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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 3/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/26.
Claim Interpretation
The terms "product" and "dummy" are not considered as apparatus limitations and are treated as intended use limitations and thus product and dummy substrates cab be places on various locations on the substrate support (boat).
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). 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)).
The type of the gas such a s precursor, inert and assist gas supplied by various injectors are not considered as apparatus limitation and the various injector are capable of being used to supply a specific type of gas as desired.
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).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2020/312655).
Regarding claims 1-5, 12, 15, 17, 18: Nishida discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a process chamber having different substrate regions and supply zones and a main exhauster 204c disposed on a lateral side. The apparatus (Fig. 9) further comprises:
a first injector 249a extending vertically on an opposite side from the exhauster capable of supplying a precursor gas to all substrate regions,
a second injector 249c installed on an upstream side of the precursor supply capable of supplying an inert gas diluting the precursor gas towards the substrates in upper dummy regions,
a third injector 249b installed on a downstream side of the precursor supply capable of supplying an inert gas towards the substrates in different regions,
a fourth injector 249e installed on a downstream side of the precursor supply capable of supplying an inert gas towards the substrates to the lower substrate region.
Nishida does not specifically disclose the specific relative arrangement of the nozzles with respect to each other.
Rearrangement and locations of nozzles with respect to each other is considered an obvious modification in order to introduced different gases towards the substrates from various angles as desired in order to achieve uniform processing on the surface of substrates.
It was held that mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. Jnre Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). /n re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Nishida to have such an injector arrangement for introducing the same or different gases and in situ mixing and exposing them to the substrates as desired.
The disclosed apparatus is capable of being operated to achieve the desired in-plane uniformity which in part also depend on the operational parameters such as temperature, pressure, and types of gases used.
Further regarding claim 3, 5: The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the injector 249e in order to introduce an assist gas to the substrates on the lower dummy region as desired.
It was held that mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. Jnre Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). /n re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further regarding claims 4, 6, 7, 8: Nishida discloses injector 249b capable of being used for introducing a second precursor to the substrates. Further, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have duplicated the injector 249b in order to introduce a precursor gas or an assist gas to the substrates region as desired.
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).
Further regarding claim 7: Nishida discloses “[0034] As a precursor (precursor gas), a halosilane-based gas containing silicon (Si) as a main element constituting a film to be formed and a halogen element is supplied from the gas supply pipe 232a into the process chamber 201 via the MFC 241a, the valve 243a, and the nozzle 249a.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2020/312655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiegers (CN 110828331).
Nishida discloses all limitation of the claims except a partition plate for blocking gas flow in vertical direction.
Wiegers discloses flow deflectors 50/52 (Fig. 1) in order to control the flow of the exhausting gas. The number of baffles and arrangements of the baffles will affect the flow pattern and one of ordinary skill in the art would choose the number and location of such baffles such that a desire flow pattern is achieved.
“In FIG. 1 the furnace 1, the outer reaction tube 30 and the liner tube 40 can be provided with a flow deflector 50. flow deflector can be radially protruding into the gas channel 52 the form of an annular baffle 20. the flow deflector 50 can be set on the axial length of the gas channel 20 at a point about one-half, and are sufficiently close to the narrow Z-shaped gap wall to define itself and the gas can pass through the 32, 41. the baffle of the flow deflector 50/52 can be partially or completely encircling or surrounding the liner tube 40, direction such that they must be blocking air flow on the central axis L passes through the gas passage 20, regardless of angular position the flow corresponding to the central axis.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Nishida to include baffle plates in order to control the flow of the exhausting gas towards the exhaust port.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2020/312655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okajima (WO 2019038974 cited on 1449).
Nishida discloses all limitation of the claims except for detail of the exhaust port.
Okajima discloses an exhaust port 236 wherein the width of the slit is decreases from top to the bottom in order to equalize the speed distribution of the process gas among substrates (abstract, Figs. 4, 9, 13, 14). As shown in Fig. 17, the exhaust port 236 may include plurality of slits arranged along the circumferential of the process chamber. The apparatus further includes a second gas exhaust port 237 at a lower section of the chamber.
Okajima discloses “The reaction tube 203 is coaxially disposed inside the heater 207, and constitutes a reaction container (processing container) of a pressure resistant structure. The reaction tube 203 is formed in a cylindrical shape, and the lower end is opened and provided with a flange, and the upper end is closed by a relatively thick flat ceiling member. Inside the reaction tube 203, a cylindrical portion 209 formed in a cylindrical shape, a nozzle disposition chamber 222 partitioned between the cylindrical portion 209 and the reaction tube 203, and a gas supply port formed in the cylindrical portion 209 (introduction A second gas exhaust port 237 formed under the first gas exhaust port 236 and formed in the cylindrical section 209 and a gas supply slit 235 as a port), a first gas exhaust port 236 formed in the cylindrical section 209, and Is equipped. The reaction tube 203 and the cylindrical portion 209 are made of, for example, a heat resistant material such as quartz (SiO 2) or silicon carbide (SiC). The reaction tube 203 and the tube portion 209 constitute a double reaction tube, the reaction tube 203 is an outer tube, and the tube portion 209 is an inner tube (liner tube). The first gas exhaust port 236 may be referred to as an exhaust hole or a slit. Further, the second gas exhaust port 237 may be referred to as a lower opening. The reaction tube 203 and the cylindrical portion 209 are integrally or separately configured, and when they are integrally formed, the lower end flange of the reaction tube 203 is also formed inward to be coupled to the cylindrical portion 209.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Nishida in order to equalize the speed distribution of the process gas among substrates.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2020/312655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Takagi (US 20180274098).
Nishida discloses all limitation of the claims except for inclined injection holes.
Takagi discloses various injectors for introducing gas toward the substrates at different locations including an injector having injection holes 251a and 251b for ejecting gas upwards (Fig. 7E, [0089]) in order to eject the gas upwards as desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Nishida in order to selectively eject upward or downward as desired.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2020/312655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nonomura (WO 2020189205).
Nishida discloses all limitation of the claims except for duplication of nozzles along the circumferential direction of the process chamber,
Nonomura discloses an injected wherein a plurality of nozzles is arranged along the circumferential direction of the process chamber in order to improve the uniform gas distribution along the horizontal direction (Figs. 2, 6, 7).
Nonomura discloses “The nozzle 410 has a shape along the outer periphery of the wafer 200 and the inner wall of the inner tube 204 (arc shape, C-shaped in top view, also called a C-shaped nozzle), and the gas supply hole 410a is the circumference of the inner wall of the inner tube. A plurality of horizontal directions are provided along the direction. Specifically, the gas supply holes 410a are provided in a plurality of rows (for example, three rows) from the lower portion (upstream side) of the nozzle 410 to the upper portion (downstream side) of the nozzle 410 at a position facing the wafer 200. That is, the nozzle 410 has a gas supply hole 410a having a plurality of supply ports that open in the height direction corresponding to the loading area of the wafer 200 and in the horizontal direction of the wafer 200. The gas supply holes 410a are provided in the nozzle 410 at the same pitch in the height (vertical) direction corresponding to the region of the wafer 200, and at the same pitch wider than the pitch in the height direction in the horizontal direction of the wafer 200. Provided. The gas supply hole 410a is provided so as to face the center of the wafer 200 (the center of the processing chamber 201). Unlike the nozzle 420, which is an ordinary perfect circle or elliptical nozzle, the distance from the plurality of gas supply holes 410a in the horizontal direction of the nozzle 410 to the wafer 200 can be made uniform, and the directivity toward the center is improved. More processing gas can be supplied up to the center of the wafer 200. The curvature of the nozzle 410 on the wafer 200 side may be configured to match the curvature of the wafer 200 or the inner tube 204. With such a configuration, it is possible to suppress the occurrence of turbulent flow on the outer peripheral side of the wafer 200 and improve the uniformity of the film thickness formed on the wafer 200.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Nishida in order to further improve the film uniformity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hiramatsu (US 20200407851) disclose injectors with more (additional) holes on the upper and lower part thereof (Fig. 6B).
Ebata (US 20200098555) disclose injectors with various hole size distributions (Figs. 6A, 6B).
Takagi (US 20140357058) disclose injectors with various hole size distributions including holes on the top of the injectors (Fig. 4).
Kang (US 20190316254) discloses injectors including holes on the upper or lower part thereof (Fig. 3).
Hirano (US 20250043424) disclose injector having multiple holes along the horizontal direction (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Parviz Hassanzadeh whose telephone number is (571)272-1435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-1446. 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.
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights