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 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending. In the amendment filed 7/10/2026, claim 1 was amended, claims 11 and 12 were newly added, and no claims were canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okajima (prev. presented US 2022/0356580).
Regarding claim 1, Okajima teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 1) comprising: a processing container (120 and 130 Fig 1, [0027]) configured to accommodate (Fig 1, [0027]) a substrate holder (support 140 Fig 1 [0028]) that holds substrates [0028]; a gas supply chamber (right side gap between 120 and 130 Fig 1, see annotated version below) provided in a side wall of the processing container (Fig 1, see annotated Fig 1 below); a supply-side pipe (151 Fig 1,2) extending horizontally from the gas supply chamber (Fig 1, 2); and an injector (152 Fig 2) detachably disposed [0040] (note discussion of attachment structure and inserting the pipe 152 in [0044-0045]) spanning through the gas supply chamber and the supply-side pipe (Fig 1, 2), wherein the injector (152 Fig 1,2) is configured to be replaceable (note the structure is detachable and therefore may be replaced) with another injector having at least one of a different number of gas injection holes, a different size of the gas injection holes, and a different arrangement of the gas injection holes. Note the injector may be removed and therefore it is configured to be replaceable with another injector, the structure of the claimed injector is not defined by the structure that replaces it. Further another similarly sized injector with a different number of holes, size of holes, or shape of the outlet hole may be used by providing a similarly shaped injector with a differently designed end. The apparatus is not claimed as including this hypothetical alternative injector.
PNG
media_image1.png
722
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okajima teaches a heater (110 comprising 111, 112, 113 Fig 1) [0027] accommodating the processing container (Fig 1 [0027]), wherein the supply-side pipe penetrates a side surface of the heater (Fig 1).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Nakashima (prev. presented US 2008/0173238).
Regarding claim 3, Okajima teaches a plurality of passages provided in an axial direction of the processing container in the supply-side pipe (Fig 1, see 151). Initially it is noted that the change from one large piece to a plurality of pipes represents merely making the pipes separable In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Nakashima teaches a single gas inlet pipe with a plurality of passages (230a-230h of 230 Fig 3) and teaches that alternatively a structure with a plurality of separate pipes (230a-230h of 230 Fig 4) may be used for the same purpose [0111]. 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 the supply side pipe of Okajima to include a plurality of supply-side pipes because Nakashima has taught the arrangements are functional alternatives [0111].
Regarding claim 4, Okajima teaches a same type of gas is supplied to a plurality of injectors provided corresponding to the plurality of supply-side pipes arranged in the axial direction of the processing container (see gas supply structure of Fig 13).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Hirano (prev. presented WO 2024/062569, citing English equivalent US 2025/0218804).
Regarding claim 5, Okajima fails to teach a plurality of supply-side pipes is provided in a circumferential direction of the processing container. Hirano teaches that in addition to a plurality of axially extending gas supply pipes (223 Fig 3 [0026]), there are a plurality of gas supply pipes provided in a circumferential direction of the processing container (see 225, 223 Fig 2) [0026]. 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 Okajima to include the plurality of supply-side pipes provided in a circumferential direction of the processing container because Hirano teaches this allows for supply of different gases [0036-0038]. Additional nozzles allow for the apparatus to be able to perform a variety of processes which increases the market value of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Hirano as applied in the combination teaches different types of gases provided to the supply-side pipes arranged in the circumferential direction [0036-0038].
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Hirano further teaches a heater (228 Fig 2 [0045) on the gas injector (Fig 2) to heat the supply-side pipes [0045] 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 Okajima to include a gas injector heater that heats each of the plurality of supply-side pipes because Hirano teaches this allows for maintaining the temperature of the gas to avoid it re-liquifying [0045-0046].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Mahajani (prev. presented US 2008/0113096).
Regarding claim 8, Okajima remains as applied to claim 1 above. Okajima teaches the injector (152 Fig 2) includes an injection portion having a gas injection hole (1531 Fig 2), and a transfer portion (remainder of body of 152 Fig 2) communicating with the injection portion (Fig 2), and disposed inside the supply-side pipe (Fig 2). Okajima fails to teach the injection portion has a plurality of gas injection holes. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses (abstract), Mahajani teaches the gas injector includes an injection portion (108a-d Fig 1B) having a plurality of holes (116 Fig 1B) connected to a transfer portion (118a-d). 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 the gas injector of Okajima to include an injection portion with a plurality of holes because Mahajani teaches this structure is a functional alternative for the same purpose of gas introduction into the side of the vertical gas chamber (Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. In the combination as applied the transfer portion has a straight tube shape (see transfer portion of Okajima Fig 1 or portion 118a-d of Mahajani).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Mahajani as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Arena (prev. presented US 2011/0277681).
Regarding claim 10, the combination as applied to claim 8 remains as applied above. The transfer portion of Okajima in view of Mahajani is a straight tube. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Arena teaches the gas injector may have a spiral tube shape (49 Fig 2A) to provide a longer path [0039] which allows for the gas to be heated and have improved temperature control [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 the transfer portion of Okajima to include a spiral shape because Mahajani teaches this is a functional alternative shape for gas introduction to provide a longer gas injector path.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0084408 of Yudovsky et al., hereinafter Yudovsky.
Regarding claim 11, Okajima remains as applied to claim 1 above. Okajima teaches the injector (152 Fig 2) includes a transfer portion (remainder of body of 152 Fig 2) disposed inside the supply-side pipe (Fig 2). Okajima teaches a flange (1523 or 1581 Fig 3) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the transfer portion (Fig 3) but fails to teach this is configured to be inserted into the supply-side pipe to position the injector because Okajima teaches this provided on a structure attached to the pipe. Initially it is noted that structure 154 may be combined with 151 to be considered the introduction pipe. Further, in the same field of endeavor of a processing chamber (abstract, Fig 3-11), Yudovsky teaches a gas injector (705 Fig 11 [0099]) has a transfer portion (722 Fig 11) disposed inside the supply side pipe (704 Fig 11); and a flange (730 Fig 11) provided on an outer peripheral surface of the transfer portion (Fig 11) and configured to be inserted into the supply-side pipe to position the injector (Fig 11). 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 Okajima to include the flange of Yudovsky positioned as taught by Yudovsky because Yudovsky teaches the flange provides a gas seal for the injector [0099].
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. Yudovsky as applied in the combination teaches the flange blocks a space between an inner peripheral surface of the supply side pipe and outer peripheral surface of the transfer portion (Fig 11 and [0099]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p6) that Okajima does not teach the injector is configured to be replaceable with another injector having different holes (number, size, arrangement). Examiner notes that there is no clear structure required by the injector to enable replacement by a different injector beyond the structure being removable. Therefore, Okajima teaches the same injector because Okajima teaches the injector is removable. Applicant has not claimed a second injector of different configuration as part of the apparatus and examiner notes that the limitation appears to be directed to intended future use of the apparatus. If applicant believes there is a structure of the injector that affects a future replacement injector after the first injector is removed, applicant is kindly requested to clarify the claim to include such structure.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p7) rely on the arguments directed to claim 1 which have been addressed above. The arguments regarding the new claims are not persuasive in view of the new rejection provided above for the new claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0017646 teaches a gas injection pipe (124 Fig 4) with a flange (Fig 4).
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
