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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
The term “preferably” in claims 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the second range is optional or required in the claim. Examiner will interpret as optional.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 5 recites the limitation "together with a substrate support" in the claim. It is unclear if there is another substrate support, or is it the same substrate already introduced earlier in the claim. Examiner interprets as the same. Appropriate clarification is requested.
The term “preferably” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the second range is optional or required in the claim. Examiner will interpret as optional.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020179248 to Kabansky in view of US 20060137608 to Choi and further in view of US 20090032612 to Kunstmann, US 6449873 to Yoon.
Claims 1, 5, 4, 9: Kabansky discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber (132 [process chamber], Fig. 2) for processing a substrate (136 [wafer]), comprising a substrate support (154 [wafer chuck]); a first inlet (146/168 [plasma tube]/[gas duct]) and a second inlet (170 [another gas duct]) configured to insert a first process gas and a second process gas into the reaction chamber (132) respectively (para. [0029]);
a gas inlet tube (158 [gas mixing chamber], Fig. 2) configured to mix the first process gas from the first inlet (146/168) and the second process gas from the second inlet (170), the gas inlet tube being (158) in fluid communication with the reaction chamber (132, Fig. 2),
a showerhead assembly (162 [shower head]) defining a reaction space (166/140) together with a substrate support (154), the showerhead assembly (162) comprising a plurality of holes (164 [distribution nozzles]) connected to the gas inlet tube (158) to supply the mixed process gas to the reaction space (para. [0029]),
wherein the first inlet (146/168) and the second inlet (170) are placed in the gas inlet tube (158) and face with each other directly opposite (Fig. 2).
However Kabansky does not disclose (claims 1, 5) the gas inlet tube comprising upper and lower segments; and wherein the first inlet and the second inlet are placed in the upper segment of the gas inlet tube; and the upper segment of the gas inlet tube is converging cone shape, the lower segment of the gas inlet tube is diverging cone shape, the ratio of the length of the upper segment (H1) to the length of the gas inlet tube (H) can be 0.1 ~ 0.9, preferably 0.15 ~ 0.25 (claims 4, 9) wherein the ratio of the width of upper segment bottom (W1) to the width of the lower segment bottom (W) can be 0.1 ~ 0.9, preferably about 0.4 ~ 0.6.
Choi discloses a gas inlet tube (330 [volume adjusting horn of showerhead assembly], Fig. 4-5) comprising upper (331) and lower segments (333); and wherein the first inlet (any of 311/312/313) and the second inlet (any of 311/312/313) are placed in the upper segment of the gas inlet tube (331 of 330); and the upper segment of the gas inlet tube (331 of 330) is converging cone shape (Fig. 4-5), the lower segment of the gas inlet tube (333 of 330) is diverging cone shape (Fig. 4-5), for the purpose of allowing the process gas to distribute uniformly, evenly, and smoothly over the wafer substrate and minimizes the volume of the inner part of the showerhead assembly (330, para. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gas inlet tube configuration as taught by Choi with motivation to allow the process gas to distribute uniformly, evenly, and smoothly over the wafer substrate and minimizes the volume of the inner part of the showerhead assembly.
Kunstmann teaches (claims 1, 5, 4, 9) that a funnel segment can be varied in width, length, and angle (para. [0030]) for the purpose of allowing the spray jet characteristics to be further influenced (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization teachings of Kunstmann to each of the funnel segments with motivation to allow the spray jet characteristics to be further influenced.
Regarding Yoon teaches (claims 1, 5, 4, 9) a gas inlet tube having an upper (l1, Fig, 3) and lower segment (l2) where the ratio of length to the length of gas tube overlaps the claimed relative range (c. 5, l. 26-30) for the purpose of transforming a gas into a cluster efficiently (c. 5, l. 26-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoon with motivation to transform a gas into a cluster efficiently.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Kabansky in view of Choi and further in view of Kunstmann discloses comprising: a gas exhaust hole (176 [gas exhaust vent], Fig. 2, Kabansky) for exhausting gas from the reaction chamber (132, para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 2, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky in view of Choi and further in view of Kunstmann as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9 above, and further in view of US 5286523 to Matsuda.
Claims 2, 7: The apparatus of Kabansky in view of Choi and further in view of Kunstmann does not disclose the first inlet and the second inlet have different diameters from each other.
Matsuda teaches diameters of gas supplying tubes being different from each other, for the purpose of changing the states of decomposition or reaction to satisfy optimal deposition conditions (c. 6, l. 2-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda with motivation to change the states of decomposition or reaction to satisfy optimal deposition conditions.
Claim(s) 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky in view of Choi and further in view of Kunstmann as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9 above, and further in view of US 20100062614 to Ma.
Claims 3, 8: The apparatus of Kabansky in view of Choi and further in view of Kunstmann does not disclose wherein the first inlet and the second inlet being diverging cone shape or converging cone shape in the connection area to the gas inlet tube.
Yet the diameters appear to be shown as different in Fig. 2 of Kabansky.
Ma teaches the first inlet (1150a [gas conduit], Fig. 3B/3C) and the second inlet (1150b [gas conduit]) being diverging cone shape or converging cone shape in the connection area to the gas inlet tube (para. [0094]) for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of blowing off reactants adsorbed on the surface of the substrate (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma with motivation to reduce the likelihood of blowing off reactants adsorbed on the surface of the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100062614 discloses a gas delivery system with a gas inlet tube (1128 [gas dispersing channel], Fig. 3B/3C) with opposite gas inlets (1150a and 1150b [gas conduits]) attached to the upper segment of the gas inlet tube (1128, para. [0087]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718