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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I (Fig. 2), claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the claims directed towards apparatus (i.e. Group I) require a search in CPC H01L 21/67115, H01J 37/32357, H01J 37/3244, H01L 21/67017, Group II requires a search in CPC Claims 1-9, drawn to an apparatus for processing a substrate, I. classified in CPC H01L 21/67115, H01J 37/32357, H01J 37/3244, H01L 21/67017. Claims 10-16, drawn to an apparatus for thermal processing a II. substrate, classified in CPC H01J 37/32449, H01J 37/32082, H01J 37/20, H01J 2237/006. Claims 17-20, drawn to a method of processing a substrate, III. classified in CPC H01L 21/02271, H01L 21/6862, H01L 21/28556, H01L 33/62 and the claims directed towards method (i.e. Group II) require a search in CPC H01L 21/02271, H01L 21/6862, H01L 21/28556, H01L
33/62. Therefore, since the claims of Group I, II and Group II require two separate searches in two separate fields, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.. Furthermore for the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses or electronic resources or non patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Drawings
3.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 limitation “flow actuator” in claim 2 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it is not shown the “flow actuator” and how it varies the diameter of the elongated structure.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tjandra et al (US 2017/0314126 A1) in view of Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0127851 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Tjandra teaches in Fig. 1A-1B about an apparatus for processing a substrate 101, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
644
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a chamber body 130 defining a processing volume 139, the chamber body comprising a base ring 140;
a substrate support 138 disposed in the processing volume;
a gas source assembly 135 in fluid communication with an inlet 131 of the chamber body;
an exhaust assembly 136 in fluid communication with an outlet 134 of the chamber body; and
a side injection assembly 147 (Fig. 1B) in fluid communication with a first gas source 152, the side injection assembly coupled to the base ring 140 of the chamber body, the side injection assembly comprising:
an elongated structure that extends towards the processing volume; and
a first side inject actuator coupled to the elongated structure and configured to control a first inject angle of the elongated structure relative to the base ring.
Tjandra does not teach in Fig. 1A-1B an elongated structure that extends towards the processing volume; and
a first side inject actuator coupled to the elongated structure and configured to control a first inject angle of the elongated structure relative to the base ring.
However Tjandra teaches in other embodiments of Fig. 2A-2B about an elongated structure 249 that extends towards the processing volume [0035]; and
a first side inject actuator (as marked), coupled to the elongated structure and configured to control a first inject angle of the elongated structure relative to the base ring ([0035] teaches it is contemplated that the angle of the gas inlet 249 may be adjusted so that the side gas flow 248 is flowing towards the center of the substrate 101 (or substrate support 138), proximate the periphery of the substrate 101 (or substrate support 138), or spatially distributed on the substrate 101 (or substrate support 138) at any desired location. Furthermore Lau teaches in Fig. 10 about an angle A of a wedge is adjustable by an actuator and therefore as marked 247 of Tjandra can be interpreted as the side inject actuator as the angle of the inlet 249 can be adjusted).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an actuator to adjust angle of the injector for a selected location for processing (Lau, [0056]) and the side gas flow from the injector can be distributed at any desired location (Tjandra, [0035]).
Regarding claim 2: Tjandra teaches in [0030], [0035] and [0042] wherein the elongated structure comprises a variable diameter.
Regarding claim 3: Tjandra teaches in Fig. 1B, [0027] [0042] further comprising a flow actuator 146 for adjusting the variable diameter ([0042] teaches the diameter of the gas inlets 249, 259 may vary depending upon the desired gas flow rate of the gas or gas radicals needed for the application).
Regarding claim 4: Lau teaches in [0056] wherein the first side inject actuator controls the first inject angle of the elongated structure from an angle of about 0.01 degrees to about 90 degrees relative to the base ring ([0056] teaches the angle A may range from about one degree to about 30 degrees. In another embodiment, the angle A of the wedge 1006 is adjustable by an actuator located in the wedge 1006. Targeting of the spot heater 110 can be accomplished by selecting the angle A of the wedge 1006 and by adjusting the location of the slider 1004).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tjandra et al (US 2017/0314126 A1) in view of Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0127851 A1) and further in view of Olaf et al. (DE 102018120580 A1)
Regarding claim 5: Tjandra in view of Lau does not explicitly show further comprising a second side inject actuator configured to control a second inject angle relative to the base ring.
Olaf teaches in Fig. 7 a second side inject actuator configured to control a second inject angle relative to the base ring.
PNG
media_image3.png
556
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a second side inject actuator configured to control a second inject angle relative to the base ring in Tjandra’s apparatus according to the teachings of Olaf and thereby to further improve uniformity of of the deposition over the front surface of the semiconductor wafer (Olaf, background)
Regarding claim 6: Tjandra in view of Lau teaches wherein the first inject angle is different than the second inject angle (([0035] teaches it is contemplated that the angle of the gas inlet 249 may be adjusted and Lau teaches in Fig. 10 about an angle A of a wedge is adjustable by an actuator).
Regarding claim 7: Olaf teaches in Fig. 7 wherein the first inject angle is the same as the second inject angle (the crossflow inlets 420 that are in groups and symmetrical with respect to an axis of symmetry of the main inlets 410 are arranged).
Regarding claim 8: Tjandra teaches in Fig. 1B about second gas source 152 and Olaf teaches in Fig. 4A wherein the side injection assembly 200 is further in fluid communication with a second gas source (521+522), wherein the first gas source and the second gas source include different chemical compositions.
Regarding claim 9: Tjandra teaches in [0023] wherein the first gas source comprises an oxygen containing gas, and the second gas sources comprises a hydrogen containing gas (Olaf also teaches second gas 120 gas can be hydrogen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897