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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 04/28/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-20 from the final office action, mailed on 01/28/2026, by amending claims 1-4, 9, 11,15-16, 19 and canceling claims 13, 18, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “the cooling channels” of Claims 10-11 and 16 should be “the network of cooling channels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the ““wherein one of the two different gases is an inert gas and the other of the two different gases is a reactant” of Claim 8,
The “inert gas” and “reactant” indicate merely different identities of the gases used in the processing apparatus, in other words, supplying either A gas or B gas into the processing apparatus is mere different use of the processing apparatus, thus it does not add a patentable weight to the claimed processing apparatus.
Consequently, when a prior art teaches gases, it is sufficient to meet the limitation, see the MPEP citation below.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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 (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 16-17 and 19-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “in a vertical direction” in “a thermally insulating film interposed therebetween in a vertical direction” of Claim 11 and “a thermally insulating film in a vertical direction interposed therebetween” of Claim 16 are not clear, because the current claim is constructed such that it refers the direction which the "thermally insulating film" extends, thus it contradicts to the applicants’ disclosures presenting a vertical arrangement of the cooling channels, film, and heating elements.
The metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of either interpretation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinhold et al. (US 20090095219, hereafter ‘219) in view of Ganany et al. (US 20230131502, hereafter ‘502).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘219 teaches:
A temperature controlled showerhead (title), and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus for injecting gases into a reaction chamber ([0001], note the “continuous batch processing” of [0004] is a cyclic deposition, the claimed “A temperature-controlled showerhead assembly configured to deliver a plurality of gases into a cyclic deposition chamber”);
The showerhead 300 includes, a back plate 306, and a face plate 310, and A baffle 312 distributes the gases evenly throughout the manifold area 308 (Fig. 3A, [0034], the claimed “the showerhead assembly comprising: a showerhead body comprising a cavity formed therethrough and at a central region thereof, wherein the cavity is configured to diffuse or mix the gases prior to introducing the gases into the deposition chamber”);
The embodiment in FIG. 3B includes a cooling fluid inlet 322, into which cooling fluids, e.g., clean dry air (CDA), argon, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, or a mixture of these, may be flowed. The fluid may follow a helical path down the stem. The helical path is shown in FIG. 3B through openings 324 of the convective cooling fluid passageway. The cooling fluid may exit the stem through one or more cooling fluid exit channels 326 ([0037], the claimed “a network of cooling channels over a planar upper surface of the showerhead body and configured to conduct heat away from the showerhead body”);
A heater 314 may be thermally attached to the back plate 306. The heater 314 may be an electrical heater and may be embedded in the back plate 306. The heater may be attached by a vacuum brazing process. The heater coil 314 is controlled by heater wires 316 that are connected to the coil through the stem ([0035], note Fig. 3B shows the heater is attached on the body, the claimed “and a network of heating elements configured to supply heat to the showerhead body, wherein the network of heating elements is disposed”).
‘219 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: a network of cooling channels radially extending over a planar upper surface of the showerhead body and configured to conduct heat away from the showerhead body; and a network of heating elements configured to supply heat to the showerhead body, wherein the network of heating elements is disposed closer to the planer upper surface of the showerhead body relative to the network of cooling channels.
‘502 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing ([0003]). Figs. 2-7 of ‘502 shows cooling gas passages 224 radially extending over the upper surface of the showerhead body.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling channel of ‘219, such that it has additional cooling channel formed over the upper surface of the back plate by radially extending the cooling channel in the stem, for the purpose of improving cooling efficiency of the back plate.
Further ‘219 teaches The heater 314 may be embedded in the back plate 306 ([0035]), thus, when the cooling channel is formed over the upper surface of the back plate, the embedded heater is closer to the upper surface than the cooling channel over the upper surface.
Regarding to Claim 2,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, when the cooling channel is formed over the upper surface of the back plate, the embedded heater is closer to the upper surface than the cooling channel over the upper surface (the claimed “wherein the network of cooling channels and the network of heating elements are disposed at different vertical levels”).
Regarding to Claim 3,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, when the cooling channel is formed over the upper surface of the back plate, due to a material portion of the showerhead, the heater and the cooling channel are not directly contacted each other, in other words, direct thermal conduction is prevented between them, therefore, the material portion can be interpreted as a thermal insulator. Furthermore, a thermal breaking region is commonly well-known feature, thus adding thermal insulation layer is commonly well-known feature (the claimed “wherein the network of cooling channels and the network of heating elements are thermally insulated from each other by an insulation layer interposed therebetween”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
Note the “laterally” means “by, to, or from the side”, see the Merriam Webster.
Fig. 3A of ‘219 and Figs. 2-7 of ‘502 shows the heaters and the cooling channels surround the manifold area by or from a side (the claimed “wherein the network of cooling channels and the network of heating elements laterally surround the cavity”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
It is commonly well-known that a substate is disposed on a pedestal and the pedestal is below the showerhead. Further, Figs. 3A, 3B and 5 clearly show a connected portion of the manifold area 308 with the gas inlet channel 302 has a shape, which has an increased width in a direction towards a substrate below the showerhead (the claimed “wherein the cavity has a truncated cone shape that is elongated in a vertical direction and has a width that increases in a direction towards a susceptor disposed below the showerhead assembly”).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘219 and ‘502, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Chen et al. (US 20100247767, hereafter ‘767).
Regarding to Claim 6, ‘219 teaches:
Fig. 3A shows un upper portion of the gas inlet channel 302 is protruded from the stem 304, therefore, the protruded portion can be interpreted as an injector block (the claimed “wherein the showerhead assembly further comprises an injector block disposed over the showerhead body”);
Reactant gases are introduced through gas inlet channel 302 in the showerhead stem 304 ([0034], the claimed “flowing different gases into the cavity”).
Due to single channel, ‘219 and ‘502 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 6: wherein the injector block comprises a plurality of channels formed therein for flowing different gases to direct the different gases in different directions into the cavity.
‘767 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘767 teaches flow of various process gases and purge gases from gas sources 238, 239, 240 ([0056]), and the expanding channel 234 has gas inlets 236A, 236B (Fig. 3, [0031], note the source 238 is coupled to the inlet 236A and the source 239 is coupled to the inlet 236B) and it is believed that the circular flow 310 (FIG. 2, arrows 310A and 310B) may travel as a "vortex," "helix," or "spiral" flow through the expanding channel 234 as shown by arrows 402A, 402B (hereinafter "vortex" flow 402) ([0042]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added plural inlets, to the gas inlet channel 302 of ‘219, for the purpose of providing a sweeping action across the inner surface of the channel through a pattern of vortex flow, which reduce the velocity of the gas flow, thus reducing the variation of the velocity of the gas flow across the surface of the substrate.
Regarding to Claim 7,
‘219 teaches Reactant gases are introduced through gas inlet channel 302 in the showerhead stem 304 ([0034], note when the gases are provided through the inlet channel, the gas are intrinsically mixed in the manifold area, and further, Fig. 3 of ‘767 clearly shows mixing by vortex flow, the claimed “wherein the cavity is configured to mix two different gases prior to being introduced into the deposition chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
‘767 teaches flow of various process gases and purge gases from gas sources 238, 239, 240 ([0056]), and an argon gas used as a carrier gas and a purge gas ([0032], the claimed “wherein one of the two different gases is an inert gas and the other of the two different gases is a reactant”).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘219 in view of Hirose et al. (US 20160047039, hereafter ‘039).
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘219 teaches:
A temperature controlled showerhead (title), and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus for injecting gases into a reaction chamber ([0001], note the “continuous batch processing” of [0004] is a cyclic deposition, the claimed “A temperature-controlled showerhead assembly configured to deliver a plurality of gases into a cyclic deposition chamber”);
Fig. 3A shows the upper surface of the back plate 306 is substantially flat and inner surface facing the susceptor (the claimed “the showerhead assembly comprising: a showerhead body having a substantially flat outer surface facing away from a susceptor while having an inner surface facing the susceptor while having an inner surface facing the susceptor”);
the manifold area 308 ([0034], the claimed “a cavity formed through the showerhead body at the central region and configured to diffuse or mix the gases prior to introducing the gases into the deposition chamber”);
a cooling fluid inlet 322, and one or more cooling fluid exit channels 326 ([0037]), and a heater 314 ([0035], note Fig. 3B shows the heater is attached on the body, the claimed “and a network of cooling channels and a network of heating elements formed at different vertical levels”).
‘219 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 9: an inner surface facing the susceptor that is tapered such that a thickness of the showerhead body increases from a central region towards an edge portion thereof, wherein the inner surface is sloped in a radial direction to have a neck angle, relative to a horizontal direction, of less than 10 degrees.
‘039 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (title). ‘039 teaches the ceiling member 5 includes a concave portion 5a formed at a side facing the susceptor 15 (Fig. 2, [0035], note the concave portion is a tapered surface).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified an inner surface of the showerhead, which is the flat surface above the baffle 312, so to be tapered, for the purpose of uniformly dispersing the gas from the center to edge, without the baffle.
Further, when the sloped bottom surface is made, the sloped surface intrinsically has an angle degree relative to a horizontal direction, see Fig. 1 of ‘039, thus the modified ‘219 by ‘039 teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, and merely silent about the number value of “10”.
However, as shown in Fig. 1 of ‘039, it is clear that, depending on the angle degree, a size of a processing volume between the upper surface of the susceptor and the bottom surface of the showerhead is adjusted, in other words, the angle degree is a result effect controllable parameter to control the processing volume.
Consequently, even if ‘219 and ‘039 are silent about the number degree,
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the degree as recited, for the purpose of controlling processing volume, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claim 11,
Fig. 3A of ‘219 shows due to a material portion of the showerhead, the heater and the cooling channel are not directly contacted each other, in other words, direct thermal conduction is prevented between them, therefore, the material portion can be interpreted as a vertically disposed thermal insulator, a thermal breaking region is commonly well-known feature (the claimed “wherein the cooling channels and the network of heating elements are thermally insulated from each other by a thermally insulating film vertically interposed therebetween”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 14-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
In regards to the claim interpretation, the applicants argue that The Office Action asserted that Claim 8, which recites "wherein one of the two different gases is an inert gas and the other of the two different gases is a reactant," adds no patentable weight to claims from which it depends. The Office Action appears to be asserting that "the cavity is configured to mix two different gases prior to being introduced into the deposition chamber" as recited in Claim 7 from which Claim 8 can be used to mix any combination of gases introduced thereinto, and therefore that Claim 8 does not further limit Claim 7, see page 5.
This argument is found not persuasive.
First, the examiner did not set forth “Claim 8 does not further limit Claim 7”.
The claim interpretation explains how the gas identifications, “inert” and “reactant” are handled in the apparatus claim. The terms “inert” and “reactant” merely define the name of the gas, thus the feature does not add a patentable weight to the apparatus claim.
Claim 8 further limits the claim 7, but it does not have a patentable feature.
Second, the claim interpretation is not a rejection. Again, it merely explains how the limitations are interpreted. The applicants should point out why the rejection part set forth by the examiner based on the interpretation above is improperly constructed. The applicants fail to point out which part of the rejection is constructed in an error based on the wrong interpretation.
Further, the current rejection of claims 7-8 does not rely on the interpretation, because the cited reference clearly teach the feature as recited.
In regards to the 112 rejection, the applicants argue that "Vertically interposed" refers to the direction in which the "cooling channels" and the "network of heating elements" are interposed by the "thermally insulating film," and not the direction I which the "thermally insulating film" extends, see page 6.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains the claim is constructed such that it refers to the direction which the "thermally insulating film" extends, not the vertical arrangement of the cooling channels, film, and heating elements.
It is respectfully requested to amend it to present the “vertical arrangement” of the thee features, not the film, such as;
“the cooling channels and the network of heating elements are vertically disposed and thermally insulated from each other by a thermally insulating film interposed therebetween” and “film interposed between the cooling channels and the network of heating elements that are vertically arranged”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied up is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190376183, hereafter ‘183 teaches radially extending cooling gas passages for the showerhead body (Fig. 3).
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights