DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of gases supplied simultaneously and the gas outlets comprises a plurality of colinear outlets in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10, 17 and 18 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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, Yoshida teaches inner and outer enclosures as per Figs. 1 and 2, the inner enclosure including the outlets.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the gas outlets include a plurality of openings as depicted per Fig. 1 – it would be further understood based on the figure that they are colinear and are spread along the height of the boat.
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Koyanagi (2007/0051310).
The teachings of Yoshida 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights