DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-25, 28 and 29 as being rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Aoki et al (7,980,003) in view of Kumar et al (2017/0009346) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however upon a further search a new ground of rejection is being made in view of the applicants amendment, in favor of Zhao et al (6,129,044) over Aoki et al as Zhao et al provides a teaching of an adjusted gas generated by the mixing of multiple components such that the one component becomes a predetermined value. The prior art reference of Kumar et al (2017/0009346) is being maintained in the rejection for its teaching of oxygen being a commonly known component of an adjusted gas provided to a showerhead when applying uniform layers to a substrate, with Deaton et al (5,960,555) being included as evidence of the well known use of oxygen as a component for the generation of layers of silicon dioxide in substrate processing.
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 (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.
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) 21, 23-25, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (6,129,044) in view of Kumar et al (2017/0009346). Zhao et al discloses a substrate processing apparatus (30) including a heat processing unit (58) configured to perform a heat process on a substrate (36) having a film (ex: titanium nitride) formed on the substrate, wherein the heat processing unit comprises: a heater (32) configured to support and heat the substrate; a chamber (45) configured to cover the substrate supported on the heater; a gas ejector (40) having a head in which a plurality of ejection holes (42) scattered along a surface facing the substrate supported on the heater is formed, and configured to eject a gas from the plurality of ejection holes (42) toward a surface of the substrate (SEE Figure 1A); an exhauster (74) configured to evacuate a processing space inside the chamber, wherein the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing one component and another component and adjusted such that a concentration of the one component becomes a predetermined value (SEE column 8, lines 16-39 and column 9, lines 14-56). Zhao et al discloses that during a plasma treatment step a gas mixture is provided to a showerhead, in this case the gas mixture is of H2 and N2 at a 3:2 ratio (SEE column 18, lines 48-64). Kumar discloses in [0047] & [0088] that it was commonly known in the art that during the processing of a substrate, that a process gas is provided to the surface of a substrate being supported on a heated pedestal via a showerhead (102) and that the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing multiple components. Kumar also discloses in [0115] a heater control program in which the delivery of a heat transfer gas to the substrate is controlled. The examiner notes that the claim does not have a requirement for the delivery of the process gases during a film forming process nor during a heat process. Kumar further teaches that it is known in the art for oxygen to be one of the components that is mixed and provided to the showerhead to be applied to the substrate (SEE [0047]). As evidenced by Deaton et al (5,960,555), oxygen is a well known component that may be introduced for growing a layer of silicon dioxide (SEE column 1, lines 42-52). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the applicants claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains to have modified the gas ejector (40) of Zhao et al such that oxygen was one of the components mixed with the multiple gases resulting in a concentration of one of the gases to a predetermined value as was already known in the art and taught by Kumar et al and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of balancing exhaust and gas ejection patterns so byproducts are removed without significantly impacting the film forming environment. Additionally, it is noted that the applicant has not disclosed that incorporating oxygen as one of the components to be mixed with another component solves any stated problem in a new or unexpected way or is for any particular purpose which is unobvious to one of ordinary skill. It appears that the claimed feature does not distinguish the invention over similar features of the prior art references provided. In re claim 23, Zhao et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Zhao et al further discloses that when the heat process is performed, the chamber (45) forms a communication portion (50, 60, 76) connecting the processing space and an external space of the chamber. In re claim 24, Zhao et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Zhao et al further discloses that the exhauster is an outer peripheral exhauster (SEE exhaust aperture 74) configured to evacuate the processing space inside the chamber from an outer peripheral region located further outward than a peripheral edge of the substrate supported on the heater (Figure 1A). In re claim 25, Zhao et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Zhao et al further discloses a gas supply unit (89) configured to generate the adjusted gas by mixing a first gas (91A) containing the one component and a second gas (91B) containing the another component, and to supply the adjusted gas to the gas ejector, wherein the gas supply unit is arranged in a separate space partitioned from a space in which the heat processing unit is arranged (Figure 1A). In re claim 28, Zhao et al discloses a method for substrate processing with improved throughput and yield including performing a heat process on a substrate (36) having a film (example: titanium nitride) formed on the substrate, wherein the performing the heat process on the substrate includes causing the substrate to be supported on and heated by a heater (32) in a state in which the substrate is covered by a chamber (45); evacuating a processing space inside the chamber (via a vacuum system 88); and ejecting a gas (via a showerhead 40) toward a surface of the substrate from a plurality of ejection holes (42) scattered along a surface facing the substrate supported on the heater, wherein the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing one component (91A) and another component (91B) and adjusted such that a concentration of the one component becomes a predetermined value (SEE column 8, lines 16-39 and column 9, lines 14-56). Zhao et al discloses that during a plasma treatment step a gas mixture is provided to a showerhead, in this case the gas mixture is of H2 and N2 at a 3:2 ratio (SEE column 18, lines 48-64). Kumar discloses in [0047] & [0088] that it was commonly known in the art that during the processing of a substrate, that a process gas is provided to the surface of a substrate being supported on a heated pedestal via a showerhead (102) and that the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing multiple components. Kumar also discloses in [0115] a heater control program in which the delivery of a heat transfer gas to the substrate is controlled. Kumar further teaches that it is known in the art for oxygen to be one of the components that is mixed and provided to the showerhead to be applied to the substrate (SEE [0047]). As evidenced by Deaton et al (5,960,555), oxygen is a well known component that may be introduced for growing a layer of silicon dioxide (SEE column 1, lines 42-52). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the applicants claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains to have modified the gas ejector (40) of Zhao et al such that oxygen was one of the components mixed with the multiple gases resulting in a concentration of one of the gases to a predetermined value as was already known in the art and taught by Kumar et al and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of balancing exhaust and gas ejection patterns so byproducts are removed without significantly impacting the film forming environment. Additionally, it is noted that the applicant has not disclosed that incorporating oxygen as one of the components to be mixed with another component solves any stated problem in a new or unexpected way or is for any particular purpose which is unobvious to one of ordinary skill. It appears that the claimed feature does not distinguish the invention over similar features of the prior art references provided. In re claim 29, Zhao et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Zhao et al further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes an apparatus to execute the claimed method (SEE column 4, lines 26-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 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.
Conclusion
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 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 GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights