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 1-9, in the reply filed on August 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden searching all the inventions together. This is not found persuasive because the different inventions require a different field of search and are directed to different embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0006539) in view of Carlson et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2012/0240853 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teach a processing chamber (Figs. 1, 7, 8 – 100) applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a chamber body (Figs. 1, 7, 8 – 100); a window (Figs. 1, 7, 8 – 130; Paragraph 0035), the chamber body (100) and the window (130) at least partially defining a processing volume; one or more heat sources (Paragraph 0054 – electrical or optical heat sources) operable to heat the processing volume; a substrate support (Paragraph 0039 – 210) disposed in the processing volume; and a plasma generator disposed at least partially around the processing volume (Figs. 1, 7, 8; Paragraphs 0052) Gas is injected into the space. (Paragraph 0090)
The difference between Yang et al. and claim 1 is the flow module is not discussed.
Regarding the flow module (Claim 1), Yang et al. already teach injecting gas into the space. (See Yang et al. discussed above) Carlson et al. teach a flow module to be used in a chamber. (Paragraphs 0030-0034; Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 5A-5C, 6A-6B, 7-9)
It would be obvious to modify Yang et al. by utilizing the features of Carlson et al. because it allows for injecting process gases into a chamber.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. teach a plasma generator comprising an induction coil that is disposed circumferentially around the processing volume. (See Fig. 8)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the flow module is operable to supply one or more process gases to the processing volume.
Regarding claim 3, Carlson teaches wherein the flow module is operable to supply one or more process gases to the processing volume. (Paragraphs 0030-0034; Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 5A-5C, 6A-6B, 7-9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a liner comprising one or more flow gaps in communication with one or more gas inlets of the flow module, wherein the plasma generator is embedded in the liner.
Regarding claim 4, Carlson et al. teach further comprising: a liner comprising one or more flow gaps in communication with one or more gas inlets of the flow module, wherein the plasma generator is embedded in the liner. (Paragraphs 0030-0034; Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 5A-5C, 6A-6B, 7-9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. teach wherein the window further comprises: a first section comprising an energy transmissive material; and a second section comprising an opaque material, wherein the plasma generator is embedded in the second section of the window. (See Fig. 6B – embedded under broadest reasonable interpretation. Also Fig. 8 fully embedded; Paragraphs 0076-0077)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more process gases comprises silicon (Si), phosphorus (P), germanium (Ge), phosphide (SiP), phospine (PH₃), nitrogen (N₂), hydrogen (H₂), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. teach utilizing silane for example. (Paragraph 0095)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Carlson et al. is that it allows for injecting gas precursors into a chamber. (Paragraph 0006)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Yang et al. by utilizing the features of Carlson et al. because it allows for injecting gas precursors into the chamber.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Carlson et al. as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Deshmukh et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0099369 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more heat sources comprise light emitting diodes (LEDs).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. already teach utilizing optical heating. (See Yang et al. discussed above) Deshmukh et al. teach utilizing LEDs for optical heating. (Paragraphs 0016, 0028, 0031, 0054-0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the LEDs are operable to spike at a target wavelength.
Regarding claim 8, Deshmukh et al. teach wherein the LEDs are operable to spike at a target wavelength. (Paragraph 0028 – 455 nm)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the target wavelength is within a range of 400 nm to 500 nm.
Regarding claim 9, Deshmukh et al. teach wherein the target wavelength is within a range of 400 nm to 500 nm. (Paragraph 0028 – 455 nm)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Deshmukh et al. is that it allows for using specific wavelengths from LEDS to “tailor” or induce only the desired reactions for best control in reactors. (Paragraph 0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Deshmukh et al. because it allows for inducing desired reactions for best control in reactors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights