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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0294775 A1) in view of Obata (WO 2021/256260 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a process chamber having a substrate-processing region using process gases (Fig. 1); a substrate-supporting module arranged in a lower region of the process chamber to support the substrate (Paragraph 0025 - stage 13); an upper electrode module arranged in an upper region of the process chamber (Paragraph 0035 - upper electrode plate 200).
The difference between Kawakami and claim 1 is that a valve module provided to the upper electrode module to control a supply of the process gases to the substrate-processing region is not discussed and wherein the valve module comprises: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets, and an opening and closing portion arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close a corresponding inlet among the plurality of inlets is not discussed.
Regarding a valve module provided to the upper electrode module to control a supply of the process gases to the substrate-processing region (Claim 1), Obata teach a valve module in the form of a plate 30 with valves 44 for controlling the flow of gas from the modules above it. (See Figs. 1, 2; Machine Translation)
Regarding wherein the valve module comprises: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets, and an opening and closing portion arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close a corresponding inlet among the plurality of inlets (Claim 1), Obata teaches a valve module comprising: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets, and an opening and closing portion arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close a corresponding inlet among the plurality of inlets. (See Fig. 2 – Valve block – 3; Plurality of inlets - 37; gas supply to inlets - 34, 34a, 34b; opening/closing portion at inlet – 38; intermediate gas flow structure -31, 31a; plurality of outlets – 41a; outlet valves 42a)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the gas delivery structure associated with the upper portion of the apparatus of Kawakami to incorporate Obata’s individually controlled integrated gas-distribution arrangement. In particular, the gas supply plate 230 and its gas-flow/ejection structure provide the natural location for incorporating Obata’s arrangement in Kawakami.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Obata is that it allows for controlling the flow of gases. (See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kawakami by utilizing the valve module (i.e. valve plate 30 with valves 44) of Obata because it allows for controlling the flow of gas to the chamber.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Obata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larson (U.S. PGPUB. 2012/0070997 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the upper electrode module comprises: a gas block configured to receive the process gases; an upper electrode arranged under the gas block; a distribution block arranged under the upper electrode; a gas distribution plate arranged under the distribution block; and a showerhead arranged under the gas distribution plate to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, wherein the gas block, the upper electrode, the distribution block, the gas distribution plate and the showerhead include a plurality of gas passages through which the process gases flow.
Regarding claim 2:
Kawakami teaches the upper electrode module comprises: a gas block configured to receive the process gases (Paragraph 0028 - item 30); an upper electrode arranged under the gas block (Paragraph 0035 - upper electrode plate 200); a distribution block arranged under the upper electrode (Paragraph 0036 - item 210); a gas distribution plate arranged under the distribution block (Paragraph 0037 - item 220); and a showerhead arranged under the gas distribution plate to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region (Paragraph 0038 - item 203) The upper electrode, the distribution block, the gas distribution plate and the showerhead include a plurality of gas passages through which the process gases flow. (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 035-0038)
Larson teach a gas block 20 with a plurality of gas passages. (Paragraph 0024, Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the valve module is arranged on an upper surface of the gas block, between the gas block and the upper electrode, between the upper electrode and the distribution block, between the distribution block and the gas distribution plate, between the gas distribution plate and the showerhead, or on a lower surface of the showerhead.
Regarding claim 3, Obata teach a valve module in the form of a plate 30 with valves 44 for controlling the flow of gas from the modules above it. (See Figs. 1, 2; Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the valve module is arranged in the gas block, the upper electrode, the distribution block, the gas distribution plate or the showerhead.
Regarding claim 4, Obata teach locating a valve module in the form of valves internal to the modules above the plate 30 in the form of valves. (See Figs. 1, 2; Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Larson is that it allows for providing gas to the center and edge. (Paragraph 0024)
Therefore, it would have additionally been obvious to utilize Larson in the combination of Kawakami and Obata because it allows for providing gas to the center and the edge regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Claims 5-9, 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-9 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including the limitations of claim 1 with the limitations of claim 5 wherein the opening and closing portion comprises a flexible valve stem, wherein the valve module further comprises: a control line providing the flexible valve stem with a working fluid to expand the flexible valve stem toward the corresponding inlet.
Claims 10 and 11 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein the valve module comprises: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets; a permanent magnet movably arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close the inlet; and an electromagnet configured to selectively apply a repulsive force and an attractive force to the permanent magnet.
Claims 12-18 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach a valve module provided to the upper electrode module to control a supply of the process gases to the substrate-processing region, wherein the valve module comprises: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate-processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets; a flexible valve stem arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close the inlet; and a control line providing the flexible valve stem with a working fluid to expand the flexible valve stem toward the inlet.
Claims 19 and 20 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach wherein the valve module comprises: a valve block including a plurality of inlets, a plurality of outlets and a plurality of gas passages, the inlets configured to receive the process gases, the outlets configured to inject the process gases to the substrate- processing region, and the gas passages connected between the inlets and the outlets; a permanent magnet movably arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close the inlet; and an electromagnet configured to selectively apply a repulsive force and an attractive force to the permanent magnet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the gas flow path running from an inlet to an outlet through a connecting gas passage of a valve block but rather teaches passing through intervening buffer tanks 31a, 32a in which the raw material gas and the reducing gas are stored between valve stages, it is argued that the claim does not required that a gas passage extend directly and uninterruptedly from an inlet to an outlet, nor does the claim exclude an intermediate chamber, tank, or plenum from the claimed gas flow structure. Rather, the claim requires that the plurality of gas passages be connected between the plurality of inlets and the plurality of outlets. Obata discloses this relationship as shown in Fig. 2.
The presence of an intermediate buffer tank therefore does not defeat the claimed connection between the inlet and outlet. The claim does not require the gas passage to be a continuous conduit devoid of an intervening volume. Nor does “connected between” require that the inlet and the outlet be directly connected without an intervening gas flow volume.
Moreover, Obata provides a one-to-one correspondence between the first chamber valve 38 and the first holes 37. Thus each inlet has a corresponding opening/closing portion configured to control gas flow through that inlet, satisfying the claimed “opening and closing portion arranged in each of the gas passages to open and close a corresponding inlet”.
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 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
September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights