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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 12 has been amended. This is found persuasive regarding group II, claims 12-17; therefore, the restriction between Group I and Group II is withdrawn. Group III, claims 18-20 are withdrawn and no arguments regarding group III are provided.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites, “the second ledge is disposed at a first distance between the first ledge and the second ledge; and the liner further comprises a lower face disposed at a second distance between the first ledge and the lower face of the liner; and the second distance is less than the first distance.” The claim is indefinite because the second ledge cannot between disposed at a distance from itself. The claim defines “the second ledge is disposed at a first distance between the first ledge and the second ledge” which is impossible. Also, the second distance is likewise indefinite because the first distance is indefinite; therefore, a distance less than the first distance would be indefinite. For the purpose of expediting examination, the claim is interpreted as having a distance between the first and second ledges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838).
Bansal et al teaches a chamber kit for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the chamber kit comprising: a liner (inner liner 166, outer liner 168) comprising: an inner face; a first ledge (lower clamping member 120) disposed along the inner face; and a second ledge (upper clamping member 118) disposed along the inner face, the second ledge spaced from the first ledge along the inner face; a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) sized and shaped to be disposed within the liner on the first ledge; and a second plate (UV transparent lid 114) sized and shaped to be disposed within the liner on the second ledge 118 (Fig 1; [0026]-[0042]).
Referring to claim 2, Bansal et al teaches a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) with a plurality of flow openings 164 (Fig 1; [0049]).
Referring to claim 3, Bansal et al teaches the second plate 114 comprises a solid body having a solid cross section across an outer dimension of the second plate (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 4, Bansal et al teaches a first plate (UV transparent gas distribution showerhead 116) with a plurality of flow openings 164 extending through the plate (Fig 1; [0049]).
Referring to claims 5 and 14, Bansal et al teaches the second plate 114 comprises an outer diameter larger than an outer diameter of the first plate 116 (Fig 1).
Referring to claim 10-11, Bansal et al teaches a transparent UV quartz first plate 116 and second plate 114 ([0051]-[0054]).
Referring to claim 12, see remarks above regarding claim 1. Also, Bansal et al teaches a chamber body 102, and a substrate support 108 disposed in the inner volume 106 (Fig 1; [0027]-[0030]).
Referring to claim 16, Bansal et al teaches a first volume is between the first plate and the second plate, and the first volume is in fluid communication with the process volume through the plurality of flow openings (Fig 1 .
Referring to claim 17, Bansal et al teaches the second plate is disposed between the first volume and a second volume to fluidly isolate the first volume from the second volume (Fig 1 teaches a second volume 130 above the window 114, and first volume below the window 114).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838), as applied to claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 above.
Bansal et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except
Bansal et al does not explicitly teach the second ledge is disposed at a first distance between the first ledge and the second ledge; and the liner further comprises a lower face disposed at a second distance between the first ledge and the lower face of the liner; and the second distance is less than the first distance.
As discussed above, the limitations of claim 6 are indefinite; therefore Bansal et al would not be able to anticipate claim 6. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bansal et al to have the second ledge is disposed at a first distance between the first ledge and the second ledge; and the liner further comprises a lower face disposed at a second distance between the first ledge and the lower face of the liner; and the second distance is less than the first distance because changing shapes and size is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838), as applied to claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hawrylchak et al (US 2019/0067006).
Bansal et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except the liner further comprises a first supply opening 162 disposed outwardly of the first ledge. Bansal et al teaches supply opening disposed at least partially between the first ledge and the second ledge (Fig 1; [0045] teaches processing gas flows through the plurality of spoke apertures 162 between plates 114 and 116).
In a processing chamber apparatus, Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening 261 disposed the gas distributor plate 230 and the substrate support 232 (Fig 2A; [0037]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bansal et al by providing a first supply opening disposed outwardly of the first ledge between the showerhead plate and the substrate support, as taught by Hawrylchak et al, to supply a different processing gas to the substrate (Hawrylchak [0045]).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Bansal et al and Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening between the first plate and second plate (Bansal Fig 1; [0045] teaches processing gas flows through the plurality of spoke apertures 162 between plates 114 and 116).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Bansal et al and Hawrylchak et al teaches a first supply opening aligned with the first exhaust outlet (Hawrylchak [0079]-[0082], Fig 6 shows inlet 660 aligned with outlet 670). Also, the combination of Bansal et al and Hawrylchak et al teaches outlet with perpendicular exhaust conduits 674; therefore, having the second supply opening perpendicular to the first exhaust outlet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because placement and direction of the exhaust conduits is mere design choice, and any design which is capable of exhausting the gases would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 13, see remarks above regarding claim 7. The combination of Bansal et al and Hawrylchak et al teaches a plurality of gas inlets disposed at different locations in the processing chamber to supply different processing gas to different areas of the chamber.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al (US 2016/0289838), as applied to claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Joo et al (US 2020/0216957).
Bansal et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, except a first flow opening of the plurality of flow openings is larger than a second flow opening of the plurality of flow openings.
In a showerhead apparatus, Joo et al teaches the showerhead 410 of the apparatus 400 is divided into different zones, and the sizes (e.g., widths or diameters) of the holes or channels 416 in the showerhead 410 are varied from one zone to another; and the holes 416 in the first zone of the showerhead 410 may have a smaller hole size than the holes 416 in the second zone of the showerhead 410, allowing an even distribution of the second processing gas 414 flowing from the showerhead 410 over the substrate 404 (Fig 1-7; [0041]), which clearly suggests a first flow opening of the plurality of flow openings is larger than a second flow opening of the plurality of flow openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bansal et al by having a showerhead with a different sized holes, as taught by Joo et al, to provide a desired gas distribution over the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights