DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20210172064) in view of Fukumoto (US 5,859,540).
As to claim 1, Moon teaches an apparatus comprising a housing capable of forming an enclosure and configured to fit over a plurality of reactors, each having an associated showerhead, and gas lines (Fig. 2; Fig. 14). Moon teaches a heating element for each substrate ([0050]).
Moon is silent to the claimed heating element disposed in the housing, fan impeller, for providing temperature uniformity.
Fukumoto teaches a constant temperature chamber comprising a housing (11) with a heating element (3) in the housing and a fan impeller (2) disposed in the housing for distributing heat throughout the housing and capable of operating to provide temperature uniformity (title). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these features from Fukumoto into the Moon apparatus because Moon teaches/suggests maintaining the temperature of the reactors constant ([0143], last sentence), and Fukumoto provides a device specifically for maintaining a constant temperature in a chamber within the scope of the Moon teaching/suggestion. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in view of the fact that both references are for use with semiconductors.
As to claims 2, 3, 8, and 9, Fukumoto already teaches thermal insulation walls (3:16-18), a heater (3) interpreted to be a radiant heat element, and baffles (duct 8) that direct heat moved by the fan downwardly to the area to be heated before subsequent upward movement (7). The Fukumoto fan impeller (2) is connected with a fan motor (1) disposed outside of the housing (11). In the combination of Moon’s housing, the Fukumoto fan would be configured/capable of directing/channeling heat downward to the Moon showerheads. It would have been obvious to incorporate these features into Moon for the same reasons discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, the Moon housing has a top lid with an open end ([0018]) and a lower surface ([0048]) that constitutes the base structure which accommodates the plurality of reactors (Fig. 14), showerheads (5), and gas lines (Fig. 14, Gas Supplier). The reactors are interpreted to be attached to the base and the base has side walls attached (as seen in Moon Fig. 2, item 1)
As to claim 5, the Moon housing has openings for accommodating pipes therein (Fig. 2, item 3).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20210172064) in view of Fukumoto (US 5,859,540), and further in view of Choi (US 20210388501). Moon and Fukumoto teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 6 and 7, Moon is silent to the sensor disposed in the housing for monitoring the temperature within the housing and the controller for adjusting heat produced and/or fan impeller speed.
Choi teaches a deposition monitoring device including a fan ([0040]), sensor module that senses temperature ([0040]), and a controller (500) that maintains a set/constant temperature by adjusting heat control signals and controlling the fan speed ([0040]). The sensor module measures temperature at a location (320u1, for example) that is interpreted to be in the housing, but one would have also found it obvious to place this sensor at any other location within the housing in order to measure temperature at a various locations within the housing. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Choi into the Moon device motivated by automatically controlling and maintaining the constant temperature using a controller and sensors.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20210172064) in view of Fukumoto (US 5,859,540) and Choi (US 20210388501).
As to claim 10, Moon teaches an apparatus comprising a housing having wall surfaces and a forming an enclosure configured to enclose a plurality of reactors and associated showerheads and a plurality of gas lines (Fig. 2). The Moon housing has a top lid with an open end ([0018]) and a lower surface ([0048]) that constitutes the base structure which accommodates the plurality of reactors (Fig. 14), showerheads (5), and gas lines (Fig. 14, Gas Supplier). Moon teaches a heating element for each substrate ([0050]).
Moon is silent to the other claimed features, including the heat source for maintaining a set temperature in the housing, fan impeller, sensor and controller.
Fukumoto teaches a constant temperature chamber comprising a housing (11) with a heat source (3) in the housing, a fan impeller (2) disposed in the housing operatively connected with a motor (1) outside the housing to operate the fan impeller. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these features from Fukumoto into the Moon apparatus because Moon teaches/suggests maintaining the temperature of the reactors constant ([0143], last sentence), and Fukumoto provides a device specifically for maintaining a constant temperature in a chamber. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in view of the fact that both references are for use with semiconductors.
Choi teaches a deposition monitoring device including a fan ([0040]), sensor module that senses temperature ([0040]), and a controller (500) that maintains a set/constant temperature by adjusting heat control signals and controlling the fan speed ([0040]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Choi into the Moon device motivated by the need to automatically control and maintain the constant temperature using a controller and sensors.
As to claims 11, 13, and 15, Fukumoto already teaches thermal insulation walls (3:16-18), a heater (3) interpreted to be a radiant heat element, and baffles (duct 8) that direct heat moved by the fan downwardly to the area to be heated before subsequent upward movement (7). It would have been obvious to incorporate these features into Moon for the same reasons discussed above in the rejection of claim 10.
As to claim 12, Choi teaches a deposition monitoring device including a fan ([0040]), sensor module that senses temperature ([0040]), and a controller (500) that maintains a set/constant temperature by adjusting heat control signals and controlling the fan speed ([0040]). See the rejection of claim 10.
As to claim 14, Moon already shows a lid that would already be configured to be disposed over an upper chamber of each reactor. See the rejection of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment, but the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be on the grounds that Moon already teaches that the gas supply device is already heated due to heat radiation from the high-temperature process, and Moon’s solution is to circulate cold air over the upper portion of the gas supply device, and that importing Fukumoto’s heating element 3 into Moon’s system would undermine Moon’s cooling. Applicant argues that this render Moon’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, would change the principle of operation, and is the result of impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the rejection did not cite Moon’s heating element ([0050]) as the heating element for providing temperature uniformity within the housing, it is clearly pertinent to the discussion here. It is unclear how Fukumoto’s heating element incorporated into the Moon apparatus can be said to be a result of hindsight, change the principle of operation, or make the Moon system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose when the Moon system already includes heating elements within the reactor for heating the individual substrates.
While it is true that Moon provides a cooling device, there is a distinction to be made between an apparatus structure and how the apparatus is used. Since this claim is to an apparatus, the rejection does not reach the question of how the Moon cooling device and Fukumoto heating element would be used together. The rejection is based on the view that it would have been obvious to provide the Fukumoto heating element and impeller for maintaining a constant temperature in a chamber, and the presence of a cooling device in Moon does not change this view. In an apparatus, there is no requirement that the features be used together or in a contrary manner. The Examiner maintains that the apparatus features of Fukumoto which provide the ability to maintain a constant temperature would have been beneficial, and is taught/suggested in [0143] of Moon.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights