DETAILED ACTION
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, 4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (2014/0038394).
Watanabe teaches a film forming apparatus comprising:
- a chamber having an internal space and an exhaust (110), see Fig. 1 and related text, including the inner space as depicted (with substrates),
- a wafer carrier disposed in the internal space, see boat 114,
- a gas supply pipe disposed through the chamber – see 123a-c, and
- an injector disposed in the internal space of the chamber and connected to the gas supply – see gas introduction portion 104 (i.e. injector), wherein
- the gas supply pipe is connected to the injector central portion, see 123b.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the injector has a straight tube shape as depicted.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings include all elements of the claim as per above, wherein: the chamber as noted has an upper and lower portion,
- the noted wafer carrier (boat) 114 extends longitudinally as claimed,
- a gas supply pipe through the chamber, 123b as per above,
- an injector 104 connected to 123, with a plurality of nozzles (claimed nozzles being the openings in the injector to flow gas) connected in the central portion as depicted.
Regarding claim 13, as depicted the nozzles (openings) face the wafer carrier.
Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iriuda (2022/0081775).
Iriuda teaches a film forming apparatus comprising:
- a chamber having an internal space and an exhaust port, see Fig. 1 and related text, internal space as depicted within 12 or 11 and exhaust 28,
- a wafer carrier within the internal space, see boat 16,
- a gas supply pipe disposed through the chamber, see gas supply pipe – per Fig. 1 this is 30 but also further per Fig. 4 any of the tournament arms feed into
- an injector disposed in the internal chamber space – see 120, wherein the gas supply pipe is connected to a central portion of the injector – see at least portions of the gas supply pipe A11 and A12.
Regarding claim 2, the injector is disposed longitudinally as claimed and there are a plurality of nozzles (claimed nozzles are the openings in the injector 120).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14, the injector comprises a straight pipe, 120.
Regarding claim 5, as depicted, the injector has a uniform diameter.
Regarding claim 12, the elements of claim 12 are similar to those of claim 1 including the chamber and wafer carrier (boat), the chamber of Iriuda includes a lower and upper end as further claimed. The gas supply pipe (111, A11, A12) is noted above and includes a connection to the claimed injector 120, the injector having a plurality of nozzles (openings 122).
Regarding claim 13, as depicted the nozzles (openings) face the wafer carrier.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh (2017/0051409).
Noh teaches a film forming apparatus comprising:
- a chamber having an internal space and an exhaust port, see Figs. 1 and 2 and related text, internal space as depicted within 102 and exhaust 160,
- a wafer carrier within the internal space, see boat 108,
- a gas supply pipe disposed through the chamber, see gas supply pipes 151-153 more easily noted in Figs. 3-5, disposed through the chamber per Figs. 1 and 2,
- an injector disposed in the internal chamber space – see 141a, 142a and 143a as per noted Figs., wherein the gas supply pipe is connected to a central portion of the injector as depicted in each case.
Regarding claims 2-5, as depicted (specifically Fig. 3), the injector(s) (“first pipes” per Noh) are in a longitudinal direction and have a plurality of nozzles (H) which connect to the gas flow passage within the injector (in order to flow the gas) (claim 2), comprises a pipe in a straight tube shape (as named and depicted, claim 3 and 4) and that is configured to have a uniform diameter as depicted (claim 5).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 15, per the specific embodiment of Fig. 5, the injector comprises a plurality of pipes connected to the gas supply pipe, see wherein the gas supply pipe tees to meet with each of the claimed injectors (141-143). From the depictions the pipes have a straight tube shape and circular cross section (they are referred to as “nozzle pipes [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, the passage is continuous/present as depicted in the pipe and the pipes of injector and depicted with a constant diameter.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, as per Fig. 5, there is a branch pipe portion, see at least wherein the pipe coming out of 132 branches at the 3 way intersection.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the limitations are met wherein there is a first injector, for example 141 connected to the gas supply type and then also a second injector which comprises the plurality of pipes 142 and 143. The claim does not require any particular arrangement of the injectors relative to one another and because 142 and 143 original from the same gas supply pipe they are construed as one injector.
Regarding claim 12, all elements of the claim are taught per above:
- the chamber as depicted includes an upper and lower end portion, Figs. 1 and 2,
- the wafer carrier per claim is the boat 108 and extends horizontally
- a gas supply pipe disposed through the chamber, see gas supply pipes 151-153 more easily noted in Figs. 3-5, disposed through the chamber per Figs. 1 and 2,
- an injector disposed in the internal chamber space – see 141a, 142a and 143a as per noted Figs., the claimed nozzles are the openings H per the tubes of Noh, wherein the gas supply pipe is connected to a central portion of the injector as depicted.
Regarding claim 13, as depicted the nozzles (openings) face the wafer carrier.
Regarding claim 14, as depicted the injector has a straight tube shape.
Regarding claim 18, Noh teaches a film forming apparatus comprising:
- a wafer carrier within the internal space, see boat 108, as per above (Figs. 1 and 2),
- a plurality of first and second injectors comprising a pipe – see Fig. 6, wherein there are a plurality of pipes 140-1 comprising first injectors and 140-2 comprising second injectors, each comprising a plurality of pipes in the first direction (vertically), and
- the first and second injectors are disposed around the wafer carrier (the detail not shown in Fig. 6 but understood per Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, as understood per Figs. 3 and 4, the injectors (tubes of Noh) include a plurality of nozzles (H).
Regarding claim 20, as per above, the chamber is deposited in Fig. 1 and includes an internal space and the boat /wafer carrier extends in the first direction vertically as the injectors, between the lower and upper end portions.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Noh are described above and are silent on the dimensions of the gas flow passages of the supply pipe or injector. However, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection/change of size is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, it would have been obvious to form the gas flow passages of the same size or wherein that of the supply pipe is greater if that resulted in a beneficial apparatus. There are no teachings of criticality within the scope of the claimed invention per the specification.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Ando (2008/0317976).
While claim 11 has been rejected above, in the interest of compact prosecution, the teachings of Noh are presented with Ando. Noh further teaches an embodiment wherein multiple (i.e. first 140-1 and second 140-2) injectors are present in the apparatus (Fig. 6), in addition to the multiple injectors connected to the gas supply (Fig. 5), but does not teach wherein the multiple injectors of Fig. 6 are all connected to the common supply pipe.
Ando teaches a film forming apparatus including a gas supply pipe (35) disposed through a chamber and connected to an injector disposed within the chamber, see Figs. 1 and 2 and related text. Ando teaches that it is effective to further include nozzles 32 (i.e. injectors) at different portions of the chamber in order to distribute the gases wherein the nozzles (equivalent to the claimed injectors) are fed by a common gas supply [0085]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to duplicate the injectors of Noh as Ando teaches that multiple such injectors (nozzles) around the chamber is useful in a film forming system. It is further noted that per MPEP VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality – in this case, the teachings of Ando at least demonstrate the desirability of duplicating the parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawamorita (2017/0253971) is considered relevant art (Fig. 15).
Klaver (2019/0330740) is considered relevant art, particularly per Fig. 2B.
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