DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/25/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-20 are currently amended.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui (US Patent 10,407,771).
The Examiner notes the PG-Pub corresponding to Cui was cited by the Applicant on the IDS filed 8/6/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches a gas insert (Fig. 4A, insert #300) for a semiconductor manufacturing processing chamber (Fig. 1A, chamber #100), the gas insert comprising:
a plurality of gas injection levels (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406) including an inlet end gas injection level closest to an inlet end of the gas insert, an intermediate gas injection level, and an outlet end gas injection level furthest from the inlet end of the gas insert (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406, respectively), each gas injection level providing a gas flow to an inner channel within the gas insert (Fig. 4A, via apertures #410/420/430 to #350/351/352 as shown in Fig. 3B), each of the gas flows directed in a rotational direction within the inner channel (Fig. 1C, gas flows #174),
each gas injection level having a peripheral recess in an outer peripheral wall of the gas insert and a plurality of angled apertures extending from a bottom surface of the peripheral recess to the inner channel (Fig. 4A, channels #402/404/406 with apertures #410/420/430, respectively to #350/351/352 as shown in Fig. 3B), the inlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #410), the intermediate gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #420), and the outlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 6 to 24 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #430), and wherein a number of angled apertures in the outlet end gas injection level is greater than a number of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level or the intermediate gas injection level (C11, L59-63: each set #410/420/430 can comprise between 2 and 10 apertures, thus the reference teaches the instance where the number of apertures is 6/6/10, respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Cui teaches wherein the outlet end gas injection level directs a gas flow in an opposite rotational direction than the other gas injection levels (Fig. 4C, apertures #430 angled in opposite direction from #410 and #420 in Fig. 4B; see also col. 11, line 67 – C12, L9).
Regarding claim 5, Cui teaches wherein the inlet end gas injection level comprises 6 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #410).
Regarding claim 6, Cui teaches wherein the intermediate gas injection level comprises 6 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #420).
Regarding claim 9, Cui teaches a gas insert (Fig. 4A, insert #300) for a semiconductor manufacturing processing chamber (Fig. 1A, chamber #100), the gas insert comprising:
an inlet end (Fig. 4A, upper end) having an inlet end wall with a plurality of openings extending therethrough (see Fig. 3B, #285 through #310);
an outlet end having an outlet end face (Fig. 4A, lower end), the inlet end and outlet end defining a length of the gas insert (see Figs. 3B and 4A);
an inner channel extending from the inlet end wall to the outlet end with an opening in the outlet end face (Fig. 3B, #350/351/352), the inner channel bounded by a channel wall (see Fig. 3B);
a plurality of gas injection levels (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406) including an inlet end gas injection level closest to an inlet end of the gas insert, an intermediate gas injection level, and an outlet end gas injection level furthest from the inlet end of the gas insert (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406, respectively), each gas injection level comprising a peripheral recess in an outer peripheral wall of the gas insert and a plurality of angled apertures extending from a bottom surface of the peripheral recess to the inner channel (Fig. 4A, channels #402/404/406 with apertures #410/420/430, respectively to #350/351/352 as shown in Fig. 3B), the inlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #410), the intermediate gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #420), and the outlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 6 to 24 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #430), and wherein a number of angled apertures in the outlet end gas injection level is greater than a number of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level or the intermediate gas injection level (C11, L59-63: each set #410/420/430 can comprise between 2 and 10 apertures, thus the reference teaches the instance where the number of apertures is 6/6/10, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, Cui teaches wherein the inner channel comprises an upper portion and a lower portion (see Fig. 3B), the upper portion extending an upper portion length from the inlet end wall (Fig. 3B, height of #351), the upper portion having a substantially uniform diameter along the upper portion length (see Fig. 3B), the lower portion having a flared profile with an increasing diameter from the upper portion to the outlet end face (Fig. 3B, flared walls around #352).
Regarding claim 11, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of angled apertures in each of the gas injection levels connects to the inner channel in the upper portion (see Figs. 4A and 3B).
Regarding claim 13, Cui teaches wherein each of the inlet end gas injection level and the intermediate gas injection level independently comprise 6 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #410 and 6 apertures #420).
Regarding claim 15, Cui teaches wherein the outlet end gas injection level directs a gas flow in an opposite rotational direction than the inlet end gas injection level and the intermediate gas injection level (Fig. 4C, apertures #430 angled in opposite direction from #410 and #420 in Fig. 4B; see also col. 11, line 67 – C12, L9).
Regarding claim 16, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level, the intermediate gas injection level, or the outlet end gas injection level is angled tangential to the inner channel (see Figs. 4A-C, C10, L24-38).
Regarding claim 17, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level, the intermediate gas injection level, or the outlet end gas injection level is angled toward the outlet end of the gas insert (C10, L24-38: apertures may be angled from 0-90° relative to vertical) and connect to the inner channel tangential to the channel wall (see Figs. 4A-C, C10, L24-38).
Regarding claim 18, Cui teaches wherein the inlet end of the gas insert comprises a flange extending outwardly from an outer surface of the gas insert (Fig. 4A, flange near label #400).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US Patent 10,407,771), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 above, further in view of Ma (US Patent 7,682,946).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Cui does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Cui is silent as to the hole diameters).
However, Ma teaches wherein each of the angled apertures has a diameter in the range of 0.25 mm to 5 mm (Ma – C3, L55-58: 0.5 mm to 5 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the hole diameters of Cui to the claimed ranges since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Ma), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US Patent 10,407,771) and Ma (US Patent 7,682,946), as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Takagi (US Pub. 2014/0357058).
The limitations of claim 3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cui does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Takagi teaches wherein the angled apertures of the outlet end gas injection level have a smaller diameter than the angled apertures of the inlet gas injection level or the angled apertures of the intermediate gas injection level (Takagi – [0145] and Fig. 4B, holes of #233e decreasing in diameter toward an outlet end).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameter distribution of modified Cui to that of Takagi in order to regulate/smoothen the concentration distribution of the provided gas (Takagi – [0147]).
Regarding claim 8, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level, the intermediate gas injection level, or the outlet end gas injection level is angled tangential to the inner channel (see Figs. 4A-C, C10, L24-38).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US Patent 10,407,771), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 above.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Cui does not explicitly teach wherein the outlet end gas injection level comprises 12 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (C11, L59-63: set #430 can comprise between 2 and 10 apertures).
However, the prior art range (2-10 apertures of Cui) is very close to the claimed value (12 apertures) such that the Examiner asserts the instant claim would still be obvious over the prior art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the number of apertures of Cui to the claimed amount since the courts have held that where claimed ranges/amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, prima facie obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Alternatively/additionally, the Examiner asserts that the claimed value (12 apertures) can be met by a simple duplication of parts of Cui (between 2 and 10 apertures) – simply adding two additional apertures.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the number of apertures of Cui to the claimed amount since the courts have held that a simple duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US Patent 10,407,771), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 above, further in view of Ma (US Patent 7,682,946) and Takagi (US Pub. 2014/0357058).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Cui does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Cui is silent as to the hole diameters).
However, Ma teaches wherein each of the angled apertures has a diameter in the range of 0.25 mm to 5 mm (Ma – C3, L55-58: 0.5 mm to 5 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the hole diameters of Cui to the claimed ranges since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Ma), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Cui does not teach wherein the angled apertures of the outlet end gas injection level have a smaller diameter than the angled apertures of the inlet gas injection level or the angled apertures of the intermediate gas injection level.
However, Takagi teaches this limitation (Takagi – [0145] and Fig. 4B, holes of #233e decreasing in diameter toward an outlet end).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameter distribution of modified Cui to that of Takagi in order to regulate/smoothen the concentration distribution of the provided gas (Takagi – [0147]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US Patent 10,407,771) in view of Rasheed (US Patent 11,384,432).
Regarding claim 19, Cui teaches a gas injector assembly (Fig. 1A, gas delivery system #130) for a semiconductor manufacturing processing chamber (Fig. 1A, chamber #100) comprising:
a backing plate (Fig. 1A, lid plate #170) having a front surface with a concave portion (Fig. 1C, lower portions #135/160) and a back surface with an opening extending to the concave portion of the front surface (Fig. 1A and 1C, upper portion nearest channel #134);
a gas insert (Figs. 1C and 4A, insert #300) having an outlet end in contact with the back surface of the backing plate (Fig. 1C, lower end), the gas insert comprising a plurality of gas injection levels (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406) including an inlet end gas injection level closest to an inlet end of the gas insert, an intermediate gas injection level, and an outlet end gas injection level furthest from the inlet end of the gas insert (Fig. 4A, corresponding to #402/404/406, respectively), each gas injection level providing a gas flow to an inner channel within the gas insert (Fig. 4A, via apertures #410/420/430 to #350/351/352 as shown in Fig. 3B), each of the gas flows directed in a rotational direction within the inner channel (Fig. 1C, gas flows #174), each gas injection level having a peripheral recess in an outer peripheral wall of the gas insert and a plurality of angled apertures extending from a bottom surface of the peripheral recess to the inner channel (Fig. 4A, channels #402/404/406 with apertures #410/420/430, respectively to #350/351/352 as shown in Fig. 3B), the inlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #410), the intermediate gas injection level comprising in the range of 4 to 10 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #420), and the outlet end gas injection level comprising in the range of 6 to 24 angled apertures spaced around the bottom surface of the peripheral recess (Fig. 4B, 6 apertures #430), and a number of angled apertures in the outlet end gas injection level is greater than a number of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level or the intermediate gas injection level (C11, L59-63: each set #410/420/430 can comprise between 2 and 10 apertures, thus the reference teaches the instance where the number of apertures is 6/6/10, respectively); and
a gas manifold around the gas insert (Figs. 1C and 2A, annular manifold #205), the gas manifold cooperatively interacting with the gas insert to form the peripheral recess for each respective gas injection levels (Fig. 1C, annular channels #260/265/270).
Cui does not teach a showerhead having a front surface and a back surface with a plurality of apertures extending therethrough.
However, Rasheed teaches this feature (Figs. 1-3, gas distribution plate #125 with apertures #126)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cui apparatus to comprise the showerhead of Rasheed in order to create a choked flow of gas that results in more uniform deposition (Rasheed – C5, L5-10).
Thus, as a combination, modified Cui would teach the limitation: “the backing plate positioned adjacent the back surface of the showerhead to form a plenum between the concave portion of the front surface and the back surface of the showerhead, the inner channel in fluid communication with the plenum through the back surface of the backing plate” by virtue of the positioning of the showerhead of Rasheed in light of the structure of Cui.
Regarding claim 20, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level, intermediate gas injection level, or the outlet end gas injection level is angled tangential to the inner channel (see Figs. 4A-C, C10, L24-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the title as suggested, thus the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 4, 15, 17, and 20 to remove minor informalities, thus the objections to these claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s most recent amendments have changed the scope of the claims and rendered the previous ODP rejections moot, which are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Cui does not teach the limitation: “wherein a number of angled apertures in the outlet end gas injection level is greater than a number of angled apertures in one or more of the inlet end gas injection level or the intermediate gas injection level” of claims 1, 9, and 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Cui may depict six apertures for each of the injection levels (Figs. 4A-C), the disclosure contemplates where each level #410/420/430 can comprise between 2 and 10 apertures (C11, L59-63). Thus the reference teaches a variety of combinations thereof including the instance where the number of apertures is 6/6/10, respectively, which meets the limitations of the claims.
The rejections of these claims have been modified to meet the amended limitations, but the bases of rejection for these claims are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
