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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/592180 filed February 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the distribution ring" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, nothing in the specification describes any “distribution ring” in any way, and as such it is likely to be a typo in this claim and for the purposes of examination it will be ignored.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asakawa et al. (US 2021/0035823).
Regarding claim 1: Asakawa et al. discloses a semiconductor processing device (1) having a processing container (10) which is a chamber housing including a two placement stages (11) which are process chambers, each one including an exhaust ring (52) which is a liner and half of a base body (50) which is a pump ring, the base body (50) having a plurality of openings- one of which can be considered a port- formed at the end of slits (82) and a plurality of beams (82a) between the slits (82) forming a baffle, where the baffle, exhaust ring (52) and base body (50) each at least partially define first and second process spaces (S), and where an exhaust path and exhaust port (91) is provided between the two stages (11) such that it is a shared foreline which connects to exhaust chambers fluidly coupled to both of the processing volumes defined in each stage (11) (pars. 31-33, 37, 46-52, figures 2-4 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 2: Asakawa et al. shows that the exhaust ring (52), beams (82a) and base body (50) halves partially define an exhaust cavity (see figures 6-9).
Regarding claim 3: Asakawa et al. teaches that the exhaust ring (52) has a plurality of openings (81) which are exhaust apertures, where the beams (82a) are disposed between the opening under the slits (82) and the openings (81) of the exhaust ring (52) (par. 47, figures 3-4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4: Asakawa et al. shows that the beams (82a) extend around the circumference of the base body (50) halves, however not all of the beams (82a) must be considered to be the “first baffle”, as that is a broad phrase, such that half or less of the radial extent of the flange (50c) can be considered to contain said first baffle (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 5: Asakawa et al. discloses that the flange (50c) includes a plurality of slits (82) which connect the process volume and the port, as discussed above, and which form the beams (82a) of the baffle (par. 50, figures 4, 6-7).
Regarding claim 6: Asakawa et al. shows that the baffle beams (82a) are all about equal in size (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 7: Asakawa et al. further discloses that the base body (50) is sealed with a cover (51) which is a lid (figure 3, par. 37), where, as established above, the exhaust ring (52), beams (82a) and base body (50) halves define an exhaust cavity which, along with the housing space within the processing container (10), can be considered a ring assembly (see figures 1-3 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 8: Asakawa et al. shows that each of the stages (11) have an exhaust chamber area outside of the stage (11) separated from each other by a partition wall (13) (figure 6) which still allows the exhaust to flow to the common exhaust port (91) which is the claimed foreline, where the foreline is within an exhaust space (V) which can be considered to be a foreline chamber disposed between the two exhaust areas of each adjacent stage (11) separated by the partition walls (13) (par. 52, figures 6-8 and 10).
Regarding claim 9: Asakawa et al. shows that the beams (82a) are located at the front end of the slits (82) such that they are disposed between the ports at the bottom of the slits (82) and the process volume within the stage (11) area (see figures 4, 6-7 and 10).
Regarding claim 10: Asakawa et al. discloses a semiconductor processing device (1) having a processing container (10) which is a chamber housing including a two placement stages (11) which are process chambers, each one including an exhaust ring (52) which is a liner and half of a base body (50) which is a pump ring, the base body (50) having a plurality of openings- one of which can be considered a port and another can be considered to form a pressure conduit- formed at the end of slits (82) and a plurality of beams (82a) between the slits (82) forming a baffle, where the baffle, exhaust ring (52) and base body (50) each at least partially define first and second process volumes (S), and where an exhaust path and exhaust port (91) is provided between the two stages (11) such that it is a shared foreline which connects to exhaust chambers fluidly coupled to both of the processing volumes defined in each stage (11), where each stage further includes a pressure measurement mechanism in the ceiling (21) which is fluidly coupled to each volume to measure the pressure therein, and clearly also coupled to the pressure conduit formed through one of the slits (82) such that container (10) is partially formed between the pressure measurement mechanism in the ceiling (21) and the pressure conduit within one of the slits (82) (pars. 31-33, 37, 46-52, figures 2-4 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 11: Asakawa et al. discloses that the slits (82) pass through the beams (82a) which form the baffle (see figures 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 12: Asakawa et al. shows that the exhaust ring (52) has a number of openings (81), any of which can be considered an “index feature” as this term is very broad, which enables the slit (82) corresponding to the pressure conduit to experience the pressure within the processing volume (S) (par. 47, figure 4).
Regarding claim 13: Asakawa et al. shows that the exhaust ring (52) further includes a ring housing partially defined by a partition wall (13) disposed radially outward from the exhaust ring (52) (see figures 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 14: Asakawa et al. shows that the partition wall (13), beams (82a) and base body (50) define a cavity which can be considered a port cavity (see figures 2-4, 10).
Regarding claim 15: Asakawa et al. shows that the exhaust ring (52), the beams (82a) and the base body (50) partially define an exhaust cavity, where the beams (82a) separate the exhaust cavity inside the processing volume (S) from the port cavity outside of the processing volume (S) (see figures 1-4, 6 and 10).
Regarding claim 16: Asakawa et al. shows that the base body (50) forms a processing space (S) which can also partially define a conduit between the stage (11) and the ceiling (21) in which the pressure measurement mechanism is placed (par. 52, figures 1-3), such that the conduit formed by the base body (50) allows the slit (82) to communicate with the pressure measurement mechanism.
Regarding claim 17: Asakawa et al. discloses that the flange (50c) includes a plurality of slits (82) which connect the process volume and the port, as discussed above, and which form the beams (82a) of the baffle (par. 50, figures 4, 6-7).
Regarding claim 18: Asakawa et al. shows that each of the stages (11) have an exhaust chamber area outside of the stage (11) separated from each other by a partition wall (13) (figure 6) which still allows the exhaust to flow to the common exhaust port (91) which is the claimed foreline, such that the two process volumes (S) are separated by their respective exhaust chambers and the forelines (see figure 8). While Asakawa et al. does not explicitly mention that this allows pressure equalization, Asakawa et al. does state that the exhaust mechanism (90) is designed to be able to evacuate the entire container (10) at once (par. 57) such that pressure equalization between the two volumes (S) is enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa et al. in view of DuBois et al. (US 2017/0298509).
Regarding claim 19: Asakawa et al. discloses a semiconductor processing device (1) having a processing container (10) which is a chamber housing including a two placement stages (11) which are process chambers, each one including an exhaust ring (52) which is a liner and half of a base body (50) which is a pump ring, the base body (50) having a plurality of openings- one of which can be considered a port and another can be considered to form a pressure conduit- formed at the end of slits (82) and a plurality of beams (82a) between the slits (82) forming a baffle, where the baffle, exhaust ring (52) and base body (50) each at least partially define first and second process volumes (S), and where an exhaust path and exhaust port (91) is provided between the two stages (11) such that it is a shared foreline which connects to exhaust chambers fluidly coupled to both of the processing volumes defined in each stage (11), where each stage further includes a pressure measurement mechanism in the ceiling (21) which is fluidly coupled to each volume to measure the pressure therein, and clearly also coupled to the pressure conduit formed through one of the slits (82) such that container (10) is partially formed between the pressure measurement mechanism in the ceiling (21) and the pressure conduit within one of the slits (82) (pars. 31-33, 37, 46-52, figures 2-4 and 7-8). Asakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the base bodies (50) are metal, or that the process volume (S) is less than about 5 liters.
However, Asakawa et al. discloses that the overall container itself is formed of metal such as steel or aluminum (par. 32), and since Asakawa et al. is silent as to the composition of the base bodies or any part of the partition walls (13), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making most or all of these structural elements out of the same steel or aluminum just like the processing container (10) because using a known material for a known element is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143) and trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Asakawa et al. still fails to explicitly disclose a volume for each of the processing spaces (S). However, Asakawa et al. does disclose that the wafer size for this device (1) is 300mm (par. 64), and DuBois et al. discloses a similar reactor in which a 300mm wafer tends to require a processing volume of no more than 250 mL (par. 34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a processing space with a volume less than 5 liters, such as 250 mL or less, because DuBois et al. teaches that this helps promote fast switching of gasses (i.e. evacuation to the proper pressure) (par. 34) and because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20: Asakawa et al. shows that the two process spaces (S) are in the same plane (see figures 1-3, 5, 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
7/21/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights