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 § 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, 3, 6-15, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurono et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,779,803) in view of Nguyen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0343508 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kurono et al. teach a system for ashing (Column 7 lines 56-59), the system comprising: a chamber configured to enclose a substrate within a volume of the chamber and to process the substrate via a medium, wherein the volume comprises a first volume, a second volume, and a third volume, wherein the first volume is above the second volume and the second volume is above the third volume, wherein the chamber comprises: an inlet configured for receiving the medium into the chamber, wherein the inlet is in fluid communication with the first volume; and an outlet for expelling the medium after the medium has interacted with the substrate, wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the third volume; a first diffuser plate positioned between the first volume and the second volume and configured to split the medium received from the inlet into one or more pathways as it passes from the first volume to the second volume, the first diffuser plate being configured to allow selective transfer of the medium to the one or more pathways via one or more sets of first passthrough voids, each of the one or more pathways associated with a particular substrate and a respective set of first passthrough voids ; a second diffuser plate positioned between the second volume and the third volume, the second diffuser plate being configured to allow selective transfer of the medium along the one or more pathways to the substrate via one or more sets of second passthrough voids, each set of second passthrough voids being aligned with the respective set of first passthrough voids and a respective substrate to facilitate targeted delivery of the medium to the substrate; a support structure within the third volume and coupled to the chamber, wherein the support structure comprises one or more protrusions extending from a lower surface towards the second diffuser plate, each protrusion configured for holding a single substrate; and
An airflow modulator configured to modulate a flow of the medium, the airflow modulator disposed between one or more protrusions and lower than the substrate such that the airflow modulator is further from the second diffuser plate than the substrate, wherein the airflow modulator is space away from the one or more protrusions via a gap and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap. (Column 3 lines 7-67; Column 4 lines 1-65; Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
707
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between claim 1 is wherein the gapped airflow modulator is spaced away from the one or more protrusions via a first set of gaps, and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap is not discussed.
Regarding the gapped airflow modulator is spaced away from the one or more protrusions via a first set of gaps, and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap (Claim 1), Nguyen et al. teach a gapped airflow modulator spaced away from a protrusion having a first set of gaps and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap. (Fig. 1, 4; Paragraph 0045)
PNG
media_image2.png
593
999
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gapped airflow modulator comprises a plate defining circular voids, wherein the first set of gaps are defined as being between the circular voids and the one or more protrusions.
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen et al. teach wherein the gapped airflow modulator comprises a plate defining circular voids, wherein the first set of gaps are defined as being between the circular voids and the one or more protrusions. (Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the support structure is removably couplable to the chamber.
Regarding claim 6, Kurono et al teach wherein the support structure is removably couplable to the chamber. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
659
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chamber, the support structure, and the gapped airflow modulator comprise aluminum.
Regarding claim 7, Kurono et al. teach wherein the chamber, the support structure, and the gapped airflow modulator comprise aluminum. (Column 3 lines 12, 33)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more protrusions enclose an internal reservoir configured to house temperature-controlling fluid for cooling the substrate via indirect thermal communication with the temperature-controlling fluid.
Regarding claim 8, Kurono et al. teach wherein the one or more protrusions enclose an internal reservoir configured to house temperature-controlling fluid for cooling the substrate via indirect thermal communication with the temperature-controlling fluid. (Column 3 lines 22-31)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed wherein each protrusion comprises an elevated cylindrical platform.
Regarding claim 9, Kurono et al. teach wherein each protrusion comprises an elevated cylindrical platform. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein each protrusion comprises an elevated cylindrical platform.
Regarding claim 9, Kurono et al. teach wherein each protrusion comprises an elevated cylindrical platform. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the medium comprises ionized plasma.
Regarding claim 10, Kurono et al. teach wherein the medium comprises ionized plasma. (See Abstract – plasma)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 11-14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first set of gaps are 0.009 inches or more is not discussed (Claim 11), wherein the second gap is 0.02 inches or more is not discussed (Claim 12), wherein the first set of gaps are 0.1 inches or more is not discussed (Claim 13) and wherein the second gap is 0.2 inches or more is not discussed.
Regarding claims 11-14, Kurono et al. teach in Fig. 1 these dimensional limitations. (See Fig. 1) Furthermore it has been held to be obvious to change a size or proportion to achieve the same effect. See MPEP 2144.04 – IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS - A. Changes in Size/Proportion - In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Kurono et al. teach a method for ashing (Column 7 lines 56-59) comprising: enclosing substrate within a volume of a chamber of a system, wherein the volume comprises a first volume, a second volume, and a third volume, wherein the first volume is above the second volume and the second volume is above the third volume; receiving a medium into the chamber through an inlet in fluid communication with the first volume; positioning a first diffuser plate between the first volume and the second volume to split the medium received from the inlet into one or more pathways as it passes from the first volume to the second volume, wherein the first diffuser plate allows selective transfer of the medium to the one or more pathways via one or more sets of first passthrough voids, each pathway associated with a particular substrate and a respective set of first passthrough voids; positioning a second diffuser plate between the second volume and the third volume to allow selective transfer of the medium along the one or more pathways to the substrate via one or more sets of second passthrough voids, each set of second passthrough voids being aligned with the respective set of first passthrough voids and a respective substrate to facilitate targeted delivery of the medium to the substrate; providing a support structure within the third volume and coupled to the chamber, wherein the support structure comprises one or more protrusions extending from a lower surface towards the second diffuser plate, each protrusion configured for holding a single substrate; modulating a flow of the medium with a gapped airflow modulator disposed between the one or more protrusions and lower than the substrate such that the gapped airflow modulator is further from the second diffuser plate than the substrate, an airflow modulator configured to modulate a flow of the medium, the airflow modulator disposed between one or more protrusions and lower than the substrate such that the airflow modulator is further from the second diffuser plate than the substrate, wherein the airflow modulator is space away from the one or more protrusions via a gap and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap, expelling the medium after interaction with the substrate through an outlet in fluid communication with the third volume. (Column 3 lines 7-67; Column 4 lines 1-65; Fig. 1)
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gapped airflow modulator is spaced away from the one or more protrusions via a first set of gaps, and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap is not discussed.
Regarding claim 15, Nguyen et al. teach a gapped airflow modulator spaced away from a protrusion having a first set of gaps and spaced above the lower surface via a second gap. (Fig. 1, 4; Paragraph 0045)
PNG
media_image2.png
593
999
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motivation for providing gaps in the air flow modulator is that it allows for easier service and installation. (Paragraph 0045)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gapped airflow modulator comprises a plate defining circular voids, and the first set of gaps are defined as being between the circular voids and the one or more protrusions.
Regarding claim 17, Nguyen et al. teach wherein the gapped airflow modulator comprises a plate defining circular voids, wherein the first set of gaps are defined as being between the circular voids and the one or more protrusions. (Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising removably coupling the support structure to the chamber.
Regarding claim 19, Kurono et al teach wherein the support structure is removably couplable to the chamber. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
659
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more protrusions enclose an internal reservoir configured to house temperature-controlling fluid for cooling the substrate via indirect thermal communication with the temperature-controlling fluid.
Regarding claim 20, Kurono et al. teach wherein the one or more protrusions enclose an internal reservoir configured to house temperature-controlling fluid for cooling the substrate via indirect thermal communication with the temperature-controlling fluid. (Column 3 lines 22-31)
The motivation for providing gaps in the air flow modulator is that it allows for easier service and installation. (Paragraph 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kurono et al. by utilizing the features of Nguyen et al. because it allows for easier service and installation.
Claim(s) 2, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurono et al. in view of Nguyen et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-15, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0122847 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the system is configured for two or more substrates such that: the one or more pathways comprises two or more pathways, the one or more sets of first passthrough voids comprise two or more sets of first passthrough voids, the one or more sets of second passthrough voids comprise two or more sets of second passthrough voids, and the one or more protrusions comprise two or more protrusions.
Regarding claims 2, 16, Sakai et al. teach a system configured for two or more substrates. There are two pathways. There are two or more protrusions. (See Figs. 1, 2)
Regarding the one or more sets of first passthrough voids comprise two or more sets of first passthrough voids, the one or more sets of second passthrough voids comprise two or more sets of second passthrough voids, it would follow that if there are 4 substrates there would be additional sets of first pass through voids and additional sets of second pass through voids.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more protrusions comprise four protrusions configured to hold four substrates.
Regarding claim 5, Sakai et al. teach wherein the one or more protrusions comprise four protrusions configured to hold four substrates. (See Figs. 1,2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakai et al. is that it allows for uniform substrate processing for multiple substrates. (Paragraph 0004)
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 Saki et al. because it allows for uniform substrate processing.
Claim(s) 4, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurono et al. in view of Nguyen et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-15, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Ohashi (JP 11-054440 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4, 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more sets of first passthrough voids are larger in diameter than the one or more sets of second passthrough voids.
Regarding claims 4, 18, Ohashi teaches one or more sets of first passthrough voids are larger in diameter than the one or more sets of second passthrough voids. (See Figs. 1, 3, 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ohashi is that it allows for controlling surface uniformity. (See Abstract)
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 Ohashi because it allows for controlling surface uniformity.
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
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights