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 .
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 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 8 and 15 are 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 8 requires “a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel”. It is not clear how the gas flow path can decreases continuously with increasing distance from the wafer because at some point the flow path will be closed as the distance between the walls decreases to 0. Also, at any time the decrease is stopped as is shown in Figure 2 the gas flow path 227a decreases until it reaches 227b, which has a constant distance and does not continuously decrease.
Claim 15 requires “a width gradually decreasing with an increasing distance from the vessel,”. It is not clear how the gas flow path can decreases continuously with increasing distance from the vessel because at some point the flow path will be closed as the distance between the walls decreases to 0. Also, at any time the decrease is stopped as is shown in Figure 2 in which the gas flow path 227a decreases until it reaches 227b, which has a constant distance and does not continuously decrease.
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 1-10, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okajima, WO2021/156987 A1 (see US 20220349061 A1 for English translation).
Okajima teaches:
Regarding claims 1 and 17-20, a substrate processing apparatus 100 comprising: a vessel 120 for housing a substrate 101; a gas flow path 150 continuous with the vessel 120; and a first connection (Figure 4) through which a constituent wall of the vessel 120 and a constituent wall 160 of the gas flow path 150 are connected, wherein: an extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and an extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path each cross an axis extending from a center of the vessel to the gas flow path (Figure 4). The Examiner notes that a single line is defined by two points. A line defined by a single point represents an infinite number of possible lines, all the infinite lines cross an axis extending from a center of the vessel. The Examiner also notes that in the specification the line is defined as being “an extension line L1 through the connection C3 of a constituent inner wall of the reaction tube 210 that is the tangent to the reaction tube 210 at the connection C3 and an extension line L2 through the connection C3 of a constituent inner wall of the first exhaust flow path 231a serving as a gas flow path each cross an axis L3 extending from the central axis O of the reaction tube 210 to the exhaust flow path.” (Paragraph 0062) Thus the specification defines the lines with a tangent point and connection point. The present claims are definite but extremely broad, and Okajima teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, with the substrate housed in the vessel, a distance between the constituent wall of the 120 and the substrate 101 is shorter than a distance between the constituent wall 161 of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path. (Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 3, the gas flow path 150 includes a supply flow path configured to supply gas into the vessel; and the supply flow path is in communication with a gas supplier for supplying gas containing a Si-Si bond. (Paragraph 0068)
Regarding claim 4, wherein an angle closer to the center of the vessel at an intersection between the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path is an obtuse angle or a straight angle. (Figure 4, see Examiner’s note above)
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first connection has no protruding structure. (Figure 4)
Regarding claim 6, wherein an angle closer to the center of the vessel at an intersection between the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path is an obtuse angle or a straight angle, or the first connection has no protruding structure. (Figure 4, see Examiner’s note above)
Regarding claim 7, wherein the constituent wall of the gas flow path is symmetrical with respect to the axis. (Figures 1A and 4)
Regarding claim 8, wherein a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel. (Figures 1-9)
Regarding claim 9, the gas flow path 150 includes: a supply flow path 131 configured to supply gas into the vessel 120; and an exhaust flow path 132 configured to exhaust the gas in the vessel 120; wherein the supply flow path and the exhaust flow path are provided in symmetry across the vessel. (Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 10, the gas flow path 150 includes a supply flow path 1500 configured to supply gas into the vessel 120, the supply flow path including: a first supply flow path 1540 connected to the vessel through a supply-side first connection serving as the first connection; and a second supply flow path 1530 connected to the first supply flow path through a second connection, the second supply flow path being connected to the vessel through the first supply flow path; the second connection is located at a predetermined distance from the substrate; and the predetermined distance is determined such that gas concentration at the supply-side first connection is lower than gas concentration at the second connection.
Regarding claim 13, a gas supplier 1530, 1540 configured to supply gas into the vessel 120, wherein: the gas flow path 150 includes a supply flow path 155, 161configured to supply the gas into the vessel 120, the supply flow path is provided with the gas supplier 1530, 1540, and the gas supplier 1530, 1540 has a leading end disposed on an upstream side of a gas flow with respect to the first connection.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a gas supplier 1530, 1540 with which the gas flow path 150 is provided, wherein the gas supplier 1530, 1540 includes: one or more supply holes 153, 154; and a sub-supply path 155, 160 in communication with the one or more supply holes 161, 1522, at least one supply hole of the one or more supply holes is disposed closer to the constituent wall of the vessel (Figures 2 and 4); and a direction of gas supply of the at least one supply hole is parallel to the constituent wall of the gas flow path (Figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, further comprising: a second vessel 110 disposed along an outer circumference of a first vessel 120 serving as the vessel; and another gas flow path 161 provided in the second vessel 110; wherein the gas flow path is in communication with the other gas flow path.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima et al, US 2016/0024654 A1.
Fukushima et al teaches:
Regarding claims 1 and 17-20, a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a vessel 11 for housing a substrate W; a gas flow path 15 continuous with the vessel 11; and a first connection (Figure 2) through which a constituent wall of the vessel 11 and a constituent wall of the gas flow path 15 are connected, wherein: an extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and an extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path each cross an axis extending from a center of the vessel to the gas flow path (Figure 2). The Examiner notes that a single line is defined by two points. A line defined by a single point represents an infinite number of possible lines, all the infinite lines cross an axis extending from a center of the vessel. The Examiner also notes that in the specification the line is defined as being “an extension line L1 through the connection C3 of a constituent inner wall of the reaction tube 210 that is the tangent to the reaction tube 210 at the connection C3 and an extension line L2 through the connection C3 of a constituent inner wall of the first exhaust flow path 231a serving as a gas flow path each cross an axis L3 extending from the central axis O of the reaction tube 210 to the exhaust flow path.” (Paragraph 0062) Thus the specification defines the lines with a tangent point and connection point. The present claims are definite but extremely broad, and Fukushima et al teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, with the substrate housed in the vessel, a distance between the constituent wall of the vessel 11 and the substrate W is shorter than a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 3, the gas flow path 15 includes a supply flow path configured to supply gas into the vessel; and the supply flow path is in communication with a gas supplier for supplying gas containing a Si-Si bond. (Paragraph 0052)
Regarding claim 4, wherein an angle closer to the center of the vessel at an intersection between the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path is an obtuse angle or a straight angle. (Figure 4, see Examiner’s note above)
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first connection has no protruding structure. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 6, wherein an angle closer to the center of the vessel at an intersection between the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the vessel and the extension line through the first connection of the constituent wall of the gas flow path is an obtuse angle or a straight angle, or the first connection has no protruding structure. (Figure 2, see Examiner’s note above)
Regarding claim 7, wherein the constituent wall of the gas flow path is symmetrical with respect to the axis. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 9, the gas flow path 15 includes: a supply flow path 52 configured to supply gas into the vessel 11; and an exhaust flow path 132 configured to exhaust the gas in the vessel 11; wherein the supply flow path and the exhaust flow path are provided in symmetry across the vessel. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 11, the gas flow path 15 includes an exhaust flow path 31 configured to exhaust gas in the vessel 11, the exhaust flow path 31 including: a first exhaust flow path connected to the vessel 11 through an exhaust-side first connection serving as the first connection; and a second exhaust flow path connected to the first exhaust flow path through a third connection, the second exhaust flow path being connected to the vessel through the first exhaust flow path, and gas concentration at the exhaust-side first connection is lower than gas concentration at the third connection. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 12, the gas flow path 15 includes an exhaust flow path configured to exhaust gas in the vessel, the exhaust flow path including: a first exhaust flow path 31 connected to the vessel through an exhaust-side first connection serving as the first connection; and a second exhaust flow path connected to the first exhaust flow path through a third connection, the second exhaust flow path being connected to the vessel through the first exhaust flow path, and a width of the gas flow path at the third connection is narrower than a width of the gas flow path at the exhaust-side first connection.
Regarding claim 13, a gas supplier configured to supply gas into the vessel 11, wherein: the gas flow path 15 includes a supply flow path 52 configured to supply the gas into the vessel 11, the supply flow path is provided with the gas supplier and the gas supplier has a leading end disposed on an upstream side of a gas flow with respect to the first connection. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a gas supplier with which the gas flow path 15 is provided, wherein the gas supplier includes: one or more supply holes 521; and a sub-supply path in communication with the one or more supply holes at least one supply hole of the one or more supply holes is disposed closer to the constituent wall of the vessel (Figures 1-2); and a direction of gas supply of the at least one supply hole is parallel to the constituent wall of the gas flow path (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, further comprising a gas guide having a width gradually decreasing with an increasing distance from the vessel, wherein the gas flow path includes an exhaust flow path configured to exhaust gas in the vessel, the exhaust flow path including: a first exhaust flow path 31 connected to the vessel through an exhaust-side first connection serving as the first connection; and a second exhaust flow path connected to the first exhaust flow path through a third connection, the second exhaust flow path being connected to the vessel through the first exhaust flow path; and the gas guide is provided in the exhaust flow path.
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima, WO2021/156987 A1 (see US 20220349061 A1 for English translation) in view of Fukushima et al, US 2016/0024654 A1.
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 15.
Okajima was discussed above.
Okajima differs from the present invention in that Okajima does not teach the claimed exhaust flow path.
Fukushima et al was discussed above and teaches the claimed exhaust flow path.
The motivation for replacing the exhaust flow path of Okajima with the exhaust flow path of Fukushima et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent exhaust flow path as taught by Fukushima et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the exhaust flow path of Okajima with the exhaust flow path of Fukushima et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima, WO2021/156987 A1 (see US 20220349061 A1 for English translation) and Fukushima et al, US 2016/0024654 A1 as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Oshima et al, JP2004095699A.
Okajima and Fukushima et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel.
Oshima et al teaches a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path 71 and another constituent wall of the gas flow path 71 decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel. (Figure 2)
The motivation for modifying the gas flow path of Okajima and Fukushima et al so that the distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel is to control the flow of the gas into the vessel as taught by Oshima et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the gas flow path of Okajima and Fukushima et al so that the distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel as taught by Oshima et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima, WO2021/156987 A1 (see US 20220349061 A1 for English translation) in view of Oshima et al, JP2004095699A.
Okajima was discussed above.
Okajima differs from the present invention in that Okajima does not teach a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel.
Oshima et al teaches a distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path 71 and another constituent wall of the gas flow path 71 decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel. (Figure 2)
The motivation for modifying the gas flow path of Okajima so that the distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel is to control the flow of the gas into the vessel as taught by Oshima et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the gas flow path of Okajima so that the distance between the constituent wall of the gas flow path and another constituent wall of the gas flow path decreases continuously with an increasing distance from the vessel as taught by Oshima et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following rejections could be used in place of Okajima: US 20160024654 A1, TW 201322367 A, TW I358769 B, JP 2008172205 A, or JP 2006049809 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights