DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on March 25, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, and 13-16 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) The Office has failed to reject all of the features of claim 9, which stipulates that an exhaust outlet must be “disposed within the liner volume.” The outstanding Office letter defines the liner volume as extending laterally between liner portions 30b and 30d, but this region does not contain the required outlet “within the liner volume.” Gap 31b, for example, may appear to be a suitable candidate but is disposed between the liner and the interior chamber wall; therefore, this gap is external to the liner volume (p. 6).
(2) Concerning the instant amendments, Aida fails to disclose an exterior liner portion on the one or more sidewalls or an inlet aperture extending through the “exterior liner portion at a location corresponding to the cleaning gas plenum,” as the penultimate paragraph of claim 1 now requires. Because a gap (31b) is interposed between the chamber sidewall and liner portion 30b of Aida, the latter cannot satisfy the claimed term of “exterior liner” (p. 7).
(3) Related to the above argument, Aida’s inlet aperture is disposed either above or below the cleaning gas plenum, but claim 1 now requires said aperture to “extend through the exterior liner portion at a location corresponding to the cleaning gas plenum” (p. 7).
(4) Claim 1 has been further amended to clarify a purge volume defined between the substrate support and the bottom wall. Because the Office has previously stipulated that the entire lateral volume between liner portions 30b and 30d constitute the “liner volume,” there is no space remaining to allocate as the claimed “purge volume” (p. 7).
(5) Regarding claim 10, the Office cites the reference of Fink, which affixes a plasma source to the wall of the process chamber. Claim 10, however, requires a remote plasma source disposed below the chamber (p. 8).
In response,
(1) As an initial matter, the examiner observes that reference numeral 612 denotes the claimed “exhaust outlet” in Applicant’s Figure 5. It appears that only the topside the outlet’s volume is bounded by a liner portion. The exhaust conduit constitutes the lower boundary of the outlet and the bottommost chamber wall constitutes the lateral boundary. It seems clear, then, that the claimed stipulation of “disposed within the liner volume” merely requires a liner portion to constitute one boundary of the exhaust outlet. Because gap 31b of Aida is bounded, on at least one side, by a liner portion, the contested claim language cannot exclude this feature from the category of “exhaust outlet” without imperiling the enablement status of Applicant’s corresponding feature.
Regardless, Aida discloses other features which read upon even the most stringent interpretation of “exhaust outlet,” thereby mooting the aforementioned concern. For example, paragraph [0022] clarifies that an “exhaust hole (not shown) is provided below or at the bottom of the side of the chamber 10.” As indicated, Figure 1 does not depict the hole, but Aida already renders several apertures to facilitate gas flow, and it is the position of the Office that the configuration of the unshown exhaust outlet can be readily derived from the structure of the illustrated apertures. In one embodiment, Aida provides two through holes (12, 13) which extend through both the chamber wall and the liner, whereby the portion of the through hole circumscribed by the liner irrefutably satisfies the metes of “within the liner volume.” Modeling the unshown exhaust outlet in accordance with this paradigm, then, would satisfy the strictest interpretation of claim 9.
It should be noted that Aida provides two other apertures (32a, 32e) which extend through the chamber wall but not through the liner. Even so, because the uppermost boundary of these apertures is constituted by a liner portion, as with Applicant’s own exhaust outlet (612), modeling Aida’s unshown exhaust outlet in the same way would ought to satisfy the contested limitation.
Lastly, even something like the gate valve port (11) may be taken as an “exhaust outlet” if an outflow can be generated due to, say, a pressure differential. For instance, the operator can raise the pressure of the processing chamber (10) in relation to the connecting chamber by flowing gas into the former via inlets 12 and 32. Upon the opening of the gate valve (52), gas will exhaust through the port, thereby provisionally satisfying the term “exhaust outlet.”
(2) The Office considers liner portion 30b of Aida to be the “exterior liner” because its radial distance from the center of the reaction chamber exceeds that of liner portion 30d; that is, portion 30b is outside of, or “exterior” to, portion 30d. Further, Aida’s exterior liner (30b) is only 0.5 mm from the sidewall, which may reasonably be construed as being “on” the sidewall [0034]. It is also clear that the liner must be affixed to a permanent structure to stabilize its own position. To this end, Aida forms corresponding portions of the liner and chamber sidewalls convexly and concavely, respectively, whereby these portions establish contact to fix the liner in place [0035]. Thus, in both of these ways, the examiner understands Aida’s exterior liner to be “on the one or more sidewalls.” That is, either through a close-fit relationship of 0.5 mm or via the elaborated affixment means, Aida’s liner may reasonably be interpreted to be “on” the chamber sidewalls.
(3) The examiner does not understand the argument. To clarify the outstanding rejection: the cleaning gas plenum may be understood as the physical conduit through which the cleaning is supplied, and the inlet aperture may be understood as an abstract extension of the plenum, e.g., the outlet of the plenum. If Aida’s cleaning gas inlet (12) is taken as the claimed “cleaning gas plenum,” the “inlet aperture” may be taken as the volume extending from the outlet of the plenum, i.e., the volume circumscribed by the aperture formed in the exterior liner situated at the outlet of the cleaning gas plenum (Fig. 1). As can now be seen, Aida’s inlet aperture necessarily extends through the exterior liner “at a location corresponding to the cleaning gas plenum.”
(4) The examiner observes that the gap (31d) extending vertically alongside Aida’s substrate support stem (22) can be taken as the purge volume (Fig. 1).
(5) The examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is external to the scope of the combination rejection. The reference of Pathak, invoked previously in the rejection, ratifies the positioning of Aida’s cleaning gas source below the chamber body. Fink, in contrast, is cited narrowly to address the means of connecting the gas source to the chamber, where the reference suggests a pivoting mechanism. The pivoting mechanism, of course, is viable regardless of the chamber surface to which it is affixed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, 13, and 14 are objected to in view of the amendments codifying a “cleaning remote plasma source.” This term is not used in the specification and seems nonsensical. The examiner suggests first stipulating a cleaning gas source comprising a remote plasma source, and thereafter simply referring to the remote plasma source. Alternatively, Applicant can use the term remote cleaning plasma source.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “component,” in this case – that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “tension components” of claim 11.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The tension component (718) will be interpreted as a spring in accordance with paragraph [0073] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aida et al., US 2022/0367151.
Claim 1: Aida discloses a substrate processing system, comprising:
A chamber body (10) that defines a processing region and comprises sidewalls and a bottom wall (Fig. 1);
A liner (30) positioned within the chamber body, including:
An exterior liner portion (30b);
An interior liner portion (30d);
A liner volume between the interior and exterior liner portions;
A faceplate (40) positioned atop the liner [0023];
A substrate support (20) disposed within the chamber body [0024];
A purge volume (31d) defined between the substrate support and the bottom wall [0032];
A cleaning gas source coupled with the liner volume through a cleaning gas plenum (12) and an inlet aperture [0028];
Wherein the inlet aperture extends through an opening of the exterior liner portion (30b) at a location corresponding to the cleaning gas plenum (12) (Fig. 1);
Wherein the inlet aperture is disposed in the processing region between the faceplate and a bottom wall of the chamber body (Fig. 1).
Claim 3: The inlet aperture, disposed at the terminus of the gas plenum (12), extends through a sidewall of the chamber body (Fig. 1).
Claim 5: As shown by Figure 1, the exterior line (30b) extends around an inner perimeter of the chamber body.
Claim 6: The interior liner (30d) is laterally spaced apart in a direction towards the substrate support from the exterior liner (30b) (Fig. 1). Further, the liner necessarily defines an “access diameter” for the substrate support.
Claim 7: Aida’s inner liner can be arbitrarily divided into upper and lower sections, whereby the former may be designated as the “pumping liner” and the latter as the “interior liner portion.”
Claim 9: Aida provides an exhaust outlet at the bottom of the chamber, which is within a volume structured by the liner [0022].
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida in view of Pathak et al., US 2022/0307135.
Aida is silent regarding the placement of the cleaning gas source, which may be constituted as a remote plasma unit [0028]. In supplementation, Pathak situates a gas supply source (114) underneath the chamber body so as to supply a cleaning gas from below ([0030]; Fig. 1). In view of this demonstration of suitability, it would have been obvious to orient Aida’s gas source similarly, as it has been held that arranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida.
Although Aida’s drawings are not to scale, it appears that the inlet aperture’s vertical position is at least 10 percent of the way up the chamber sidewall. Positioning the inlet aperture within Applicant’s claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida in view of Pathak, and in further view of Fink, US 2004/0084153.
Claim 10: The rejections of claims 1 and 2, above, substantially address these limitations. Of course, Aida is silent regarding the construction of the plasma cleaning gas source [0028]. In supplementation, Fink elaborates a plasma source (10) situated on a support frame (50) mounted to the chamber body ([0010]; Fig. 1). Further, Fink contemplates a pivoting mechanism in order to laterally displace the plasma source to facilitate maintenance access [0038]. It would have been obvious to position Aida’s remote gas source within a frame simply for purposes of securement, and it would have been further obvious to integrate a hinge mechanism to promote facile user access to the chamber.
Claim 14: Any location of the cleaning gas source can arbitrarily be named as the “processing position.”
Claims 15-16: The mounting plates structuring the Fink’s support frame will necessarily occupy the second position.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida in view of Pathak and Fink, and in further view of Lee et al., US 2023/0154766.
Fink is silent regarding the matter of springs, or “tension components.” Lee, however, like Fink, avails a hinge to rotate a chamber component laterally to permit maintenance access, yet further prescribes the use of a spring to actuate the pivoting of said component [0050]. It would have been obvious to integrate a tension component since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida in view of Pathak and Fink, and in further view of Miao, US 2023/0215709.
Aida contemplates only a single chamber, but Miao demonstrates that it is known to supply a cleaning gas from a single source (40) into at least two chambers ([0036-37]; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to couple Aida’s cleaning gas source to a second chamber, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Ni et al., US 2019/0194802. Ni discloses a substrate processing system comprising a chamber body (15) defining a processing region, a liner (12) positioned within the chamber body, a substrate support disposed within the chamber body, a cleaning gas source (A) coupled to the liner volume through a cleaning gas plenum and an inlet aperture ([0041ff]; Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights