DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (2017/0294318).
Yoshida teaches a substrate process apparatus comprising:
- a process chamber extending longitudinally with a process space, see Fig. 1,
- a substate boat for holding substates – see 218 [0033],
- a gas delivery assembly including gas injectors, see nozzles 340a-c, the nozzles are capable of provide at least two process gases to the chamber (see gas supply system including 310, 320, etc. as per Fig. 1, and
- a gas exhaust assembly (Fig. 2, assembly 224) comprising two (three in this case) outlets as depicted per 236for removing gas from the process space.
In regard to the “inner” enclosure, there is no particular requirement for an outer enclosure, but the entirety of tube 209 meets the requirement – process space being defined as the space within the inner enclosure. To the extent that an outer enclosure is inherently required to define an inner enclosure, 207 meets the requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the two outer gas outlets are substantially equidistant from either size of the gas injector (as depicted per Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, there are (at least) two gas injectors (nozzles) as depicted.
Regarding claim 5, the gas injector is in such proximity as depicted.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the gas outlets include a plurality of openings per Fig. 1 – based on the figure that they are colinear and along the boat height.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the gas injector (nozzle) of Yoshida has the claimed configuration of extending longitudinally with a number of holes.
Regarding claim 13, the boat is rotatable [0034].
Regarding claim 16, as the system is used to form films it is a CVD apparatus, however, the limitation does not require any particular structure.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to intended use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case, any precursor or number of precursors are applicable within the system including those that are used to form a dielectric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (2017/0294318) in view of Saido (2019/0287829).
Yoshida teaches a substrate process apparatus comprising:
- a process chamber, boat, injector(s) and exhaust as described above.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the teachings of Saido are applied in regard to an ‘inner’ enclosure. Saido teaches an analogous process system, the system includes a substrate boat, 21, a gas nozzle 8 and exhaust 4E, see Fig. 1 and [0021-33]. The system includes multiple ‘containment’ regions, see inner region within “S” as depicted in Fig. 1 as well as an outer enclosure, defined by 4A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the multiple enclosures of Saido to the system of Yoshida at least for containment of any gases and exhaust. The combination results in the process space defined by the inner enclosure and being closed on an upper portion as well as the injector being within the process space and the exhaust also present therein. The modification includes a routine rearrangement of parts which is obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. and includes the modification of Yoshida for the outer and inner regions and/or the modification of Saido with the inclusion of the multiple two gas outlets as directed by Yoshida.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 16 and 19 are rejected as above and not repeated. Further to claim 5, the combined art also teaches the claimed arrangement of the injector relative to the inner wall as claimed.
Claims 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Koyanagi (2007/0051310).
Claims 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Saido in view of Koyanagi (2007/0051310).
The teachings of Yoshida (and within Saido) are described above – the teachings do not include specifically supplying a gas mixture through one single nozzle, but Koyanagi teaches an equivalent reactor system with a gas nozzle and an exhaust (see Fig. 1) and teaches that it is operable to include a gas mixture through a single nozzle [0040]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to supply a gas mixture through any of the nozzles of Yoshida as Koyanagi teaches that such a mode of operation is operable in such a system.
Regarding claim 14, per the combined teachings, all elements of the claim are met because the purpose of the gases is to form a layer and the exhaust system serves to exhaust the reactor – the use of a controller and computer readable medium is also addressed [0044-47].
Regarding claim 15, as per Koyanagi, the gases are mixed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Tamagi (2018/0274098).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Saido in view of Tamagi (2018/0274098).
The teachings of Yoshida (and Saido) are described above, .the teachings do not include the claimed arrangement of the exhaust relative to the injector. Takagi teaches, however, that it is useful to include one or even multiple exhausts oriented at different angles from an injector within an inner tube of a process region, see particularly Figs. 8A and B, and [0077-78]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include an exhaust at a different angle, such as less than 90 degrees, from the injector as Tamagi teaches that such an arrangement is useful in order to control a process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the Office notes that there is not an inner and outer enclosure, therefore the “inner” is not particularly limiting as to the structure, and the process space is not defined specifically any reasonably includes the space inside the only defined enclosure. The definitions of any analogous regions by Yoshida is not specifically limiting to the instant claimed material and wherein the claimed sections are mapped to. The “process chamber” of Yoshida is not necessarily defined equivalently to the claimed “process space”, they are different terms and, in any case, the assignment to the claimed matter is not required to be the same in regard to the interpretation.
In any case, the teachings of Saido are further applied in the interest of compact prosecution, and the combined art teaches the argued elements.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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. Visit 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
