CTNF 18/703,982 CTNF 85148 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 10-14 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breiling (2014/0235069) in view of Breiling (20200219757) . Breiling ‘069 discloses a showerhead for a semiconductor apparatus comprising: - a base portion, 103, having a plenum (112) within a showerhead, see, Fig. 1, - and with the base portion having a first set of holes, see 108, and - second set of holes, see 110 – as claimed, the first set of holes has a first diameter and length and the second set has a second diameter and length and the first set extends from the top of the base portion and the second set extend form the plenum, - in regard to the requirements for the diameters and the ratios of the holes, the teachings do not teach the claimed ratios/arrangement, but ’069 further teaches that the diameters and lengths of the respective holes are configured and optimizable to control features of the flow such as back-flow of gases [0080-81], as such, it would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to modify the diameter and length of the first and second holes, in order to optimize the flow characteristics as taught; - the teachings do not include the claimed cylindrical portion, however. Breiling ‘757, however, teaches an analogous showerhead (plate) that includes through holes 110 and a cylindrical wall 210 that extends downward from the region on the showerhead plate that includes the through holes, see Figs. 1 and 8A. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the cylindrical portion of ‘757 on the showerhead of ‘069 as such a modification improves thermal uniformity as per ‘757 [0064]. With the combination of teachings, wherein the teachings include the cylindrical portion and ‘069 teaches to control the diameter of the holes, it would be understood that the ratio of the cross section area of the first holes to that of the cylindrical portion is some amount, and a variable amount based on optimization, such as 0.5-3% if that resulted in an optimal condition. Regarding claims 2, 12, 13 and 23 , per ‘757, different patterns are taught, such as a triangular pattern [0051,54], but in any case as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. a change of shape is not patentable without a showing of criticality. To arrange the holes in any such pattern is an obvious variation of shape and the different options in the specification do not lead towards criticality of any claimed pattern. Regarding claims 3 and 24 , the teachings of ‘757 also teach different sizes of the holes, along with different patterns and spacing [0051, 54] and therefore density of the holes would vary along with the size and pattern. Regarding claims 4, 5, 10 and 25 , as above, ‘069 teaches that the length is optimizable (therefore the length to diameter ratio) with a ratio between about 7:1 to 10:1, thereby overlapping the claimed range. Regarding claim 6 , the hole size per ‘676 include from 0.05 to 0.3” [0058]. Regarding claim 11 , the teachings do not specifically include the relative size of the cylindrical portion and the substrate – but as the cylindrical portion is generally taught as outside of the region of the holes, it would follow that such a dimension would have been obvious. Furthermore, the use of a substrate is intended use, and the system is capable of processing any size of the substrate that fits within the system. Regarding claim 14 , the exact number of each the first and second holes is not described in ‘069, however, as per above, the change would be one of the shape and further the number of each holes in Fig. 2E appears to be somewhat equivalent. Regarding claim 21 , all elements of the claim are met as above per claim 1, but the teachings further include a processing chamber and pedestal as depicted, further the plasma source is 152/153 above the chamber (Fig. 1B). Regarding claim 22 , as per the related text (to Fig. 1B), the plasma is generated – per [0062] the radical diffuser plate is understood to be capable of acting as claimed, while the claim limitation is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The plate of Breiling is held structurally equivalent to that claimed . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breiling and Breiling in view of Chen (2003/0143328) . The teachings of Breiling are described above, regarding claim 7, the teachings further include an additional second and third component, see plates 102 and 101, each of which include the claimed through holes aligned with the first thru holes of plate 103 noted above. The teachings include all elements of the claim except that the second component does not specifically define the plenum in the first. Chen, however, teaches an alternative arrangement of three shower components of a showerhead, see Figs. 2 and 3. Chen teaches that a plenum is operably formed using a plenum in the lowest plate (analogous to 103) and further the lower portion of the second component. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the plenum in the apparatus of Breiling in the manner taught by Chen as an operable alternative arrangement for forming the through holes and the plenum. The reconfiguration would allow an easier cleaning process, for example, when the plates are disassembled at some point for cleaning. Regarding claims 8, 9, 16 and 17 , ‘069 further includes coolant through-holes 414 with passages that are arcuate in shape, see [0010, 77, 84-85] and Figs. 1, 3B, 5B and 7A, and wherein further all three plates (components) have through holes and the cooling passages are formed in a circuitous route. Regarding claim 15 , all elements of the claim are met as per above per claims 1, 7, with the first three components as noted and the plenum formed as per Chen. Regarding claims 18-20 , the claims are rejected as claims 2-4, respectively, above and not repeated. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/703,982 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/703,982 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/703,982 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/703,982 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/703,982 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights