DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/08/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 16-20 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: “a power supply apparatus configured for supplying energy to the etchant gas sufficient to convert a portion of the etchant gas within the reactor to a plasma” [original claim 10].
Drawings
7. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “epitaxial deposition chamber” [claim 7]; “radiant heating assembly within the reactor chamber” [claims 8-9]; “first deposition chamber” [claim 16]; “first etch chamber” [claim 16]; “first coating chamber” [claim 16]; “first patterning chamber” [claim 16]; “first developing chamber” [claim 16]; “first epitaxial deposition chamber” [claims 17 and 19]; “first epitaxial deposition chamber further comprises a controller” [claim 19]; and “second epitaxial deposition chamber” [claim 20] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating apparatus” [claim 1, 4-6, 10, 12-13, and 15] – 114; radiant heating elements, resistive heating elements, or tubing through which a heated working fluid is forced [fig 1 & 0023].
“temperature measuring apparatus” [claim 14] – 116; temperature sensor [fig 1 & 0023].
“controller” [claim 19] - The specification fails to disclose sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function (i.e. for establishing a ratio…) [see 112(a) and 112(b) rejection set forth below].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
12. Claims 7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “epitaxial deposition chamber”. Absolutely nothing in the specification discloses an epitaxial deposition chamber.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites “first deposition chamber”, “first etch chamber”, “first coating chamber”, “first patterning chamber”, and “first developing chamber”. Absolutely nothing in the specification discloses the above limitations.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites “first epitaxial deposition chamber”. Absolutely nothing in the specification discloses a first epitaxial deposition chamber.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected at least based on its dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites “first epitaxial deposition chamber comprises a controller”. Absolutely nothing in the specification discloses a first epitaxial deposition chamber, let alone, a first epitaxial deposition chamber comprising a controller.
Moreover, as set forth above, the specification fails to disclose sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited functions of the controller. As such, the claim fails to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention. It is noted that a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description [MPEP 2181(IV)].
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites “second epitaxial deposition chamber”. Absolutely nothing in the specification discloses a second epitaxial deposition chamber.
13. 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.
14. Claim 19 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.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites ““first epitaxial deposition chamber comprises a controller”. As set forth above, the specification fails to disclose sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited functions of said controller. As such, the claim is unclear because it fails to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention [MPEP 2181(III)]. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting the “controller” to be a valve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 5,735,993).
Regarding claim 1:
Yoshida teaches a system (plasma processing apparatus) comprising: a reactor chamber (vacuum reaction vessel, 10) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11]; and a heating apparatus (metallic resistor plate, 3) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11].
The limitations “for manufacturing an integrated circuit device”, “configured for etching a wafer, wherein the reactor chamber is configured to receive an etchant gas and maintain a predetermined processing pressure”, and “configured for heating the reactor chamber to a nominal reactor temperature Tn during a first portion of an etch period, wherein the nominal reactor temperature induces a first polymeric deposition rate DR1 on an upper surface of the wafer; and heating the reactor chamber to a polymerization temperature Tp during a second portion of the etch period, wherein the polymerization temperature induces a second polymeric deposition rate DR2 on the upper surface of the wafer and wherein DR2 is greater than DR1” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 2-6:
The limitations of claims 2-6 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Yoshida teaches the heating apparatus comprises a radiant heating assembly (3 transmits electromagnetic-waves – it is noted that radiant heat is transmitted through electromagnetic waves) within the reactor chamber (10) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11].
The limitation “the radiant heating assembly is configured for establishing the polymerization temperature Tp within the reactor chamber” is merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 5,735,993) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Lam et al (US 2007/0181057).
The limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Yoshida does not specifically teach an epitaxial deposition chamber.
Lam teaches an epitaxial deposition chamber (epitaxial deposition reactor, 34) [fig 1 & 0016].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Yoshida to further comprise an epitaxial deposition chamber, as in Lam, to provide multiple chambers which perform various functions in order to perform a number of substrate processing operations [Lam – 0015-0016].
The limitations “configured for growing a first epitaxial semiconductor material on an exposed surface of the wafer; and growing a second epitaxial semiconductor on an exposed surface of the first epitaxial semiconductor material” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
20. Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 5,735,993) in view of Chang et al (US 2015/0278429).
Regarding claim 10:
Yoshida teaches a system (plasma processing apparatus) comprising: a plasma etch apparatus (vacuum reaction vessel, 10) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11]; and a heating apparatus (metallic resistor plate, 3) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11].
Yoshida does not specifically disclose a memory device configured for maintaining an IC design layout; a processor configured for retrieving the IC design layout from the memory device; analyzing the IC design layout for a region in which a poly etch spacing is less than a predetermined target spacing value; and in response to a poly etch spacing that is less than the predetermined target spacing value, modifying a wafer fabrication process to include an enhanced poly etch process.
Chang teaches a memory device (184) configured for maintaining an IC design layout (IC design layout, 122) [fig 2-3 & 0025-0026]; a processor (182) configured for retrieving the IC design layout (IC design layout, 122) from the memory device (84) [fig 2-3 & 0025-0026, 0028]; analyzing the IC design layout for a region in which a poly etch spacing is less than a predetermined target spacing value (analyzing the pattern wherein the pattern can be used to produce a number of structures including critical dimensions of the pattern, wherein the pattern may be modified to correct critical dimension errors in the wafer pattern) [fig 3 & 0029-0030]; and in response to a poly etch spacing that is less than the predetermined target spacing value, modifying a wafer fabrication process to include an enhanced poly etch process (operation 312 may be an etching process) [fig 3 & 0023, 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the etch apparatus and process of Yoshida with a memory and processor configured for retrieving and analyzing IC design layout, as in Chang, to provide enhanced quality in wafer fabrication [Chang – 0048].
The limitations “for manufacturing an integrated circuit”, “configured for receiving and etching a series of semiconductor wafers in a reactor chamber, wherein the plasma etch apparatus is configured to receive an etchant gas and maintain a predetermined pressure”, and “configured for heating the reactor chamber to a nominal reactor temperature during a first portion of an etch process and induce a first polymeric deposition rate DR1 within the reactor chamber; heating the reactor chamber to a polymerization temperature during a second portion of the etch period and induce a second polymeric deposition rate DR2 on the upper surface of the wafer and wherein DR2 is greater than DR1” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15:
The limitations of claims 11-13 and 15 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 14:
Yoshida teaches a temperature measuring apparatus (temperature measuring element, 6) configured for measuring a current temperature of a central region of the reactor chamber lid (2) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11].
21. Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al (US 2007/0181057) in view of Yoshida (US 5,735,993).
Regarding claim 16:
Lam teaches a system (system, 10) [fig 1 & 0016-0017] comprising: a first deposition chamber (36 can be configured to perform CVD) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; a first etch chamber (38 can be configured to perform etch) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; a first coating chamber (62 can be configured to perform CVD) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; a first patterning chamber (64 can be configured to perform a variety of substrate processing operations) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; a first developing chamber (66 can be configured to perform a variety of substrate processing operations) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; a first etching chamber (32 is a dry etch processor) [fig 1 & 0016-0017].
Lam does not specifically disclose a temperature controlled chamber lid on the first etching chamber.
Yoshida teaches a temperature controlled chamber lid (2) on a first etching chamber (10) [fig 1 & col 3-4, lines 52-11].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first etching chamber of Lam to include a temperature controlled chamber lid, as in Yoshida, to decrease the amount of deposits on the lid thereby increasing the stability of the etching condition [Yoshida – col 4, lines 40-57].
The limitations “for manufacturing an integrated circuit”, “configured for depositing sidewall material adjacent a polysilicon structure on an upper surface of a wafer”, “configured for etching the sidewall material to form a sidewall adjacent the poly silicon structure”, “configured for depositing a photosensitive material over the polysilicon structure and the sidewall”, “configured for exposing a predetermined portions of the photosensitive material”, “configured for removing a portion of the photosensitive material to form a poly etch pattern on the photosensitive material and thereby expose a portion of the polysilicon structure”, “configured for etching the exposed portion of the polysilicon structure, the duration of the etching being sufficient to remove a portion of the exposed polysilicon structure and form an epitaxial recess in the wafer”, and “for establishing and maintaining an elevated polymerization temperature within an etch chamber during a portion of the etching and thereby increase a polymer deposition rate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 17-19:
Lam teaches a first epitaxial deposition chamber (34 is an epitaxial deposition reactor) [fig 1 & 0016-0017]; and the first epitaxial deposition chamber (34) further comprises a controller (apparatus is capable of turning on/off – therefore this controls the deposition) [fig 1 & 0016-0017].
The limitations “configured for growing a first epitaxial semiconductor structure from a surface of the epitaxial recess”, “configured for utilizing an etchant gas selected from the group consisting of CF4, Cl2, HBr, and mixtures thereof”, and “configured for establishing a ratio between a depth of the first epitaxial semiconductor structure and an epitaxial recess height, wherein the ratio is less than 6” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 20:
Lam teaches a second epitaxial deposition chamber (68 can be configured to perform epitaxial deposition) [fig 1 & 0016-0017].
The limitations “configured for establishing growing a second epitaxial semiconductor structure from a surface of the first epitaxial semiconductor structure” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
22. Applicant has FAILED to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application.
23. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has FAILED to address the drawing objection directed to a “radiant heating assembly within the reactor chamber” [claims 8-9].
The remainder of the drawing objections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated the new drawing objections set forth above.
24. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim(s) 16 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 16.
25. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations for features having insufficient corresponding structure in the originally filed application have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(f) interpretations for features having insufficient corresponding structure in the originally filed application have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
However, the amendments set forth to overcome the 112(f) interpretations are clearly new matter. As set forth in the action mailed 01/05/2026, the features have insufficient corresponding structure in the originally filed application. Therefore, attempting to claim a corresponding structure is devoid of basic logic because the originally filed application does NOT set forth any corresponding structure. Thus, the amendments have necessitated the 112(a) rejections above.
Examiner also notes that the amendments have necessitated the new 35 USC 112(f) interpretations set forth above.
26. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection of claim(s) 7 and 16-20 under 35 USC 112(a).
27. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection of claim(s) 19 under 35 USC 112(b).
28. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 7 and 10-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoshida is not configured to perform the claimed functions of claim 1.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is noted that Yoshida has a gas inlet (14) and a heating apparatus (3) [fig 1]. As such, Yoshida is capable of inletting a desired processing gas at a desired temperature and capable of using the heating apparatus to carry out a desired process on the wafer.
It is once again emphasized that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) [MPEP 2114].
Applicant argues that the motivation of Yoshida to “decrease the amount of deposits on the lid thereby increasing the stability of the etching condition” is opposite of the explicitly claimed features of increasing polymer deposition rate.
In response, it is noted that applicant has conflated polymer deposition rate on the wafer with decreasing an amount of deposits on the lid. These are two different things. Yoshida aims to decrease unwanted deposition on the lid.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments are directed to intended use limitations and are not persuasive for the same reasons as set forth above. Moreover, the assertion that the processing chambers of Lam are not structurally capable of performing the claimed functions are found unpersuasive in view of the breadth of the disclosure in Lam (i.e. can be configured to perform a variety of substrate processing operations) [0016-0017]. Applicant has claimed no specific structure (nor asserted any specific structure) necessary to carry out the claimed functions. It is noted that processing chambers are merely metal boxes. Such are capable of being fed any desired process material at any desired temperature to carry out a desired process. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
29. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights