DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 8, “the array of channels” should be “the array of gas channels”.
Claim 4, line 2, “the gas conduits’ should be “the vertical gas conduits”.
Claim 4, line 2, should “and” be “or” because claim 1 requires “or”.
Claim 5, line 3, should “and” be “or” because claim 1 requires “or”.
Claim 6, line 2, should “the gas conduits” be “the vertical gas conduits”.
Claim 7, line 2, “the purge gas” should be “purge gas”.
Claim 7, line 3, “the gas conduit” should be “the gas conduits”.
Claim 7, line 3, should “and” be “or” because claim 1 requires “or”.
Claim 8, line 2, “the gas conduit” should be “the vertical gas conduits”.
Claim 10, line 1, “the gas channels” should be “the first and second gas channels”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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(s) 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0180208 A1) in view of Kishimoto (KR 10-2018-0133007).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Daigo et al. teach an apparatus, comprising: an array of gas channels that extend parallel to each other, the array of gas channels including:
a plurality of rows of first gas channels that are configured to distribute a first
process gas; and a plurality of rows of second gas channels that alternate with the rows of first gas channels and configured to distribute a second process gas;
an array of feed tubes located above the array of channels, the array of feed tubes
including:
first feed tubes, each of which includes a plurality of first outlets corresponding to
a row of the first gas channels and is configured to deliver the first process gas to the row
of the first gas channels via the first outlets along different first flow paths of a same first
length; and
second feed tubes, each of which includes a plurality of second outlets
corresponding to a row of the second gas channels and is configured to deliver the second
process gas to the row of the second gas channels via the second outlets along different
second flow paths of a same second length. (See Annotated Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0024-0048)
PNG
media_image1.png
658
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Daigo et al. and claim 1 is that a plurality of vertical gas conduits, each of which vertically extends from a respective one of the array of gas channels and configured to transmit the first process gas or the second process gas is not discussed.
Regarding a plurality of vertical gas conduits, each of which vertically extends from a respective one of the array of gas channels and configured to transmit the first process gas or the second process gas (Claim 1), Kishimoto teach a plurality of vertical gas conduits, each of which vertically extends from a respective one of the array of gas channels and configured to transmit the first process gas or the second process gas. (See Figs.; Figs. 2, 9)
PNG
media_image2.png
646
1119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Daigo et al. teach a processing chamber, to which the gas conduits transmit the first process gas and the second process gas and within which the first process gas and the second process gas react with each other. (Paragraphs 0042-0046 – to form SiC)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Daigo et al. teach a substrate holder configured for receiving a substrate such that the substrate is disposed within the processing chamber for the reacted first and second process gases to be deposited thereon. (Fig. 1 – item 14)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is a controller configured to control flowing of the first process gas and the second process gas.
Regarding claim 9, Daigo et al. teach adjusting to control flowing of the first process gas and the second process gas. (Paragraph 0082) While not teaching a controller per se teaches adjusting and controlling by manual activity. The courts have held that it is obvious to automate (i.e. use a controller) a manual activity. See MPEP 2144.04 - III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY - In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Daigo et al. teach wherein one of the gas channels has a rectangular cross section. (Paragraph 0104)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Daigo et al. teach wherein the first gas channels are in fluid isolation from the second gas channels. (Fig. 1)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kishimoto is that it allows gas injection into the apparatus. (Paragraph 0017)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Daigo et al.by utilizing the features of Kishimoto because it allows gas injection into the apparatus.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 above, and further in view of Ruan et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0122851 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a purge gas inlet formed on a sidewall of at least one of the gas conduits.
Regarding claim 6, Ruan et al. teach providing a purge gas inlet formed on a sidewall of at least one of a gas conduit. (Paragraph 0062; Fig. 8)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a plurality of purge caps, through which a purge gas flows and joins the first gas channels and the second gas channels.
Regarding claim 12, Ruan et al. teach a plurality of purge caps, through which a purge gas flows and joins a gas channel.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein each of the purge caps includes a cap inlet, a
purge gas conduit and a cap outlet.
Regarding claim 13, Ruan et al. teach wherein each of the purge caps includes a cap inlet, a purge gas conduit and a cap outlet. (Paragraph 0062; Fig. 8)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ruan et al. is that it allows preventing back streaming in the gas channels. (Paragraph 0062)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Daigo et al. by adding purge gas means to Daigo et al. as taught by Ruan et al. because it allows for preventing back streaming in the gas channels.
Claim(s) 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo et al. in view of Kishimoto as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 above, and further in view of Wakasa et al. (JP 5026373 B2).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein each of the first feed tubes includes a plurality of first concentric feed conduits with a first flow path that splits the first process gas to flow toward opposite directions as the first process gas flows from an inner first feed conduit to outer first feed conduits until reaching a corresponding one of the outlets of the first feed tube.
Regarding claim 2, Wakasa et al. teach a feed tube that includes concentric tubes such that the flow path splits the process gas to flow toward opposite directions as the first process gas flows from an inner feed conduit to an outer first feed conduit until reaching an outlet. (See Figs. 8c, 9a, 9b)
PNG
media_image3.png
471
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inner first feed conduit is larger than the outer first feed conduit, allowing a greater amount of the first process gas to flow in the inner first feed conduct than in the outer first feed conduit.
Regarding claim 3, Based on the diameters in Fig. 9a the inner feed conduit is larger than the outer first feed conduit in terms of area and allows a greater amount of the first process gas to flow in the inner first feed conduct than in the outer first feed conduit. (See Figs. 8c, 9a, 9b)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wakasa et al. is that it allows for controlling flow rates of gases. (Paragraph 0063)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Wakasa et al. because it allows for controlling the flow rate of gases.
Claim(s) 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo et al. in view of Kishimoto and further in view of Ruan et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 above, and further in view of Hatano et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,963,834).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a controller configured to control flowing of the purge gas such that the purge gas enters the gas conduit and flows with the at least one of the first process gas and the second process gas to the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 7:
Ruan et al. already teach a purge gas entering a gas conduit and flowing with at least one of a first process gas and a second process gas to a processing chamber. (See Ruan et al. discussed above)
Hatano et al. teach a controller (valves and Mass flow controller 27) configured to control the flow of a purge gas. (Column 3 lines 64-65)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the controller is further configured to control
flowing of the purge gas such that the purge gas enters the gas conduit and flows toward a source
of at least one of the first process gas and the second process gas.
Regarding clam 8:
Ruan et al. teach a purge gas entering a gas conduit and flowing toward a source
of at least one of a first process gas and a second process gas. (See Ruan et al. discussed above)
Hatano et al. teach a controller (valves and Mass flow controller 27) configured to control the flow of a purge gas. (Column 3 lines 64-65)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Hatano et al. is that it allows for purging particles and deposits in the pipe and chamber. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Hatano et al. because it allows for purging particles and deposits in the pipe and chamber.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo et al. in view of Kishimoto and further in view of Ruan et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0096541 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the purge gas conduit is spiral.
Regarding claim 14, Seo et al. teach utilizing a spiral conduit for the purge gas. (Paragraph 0057, Fig. 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Seo et al. is that it allows for sufficiently heating the purge gas. (Paragraphs 0057, 0058)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Seo et al. is that it allows for sufficiently heating the purge gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 17, 2026