DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 14 recites the limitation "the showerhead" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato (5,364,488) in view of Nozawa (2007/0163502) and Kamarehi (2002/007912).
Minato teaches a substrate processing (ashing) apparatus comprising:
- a substate reaction chamber to treatment substrates, see chamber 1, Fig. 3,
- a plasma unit, see plasma elements including generator 27,
- a cooling unit comprising:
- a fan configured to generate an airflow – see fan 9,
- a plurality of fins in front of the fan, see fins, 5,
- a plurality of cooling pipes, see pipes 6 with coils 8, wherein the cooling pipes are configured to cool the air from the fan (related text) and are disposed between the fan and the substrate reaction chamber – the teachings include all aspects of the claim except the teachings do not explicitly include a water tank and the system does not include a remote, but rather in situ, plasma unit.
Kamarehi teaches that it is useful to include a remote plasma system with an ashing system [0002]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the remote plasma of Kamarehi to the system of Minato as Kamarehi teaches that a remote plasma is useful for systems including ashing systems (such as taught by Minato) (it is noted that while as is specifically noted in both references and the rejection, the broader teaching of a remote plasma in any such processing system is arguable without a focus on the specifically noted process as any process is in case intended use and the chamber is reasonably outfitted for any similar process). As per Fig. 1 of Kamarehi, the remote system is connected to the chamber by a gas pipe (26).
In regard to the tank, the system of Minato includes water/fluid inlet and outlet lines, but not specifically a tank. Nozawa teaches that in use with a cooling system, it is effective to include a tank for holing the fluid used for the chiller [0005]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to employ a tank for the water / cooling fluid of Nozawa in the apparatus of Minato as an operable manner of supplying the cooling water.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the area held within upper portion including the fan and water channels comprises an inlet and/or outlet hood as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the teachings include a temperature sensor (thermocouple) and controller to activate the fan when needed (col 2, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 11, air flow is directed into the reaction chamber as depicted.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nozawa and Kamarehi and Kuppurao (2007/0042117).
The teachings of Minato et al are described above. To the extent that the teachings do not have a cross-flow as depicted, the teachings of Kuppurao are described. Kuppurao teaches that it is useful to include a cooling air system to supply air at the top of a process chamber, see Figs. 1, 5, 8 and related text. Kuppurao teaches that it is useful to provide the air across the chamber in order to control the temperature. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Minato and Kuppurao – for example, to apply the cooling system of Minato including the fan, cooling coils and fins in a manner such as supplied by Kuppurao in order to provide cooling to a substrate processing apparatus. In doing so, the outlet hood (lower portion above chamber) provides the outlet across the inlet hood (per Kuppurao the top most portion of the hood above the process chamber)., thereby meeting the requirements of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the teachings do not explicitly include a fan in the exhaust, the teachings include multiple fans such as per Kuppurao (Fig. 8), adding other (exhaust) fans would have been further obvious as a routine duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Even though the additional fan is in a different portion, the intent of the fans is to move the air through the system and therefore duplication is obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, when combined with Kuppurao, there are two outlet hoods, with arguments above applied to claim 6 in regard to the fans.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nozawa and Kamarehi and Wei (2021/0225673).
The teachings of Minato are described above, including fins, a controller and thermocouple but not teaching movable fins that move to adjust the temperature. Wei teaches however in a process system it is useful to have a controller and fins that are adjustable according to a detected temperature [0032]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the movable fins of Wei that are moved when the temperature is at a certain point as it would further assist in the temperature control system of Minato.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nozawa and Kamarehi in further view of Furuta (2009/0255798).
The teachings of Minato are described above, the teachings do not include the gas pipe from the plasma generator going through cooling pipes. Furuta teaches, however, that in order to control the temperature of a gas flow, it is useful to flow gas from a remote plasma generator through cooling tubes [0042]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to flow the remote plasma gas of the combined art through the cooling tubes as Furuta teaches that it is an effective method of controlling the temperature of the gas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 15 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 12, there is no teaching in the prior art of the plasma unit being within such a cooling supplying tank.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, while teachings of thermocouples within such cooling fluid tanks or on cooling pipes are present, there is no suggestion of coupling the fan action to that temperature – the teachings of Minato include the fan motion directed by the temperature of a part of the chamber, not the cooling components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Generally, the prior art teaches the location of the cooling tubes and also the use of a gas pipe as now claimed with the RPU.
The Office agrees that claims 12, 15 and 16 would be allowable. Claim 14 has not been rejected over the prior art, because it is not clear how the showerhead would be incorporated. Minato does not teach a showerhead, but the teachings would be applicable to a system with a showerhead and could be modified.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights