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 .
Status
The amendment filed 06/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, and 15-17 are pending. Claims 16-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 12/05/2025. In the amendment filed 06/25/2026, claims 1-2, 5, and 9-11 were amended, claims 4, 6, and 18 were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/05/2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“cooling device” in claim 7 interpreted as a cooling volume (12) [0017], and equivalents thereof.
“heating device” in claim 15 interpreted as an infrared heater, an RF-heater, or a resistance heater [0016], and equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7-13, and 15 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.
In claim 1, the claim recites “the respective end portion” (singular) in numerous locations (line 17-18, line 19-20, line 21, line 23-24). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the respective end portion” (singular) because there is only prior recitation of “respective end portions” (plural) (line 8). For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the term “respective end portion” is interpreted inclusive if referring back to the respective end portions. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as by amending to refer to the plurality of end portions or clearly establish reference to a respective end portion of the respective end portions (note in this case it is respectfully requested to consider referring to the plurality as “end portions” and the singular as “a respective end portion”).
Additionally in claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the respective first through opening” in line 24-25. For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the term “the respective first through opening” is interpreted inclusive of referring to “a respective first through opening”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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(s) 1, 7, 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (prev. presented JP 2000-144432, citing machine translation provided 03/25/2026) in view of Byun (prev. presented US 2012/0067971).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches a gas-inlet element (Fig 2, 5-7) for a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1 and [0001], [0014]), the gas-inlet element comprising: a gas outlet plate (80 Fig 2, 5-6); a shield plate arrangement (60 Fig 2, 5-6) extending parallel to the gas outlet plate (Fig 2, 5-6) and comprising first through openings (78 Fig 2, 5-6); a first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6 [0020]) facing a first side of the gas outlet plate (Fig 5-6, volume 72 faces the upper side of gas outlet plate 80); and first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) flow connected with the first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6), the first pipes having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) opposite to the first side (Fig 5-6), and extending into the first through openings (openings 78 Fig 5-6) of the shield plate arrangement (Fig 5-6) [0019]; wherein the first through openings each have a first section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below) and a second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below), the first section disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below), wherein a diameter of the first section is larger than an outer diameter of the respective end portion (see annotated Fig 5-6 below, note for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the widest diameter), and is larger than a diameter of the second section (see annotated Fig 5-6), and wherein the diameter of the second section is smaller than the outer diameter of the respective end portion (see annotated Fig 5-6, note that for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the narrowest diameter), and wherein the respective end portion either (i) abuts against a floor of the first section (see annotated version (i) of Fig 5 below)) or (ii) is spaced apart from the floor (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6) so that an immersion depth (T) of the respective end portion into the first section of the respective first through opening is smaller than a depth (P) of the first section (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6).
Horie fails to teach second through openings and a second gas distribution volume that is flow connected with second pipes, the second pipes having openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement because Horie only teaches one gas distribution volume flow connected by pipes. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet structure (abstract), Byun teaches a second gas distribution volume (volume in 110 Fig 1) that is flow connected with second pipes (111 Fig 1), whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 1) are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 140 Fig 1). Byun teaches this in addition to a first gas distribution volume (120 Fig 1) with first pipes (121 Fig 1) that are directed toward first openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate 140 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the second gas distribution volume (volume in 110 Fig 1) that is flow connected with second pipes (111 Fig 1), whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 1) are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 140 Fig 1) as taught by Byun because Byun teaches that this arrangement allows for supplying two reactive gases to the chamber [0010] that do not mix until the chamber. This arrangement increases the number and type of layers that may be deposited using the apparatus while allowing the same processes to be used (when same gas is supplied to both gas supply outlets).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
323
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Horie teaches a volume (28a Fig 5-6) for circulating heat exchange medium [0015] and indicates a cooling water circulation unit may be used [0015]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have volume 28a as the cooling volume. Regarding for cooling the gas outlet plate, having the cooling volume in close proximity without a thermal insulator between would be expected to provide some cooling of the gas outlet plate, particularly of the first pipes which may be considered a structure of the gas outlet plate. Therefore Horie renders obvious a cooling device for cooling the gas outlet plate.
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Byun as applied in the combination teaches respective end portions of the second pipes each protrude into the second through openings (Fig 1). Horie as applied to claim 1 teaches the arrangement of end portions protruding into the first section and that the second section have a smaller diameter than the outer diameter of the end potions. In the combination in which Horie is modified to have two gas delivery, the positioning of the end portions in the through holes and shape of the through holes in the shield plate would be the same as for the first gas (see Horie Fig 5-6) because Byun demonstrates the positioning of end portions and shape of the through holes in the shield plate (140 Fig 1 of Byun) is the same for both gases (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Also note that the analysis above regarding the first and second through openings having the same shape. Horie teaches the first through openings expand like a funnel (i) toward a first broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement facing the gas outlet plate (see first section in version (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above) or (ii) toward a second broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement (facing away from the gas outlet plate (see second section in version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Horie teaches a cylindrical area of the first section of the first through opening adjoins a cylindrical area of the second section of the first through opening with a first step (see annotated Fig 5 version (i) or (ii) above). Note that in the combination as applied to claim 9, the second through openings have the same shape as the first through openings and therefore condition (ii) of the claim – a cylindrical area of the first section of the second through opening adjoins a cylindrical area of the second section of the second through opening with a second step – is also met by the applied combination.
Regarding claim 15, Horie teaches a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1), comprising: a susceptor (18 Fig 1 [0014]); a heating device (heater 56 Fig 1 [0016]) for heating the susceptor [0016]; the gas-inlet element of claim 1 (see citations of Horie regarding claim 1 above); and a process chamber (10 Fig 1) located between the shield plate arrangement and the susceptor (Fig 1), wherein the susceptor carries substrates that are coated in the process chamber [0016], [0014].
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Silva (prev. presented US 2015/0007771).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches a gas-inlet element (Fig 2, 5-7) for a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1 and [0001], [0014]), the gas-inlet element comprising: a gas outlet plate (80 Fig 2, 5-6); a shield plate arrangement (60 Fig 2, 5-6) extending parallel to the gas outlet plate (Fig 2, 5-6) and comprising first through openings (78 Fig 2, 5-6); a first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6 [0020]) facing a first side of the gas outlet plate (Fig 5-6, volume 72 faces the upper side of gas outlet plate 80); and first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) flow connected with the first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6), the first pipes having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) opposite to the first side (Fig 5-6), and extending into the first through openings (openings 78 Fig 5-6) of the shield plate arrangement (Fig 5-6) [0019]; wherein the first through openings each have a first section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below) and a second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below), the first section disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below), wherein a diameter of the first section is larger than an outer diameter of the respective end portion (see annotated Fig 5-6 below, note for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the widest diameter), and is larger than a diameter of the second section (see annotated Fig 5-6), and wherein the diameter of the second section is smaller than the outer diameter of the respective end portion (see annotated Fig 5-6, note that for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the narrowest diameter), and wherein the respective end portion either (i) abuts against a floor of the first section (see annotated version (i) of Fig 5 below)) or (ii) is spaced apart from the floor (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6) so that an immersion depth (T) of the respective end portion into the first section of the respective first through opening is smaller than a depth (P) of the first section (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6).
Horie fails to teach second through openings and a second gas distribution volume that is flow connected with second pipes, the second pipes having openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement because Horie only teaches one gas distribution volume flow connected by pipes. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet structure (abstract), Silva teaches a second gas distribution volume (volume in 6 Fig 3) that is flow connected with second pipes (9 Fig 3), whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 3-4) are directed toward second through openings (18 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 14 Fig 3-4). Silva teaches this in addition to a first gas distribution volume (5 Fig 3) with first pipes (8 Fig 3) that are directed toward first openings (17 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate 14 Fig 3-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the second gas distribution volume (volume in 6 Fig 3) that is flow connected with second pipes (9 Fig 3), whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 3-4) are directed toward second through openings (18 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 14 Fig 3-4) as taught by Silva because Silva teaches that this arrangement allows for supplying two reactive gases to the chamber [0042] and this increases the number and type of layers that may be deposited using the apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, Horie teaches a volume (28a Fig 5-6) for circulating heat exchange medium [0015] and indicates a cooling water circulation unit may be used [0015]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have volume 28a as the cooling volume. Regarding for cooling the gas outlet plate, having the cooling volume in close proximity without a thermal insulator between would be expected to provide some cooling of the gas outlet plate, particularly of the first pipes which may be considered a structure of the gas outlet plate. Therefore Horie renders obvious a cooling device for cooling the gas outlet plate. Additionally and/or alternatively to the applied teachings of Horie in the event applicant can persuasively argue that the arrangement of Horie would not provide cooling of the gas outlet plate, Silva teaches a cooling volume (7 Fig 3) that is adjacent to a gas outlet plate (plate 11 Fig 3) such that it provides cooling of the gas outlet plate [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include a cooling device (volume) adjacent to a gas outlet plate because Silva teaches this provides temperature control of the gas inlet [0043].
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 7 above. Silva teaches the cooling volume (7 Fig 3) adjoins the gas outlet plate (11) and contains a coolant [0018]. Horie has taught water is a known coolant [0015] and teaches other liquid heat exchanging media [0015]. Therefore the cooling volume containing a cooling liquid is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Horie teaches the first through openings expand like a funnel (i) toward a first broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement facing the gas outlet plate (see first section in version (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above) or (ii) toward a second broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement (facing away from the gas outlet plate (see second section in version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 15, Horie teaches a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1), comprising: a susceptor (18 Fig 1 [0014]); a heating device (heater 56 Fig 1 [0016]) for heating the susceptor [0016]; the gas-inlet element of claim 1 (see citations of Horie regarding claim 1 above); and a process chamber (10 Fig 1) located between the shield plate arrangement and the susceptor (Fig 1), wherein the susceptor carries substrates that are coated in the process chamber [0016], [0014].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Hudson (prev. presented US 2011/0212624) and DeOrnellas (prev. presented US 6,006,694).
Regarding claim 2, Horie a gas-inlet element (Fig 2, 5-7) for a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1 and [0001], [0014]), the gas-inlet element comprising: a gas outlet plate (80 Fig 2, 5-6); a first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6 [0020]) facing a first side of the gas outlet plate (Fig 5-6, volume 72 faces the upper side of gas outlet plate 80); first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6); and a shield plate arrangement (60 Fig 2, 5-6) that extends parallel to the gas outlet plate (Fig 2, 5-6) and faces a second side of the gas outlet plate opposite to the first side (Fig 2, 5-6, faces the lower side of the gas outlet plate which is opposite the first or upper side), the shield plate arrangement comprising at least one shield plate (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) and first through openings (78 Fig 2, 5-6), wherein a first broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement (upper surface of 60 Fig 5-6) facing the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) is separated from a broadside surface of the gas outlet plate (lower surface of plate 80 Fig 5-6) by a distance (D) (see Fig 5-6, note this distance is the height of space 70). Horie fails to teach the shield plate arrangement has a first section with a first thermal conductivity and an adjoining second section with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity, and wherein the first section is disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet element (abstract, Fig 1), Hudson teaches the lowermost plate of the gas inlet structure (112 and 114) includes a first section with a first thermal conductivity (114 Fig 1 “insulating layer”) and an adjoining second section (112 Fig 1 “third conductive layer”) with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity (note that by nature of layer 114 being “insulating” the thermal conductivity would be expected to be lower than the “conductive layer”), and wherein the first section (114 Fig 1) is disposed between the gas outlet plate (plates above) and the second section (112 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include this stacked plate arrangement as the lowest plate of the gas inlet (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) because Hudson teaches that it allows for directing plasma [0038], [0030], [0050] and because Hudson teaches the materials are suitable for the lowest layers of the gas inlet. If applicant argues that electrical conductivity is not a proxy for thermal conductivity, it is noted that in the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet, DeOrnellas teaches quartz is an insulating material (col 4, ln 20-25, window 38 is made of quartz col 3, ln 65-67) and teaches it may be contacted with a conductive graphite material (col 6, ln 50-57, conductive shield 50). The instant specification and claim 3 identify quartz as the lower thermal conductivity material and graphite as the higher thermal conductivity material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. The combination as applied to claim 2 teaches the first section of the shield plate arrangement consists of quartz, and the second section of the shield plate arrangement consists of graphite or coated graphite. Further Horie teaches first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) opposite to the first side (Fig 5-6), and extending into the first through openings (openings 78 Fig 5-6) of the shield plate arrangement (Fig 5-6) [0019].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Hudson and DeOrnellas as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Oh (prev. presented US 2021/0035780).
Regarding claim 5, Horie remains as applied to claim 4 above. Horie fails to teach the distance (D) is smaller than the immersion depth (T) because Horie is silent as to these values or their relative values. Initially it is noted that this appears to represent routine optimization of the spacing of the plates and the gas outlet pipe length. Further, in the same field of endeavor of gas inlet elements (abstract, Fig 1-4), Oh teaches the vertical space (D2 Fig 2-4) between a gas outlet plate (3 Fig 1-4) and the shield plate (4 Fig 1-4) [0054], which is referred to as distance (D) in the claims, is adjustable (Fig 3-4) [0036], [0058-0060], and may be set to be larger than the immersion depth (T) of the end portions (6 Fig 3-4, note Fig 16 demonstrates structure 6 as gas inlets). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the distance (D) and immersion depth (T) may be adjusted such that the distance (D) is smaller than the immersion depth (T) because Oh teaches these values are adjustable and teaches adjusting them to control where plasma may be formed [0058-0060].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Byun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Horie teaches the shield plate arrangement has a central area (Fig 2, 5-6). Horie fails to teach the respective end portions of the first pipes plunge more deeply or less deeply into the first through openings and/or the respective end portions of the second pipes plunge more deeply or less deeply into the second through openings in the central area of the shield plate arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement surrounding the central area. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet (abstract), Oh teaches the end portions of the gas supply pipes (6 Fig 16) plunge more deeply into the first through openings (13 Fig 3) in the central area of the shield plate (CA Fig 13) arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement (SA Fig 13) surrounding the central area (SA Fig 13) [0074-0075]. Oh also teaches the peripheral area may extend more deeply [0076]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the central area has first or second pipes that extend more or less than the surrounding area because Oh teaches this is an alternative arrangement to all pipes protruding the same distance and teaches it allows for having different center and edge effects [0073-0074] (note that this is often used to improve uniformity or provide a specifically desired layer thickness variation on the substrate).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Silva as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Horie teaches the shield plate arrangement has a central area (Fig 2, 5-6). Horie fails to teach the respective end portions of the first pipes plunge more deeply or less deeply into the first through openings in the central area of the shield plate arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement surrounding the central area. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet (abstract), Oh teaches the end portions of the gas supply pipes (6 Fig 16) plunge more deeply into the first through openings (13 Fig 3) in the central area of the shield plate (CA Fig 13) arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement (SA Fig 13) surrounding the central area (SA Fig 13) [0074-0075]. Oh also teaches the peripheral area may extend more deeply [0076]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the central area has first or second pipes that extend more or less than the surrounding area because Oh teaches this is an alternative arrangement to all pipes protruding the same distance and teaches it allows for having different center and edge effects [0073-0074] (note that this is often used to improve uniformity or provide a specifically desired layer thickness variation on the substrate).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Byun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hudson and DeOrnellas.
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied, Horie teaches the shield plate includes first and second broadside surfaces running parallel (upper and lower surfaces of 60 of Horie Fig 5-6), the first through openings (78 of Horie Fig 5-6) are uniformly distributed [0019] over both surfaces and extend between both surfaces (Fig 5-6 of Horie). Horie fails to teach the shield plate arrangement has a first section with a first thermal conductivity and an adjoining second section with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity, and wherein the first section is disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet element (abstract, Fig 1), Hudson teaches the lowermost plate of the gas inlet structure (112 and 114) includes a first section with a first thermal conductivity (114 Fig 1 “insulating layer”) and an adjoining second section (112 Fig 1 “third conductive layer”) with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity (note that by nature of layer 114 being “insulating” the thermal conductivity would be expected to be lower than the “conductive layer”), and wherein the first section (114 Fig 1) is disposed between the gas outlet plate (plates above) and the second section (112 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include this stacked plate arrangement as the lowest plate of the gas inlet (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) because Hudson teaches that it allows for directing plasma [0038], [0030], [0050] and because Hudson teaches the materials are suitable for the lowest layers of the gas inlet. If applicant argues that electrical conductivity is not a proxy for thermal conductivity, it is noted that in the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet, DeOrnellas teaches quartz is an insulating material (col 4, ln 20-25, window 38 is made of quartz col 3, ln 65-67) and teaches it may be contacted with a conductive graphite material (col 6, ln 50-57, conductive shield 50). The instant specification and claim 3 identify quartz as the lower thermal conductivity material and graphite as the higher thermal conductivity material.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Silva as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hudson and DeOrnellas.
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied, Horie teaches the shield plate includes first and second broadside surfaces running parallel (upper and lower surfaces of 60 of Horie Fig 5-6), the first through openings (78 of Horie Fig 5-6) are uniformly distributed [0019] over both surfaces and extend between both surfaces (Fig 5-6 of Horie). Horie fails to teach the shield plate arrangement has a first section with a first thermal conductivity and an adjoining second section with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity, and wherein the first section is disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet element (abstract, Fig 1), Hudson teaches the lowermost plate of the gas inlet structure (112 and 114) includes a first section with a first thermal conductivity (114 Fig 1 “insulating layer”) and an adjoining second section (112 Fig 1 “third conductive layer”) with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity (note that by nature of layer 114 being “insulating” the thermal conductivity would be expected to be lower than the “conductive layer”), and wherein the first section (114 Fig 1) is disposed between the gas outlet plate (plates above) and the second section (112 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include this stacked plate arrangement as the lowest plate of the gas inlet (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) because Hudson teaches that it allows for directing plasma [0038], [0030], [0050] and because Hudson teaches the materials are suitable for the lowest layers of the gas inlet. If applicant argues that electrical conductivity is not a proxy for thermal conductivity, it is noted that in the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet, DeOrnellas teaches quartz is an insulating material (col 4, ln 20-25, window 38 is made of quartz col 3, ln 65-67) and teaches it may be contacted with a conductive graphite material (col 6, ln 50-57, conductive shield 50). The instant specification and claim 3 identify quartz as the lower thermal conductivity material and graphite as the higher thermal conductivity material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p8-10) that Horie already teaches a second gas space and therefore the modification by Byun or Silva is not obvious. Examiner notes that the second gas space of Horie is not connected by second pipes flow connected with second openings. It is noted that Byun also demonstrates a gas flow space that is connected to the same holes as gas flow from the pipes (see space 130), the space 130 of Byun is analogous to the space 70 of Horie. Examiner notes that the modification allows for two gases that are not mixed until in the processing chamber, rather than mixing upstream of the showerhead outlets. As explained above, this allows for performing the same or additional processes and therefore increases the market value of the apparatus by increasing the number and type of processes that may be performed on the same apparatus. If applicant insists on the supply of gas to the same outlets is a second gas, then it is noted that the modification allows for a third gas flow. As explained above and herein, the motivation is that the increased control and different gases allows for more processes to be performed in the same apparatus. Therefore the argument that this is not an obvious modification is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the teachings of Hudson and DeOrnellas (reply p11-12) rely on portions of Hudson or DeOrnellas which incorporate plasma. In response to applicant's argument that Hudson uses plasma while Horie does not, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner notes that a material being suitable for gas inlet with plasma would be expected to be suitable for a gas inlet without plasma because energized species are more corrosive than non-energized species.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (p13-14) rely on the arguments regarding the independent claims, which have been addressed above. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0023782 demonstrates two gas distribution spaces (397 and 396 Fig 2) connected to the gas outlet plate by separate gas supply tubes (Fig 2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, 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.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
