DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on August 19th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 19th, 2026.
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 2-6 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what structurally differentiates the upper and lower regions from the choke region, other than in name. The specification states that it “may have a smaller diameter” than the upper and lower regions, but the breadth of the term choke is otherwise not available. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 3-6 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyama (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0384033 A1) (hereinafter “Miyama”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Miyama teaches a shower plate (diffuser) (Figs. 1-3 [14]) for a semiconductor substrate processing/reactor chamber (Figs. 1-3 [12]) [0012] comprising an upper (inlet) side surface and an opposing lower (outlet) side surface (Figs. 1-3 [14A]) and a plurality of through holes extending from the upper surface to the lower surface having a central region and a circumferential region, the lower surface is either partially surface treated (Figs. 1-3 [14]) on a central region (Figs. 1-3, 6A, 7 [40]) leaving the circumferential region untreated or an outer part (Fig. 6E [40]) leaving the central region untreated, or entirely surface treated differentially [0033] on a central region (Fig. 6G/6H & 7 [40a]) and an circumferential region (Fig. 6G/6H & 7 [40b]), wherein the surface treatment is formed by anodic oxidation and the upper surface is not surface treated and neither is the flange (lateral surface connecting the first upper side and lower side surfaces) (Figs. 1-3 [14B]) [0031-0033, 0036, 0042], wherein the differential treatment allows for more temperature distribution controlled/uniformized substrate heating due to differential emissivity/heat absorption of the shower plate [0032, 0044-0047].
Claims 2 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama, as applied to claim 1 above, optionally Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0251990 A1) (hereinafter “Choi”), except for claim 6 which is in view of Choi.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, Miyama teaches the anodic oxide film is applied in such a manner as to anodize the lower surface and inherently at least portion of a lower region of the holes, leaving the upper region and mid-region (choke) un-treated so as not to close them [Figs. 1-2, 0031].
Further regarding claim 2 and regarding claim 6, and the lower region having a generally conical shape is not taught and in the event that a choke region between the upper and lower regions is not taught:
Choi teaches a gas diffuser plate for distributing gas in a plasma chamber, wherein the gas passages preferably comprise an upper/first bore region (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [310/318]) extending from the upstream gas inlet side (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [302]) and a lower/second bore region (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [310/318]) extending toward the downstream gas supply side (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [304]), the first/upper bore and second/lower bore being spaced from each other and connected by an orifice hole (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [314]), wherein the orifice hole is the primary source of back pressure that promotes an even distribution of gas across the upstream side [0083, 0105] and is also configured to minimize surface area of the second bore and the downstream side to the occurrence of fluorine during cleaning [0082], wherein the second/lower bore is flared (conical) to minimized pressure loss of gases flowing out from the orifice hole [0082] and provide a more efficient in gas ionization than a cylindrical shaped hole, wherein optimization/design of the flared shape allows plasma ionization rate to be varied/modified which controls formed film thickness and property uniformity [0089-0093, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cylindrical shape of gas supply channels to provide an upper region, choke region, and conical lower region as claimed, wherein at least a portion of lower region would have been inherently anodized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a controlled back pressure in order to promote uniform gas distribution at the upstream side and to prevent the downstream side and lower flared/conical region from being exposed to fluorinated cleaning gases and to provide more efficient and controlled plasma gas ionization for increased film thickness and property uniformity.
Claims 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyama, and optionally Choi, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Hasegawa (JP 2011-228329 A) (hereinafter “Hasegawa”).
Miyama teaches that the surface treatment for differential emissivity/heat absorption may comprise anodization [0031], or roughening such as by blasting [0037], or coating [0039], or preferably of oxide film and surface roughening/blasting treatment [0048-0049], wherein Choi further teaches the orifice holes, comprising the lowest diameter of the gas supply holes, as comprising a preferably diameter of 0.01 to 0.1 inch (0.254-2.54 mm) [0083], with examples at 0.016 inch and 0.018 inch (0.4~0.46 mm) [0085, 0095-0096, 0099]
Hasegawa teaches a gas supply electrode/shower plate (diffuser) (All Figs. [22]), wherein the body gas supply (second) surface (All Figs. [22a]) is preferably roughened to prevent peeling off the electrode and adhering to the substrate or formed film by a plasma-sprayed coating (All Figs. [22e]) as opposed to blasting or thermal arc spraying which could clog the holes [0003-0011, 0053] and that the gas supply surface is further provided, and sidewalls of the holes are provided, with an anodic oxide film (All Figs. [22d]) [0012, 0043] for purposes of corrosion prevention and insulation to prevent abnormal discharge [0042-0043, 0045, 0071], wherein diameters of the holes are preferably 0.3 mm or larger and equal to or below 0.7 mm to ensure stable gas supply and prevent electrical discharge (0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the roughened/anodized variable emissive lower surface of Miyama to further anodize the entire hole or the modify the roughened/anodized variable emissive lower surface of Miyama/Choi, wherein only portions of the modified holes at risk of peeling onto the substrate/formed film, the second/lower bore and the optionally the orifice hole, would need to be anodized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek improvements on a desired feature (roughened and anodized surface) to further improve other desired property, specifically a process that would not clog the smaller (orifice) holes and would suppress peeling of deposited material and improving corrosion resistance and preventing abnormal discharge.
Claims 1-2, 4, & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0251990 A1) (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7, Choi teaches a gas diffuser plate for distributing gas in a plasma chamber, wherein the gas passages preferably comprise an upper/first bore region (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [310/318]) extending from the upstream gas inlet side (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [302]) and a lower/second bore region (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [310/318]) extending toward the downstream gas supply side (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [304]), the first/upper bore and second/lower bore being spaced from each other and connected by an orifice hole (Figs. 3 & 7A-7D [314]), wherein the orifice hole is the primary source of back pressure that promotes an even distribution of gas across the upstream side [0083, 0105] and is also configured to minimize surface area of the second bore and the downstream side to the occurrence of fluorine during cleaning [0082], wherein the second/lower bore is flared (conical) to minimized pressure loss of gases flowing out from the orifice hole [0082] and provide a more efficient in gas ionization than a cylindrical shaped hole, wherein optimization/design of the flared shape allows plasma ionization rate to be varied/modified which controls formed film thickness and property uniformity [0089-0093, 0103], wherein orifice holes may be configured differently in diameter and length depending on back pressure/gas flow requirements [0083], wherein Choi teaches the incorporation by reference of 10/417,592 [0078, 0081], wherein ‘592 teaches a diffuser plate (All Figs. [158]) for semiconductor processing chamber (All Figs. [106]) [0002-0009, 0020] comprising a first/upstream (inlet) side surface (All Figs. [202]) facing a lid assembly and a second/downstream (outlet) side surface (All Figs. [204]) facing a processing film forming support/substrate assembly and a plurality of orifice through holes/gas passages (All Figs. [162]) extending from the upstream side to the downstream side, wherein only the second/downstream side surface is said to be anodized to enhance plasma uniformity and the upstream side is free of anodization to limit the absorption of fluorine during cleaning, preventing later release and future contamination [0037-0041, Fig. 2], wherein the holes are otherwise identically described to those in Choi, wherein the orifice holes should be configured not create so much back pressure such that fluorine has the chance to recombine and decrease in effectiveness but also the second bore and downstream side surface exposure thereto [0009, 0039, 0042].
Claims 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Nakano et al. (JP 3147868 U) (hereinafter “Nakano”).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Choi/’592 do not teach the anodization as formed anywhere on the hole surface.
Nakano teaches a shower plate comprising a gas introduction surface (All Figs. [21]) and having a plurality of holes/pores (All Figs. [23]) extending to an injection surface (All Figs. [22]) facing the processing chamber including the substrate/formed film, wherein the shower plate is conventionally entirely coated with an anodized film (Comparative Example #1) to protect it from corrosion and sputtering associated with plasma reactions [0019, 0034, Fig. 3] that makes an uncoated substrate far more likely to generate particles (comparative Example #2) [0035, 0037] but makes the cleaning process take far longer due to the deactivation/absorption of cleaning species/fluorine into the anodic film than a shower plate only comprising the anodized film on the injection surface and hole/pore sidewall surfaces, which improves the speed with no generation of particles [0020, 0035-0038], wherein the anodic film also helps the shower plate absorb infrared rays keeping it at a high temperature further increasing cleaning speed [0021], wherein an alternative embodiment differs in that the anodized film is not applied to the pore/hole sidewall surfaces which can further improve reactor cleaning speeds [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further anodize (or not anodize) any and/or all regions of the gas passage sidewall surfaces, but preferably to anodize at least the second/lower flared bore and optionally the choke region (orifice hole). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known alternative embodiment comprising the lower anodized surface and anodized hole surfaces, especially if corrosion/sputtering reaction products were more problematic in relation to any potential improvements to cleaning speed [Nakano].
OR
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide optimized partially anodized hole surfaces, balancing corrosion/sputtering requirements with cleaning speed, based on the disclosures of Nakano/Choi/’592, such as anodizing specific hole surfaces more likely to dealing with corrosion and sputtering associated with plasma reactions/ionization of plasma gases [Nakano; 0019 & Choi; 0089-0090] and less likely to experience fluorinated cleaning gases [Choi; 0082 & ‘592; 0039], which are both features of the ionization-enhancing flared/conical second/lower bores.
Furthermore, the one or more the orifice holes/choke regions, depending on diameter and length, affects for process gas flow, and may vary across the area of the shower head to optimize the process gas flow [Choi; 0083 & 0105], but also affect cleaning gas flow as they are intended to minimize exposure of the downstream areas thereof to fluorinated gases but prevent recombination thereof [‘0592; 0009, 0039, 0042], wherein any anodization of the orifice holes would be optimized alongside the plasma/cleaning gas flow requirements provided that the anodization would still limit the absorption/adherence of fluorine during cleaning [‘592; 0009, 0037], wherein orifice hole(s) more likely to be affected by cleaning gas flow should not be anodized and orifice hole(s) more likely to prevent/minimize flow of cleaning gas could/should be anodized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 4th, 2026
Prosecution Insights