangular shape nozzle head [fig 4].
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