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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 and 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/11/20266.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir et al. (US 2019/0252216) in view of Wu et al. (US 2008/0107809).
Regarding claim 1, Samir discloses a flow adapter [e.g. 220 fig. 2] for mounting to a processing chamber [see at least processing chamber 205], comprising: a first flange [e.g. 217/218]; a second flange [e.g. 218/217]; an outlet cavity [e.g. 225/226/221 fig. 4/5; see at least paras. 0052-0053]; and a conduit [e.g. the portion in between the first flange and the second flange; or see at least paras. 0034-0039 fig. 2] extending at least partially between the first flange and the second flange, the conduit comprising: an outer face [see at least fig. 2], an inner flow opening [e.g. the fluid flowing space], and one or more angled flow openings [e.g. 224/226a/222] extending between the outer face and the inner flow opening, the one or more angled flow openings oriented at an angle relative to the inner flow opening, the one or more angled flow openings having a first diameter that is a ratio of a second diameter of the outlet cavity, and the ratio is at least 0.5 [see at least fig. 2/3, at least paras. 0035, 0037]. Samir does not disclose at an oblique angle. However, Wu discloses at an oblique angle [see at least paras. 0106-0108, figs. 10F, 14A]. In addition, Wu discloses the one or more angled flow openings having a first diameter that is a ratio of a second diameter of the outlet cavity, and the ratio is at least 0.5 [see at least para. 0035, fig. 2 of Samir; Paras. 0118-0119 Wu].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Samir in accordance with the teaching of Wu regarding a gas conduit in order to provide a gas conduit coupled indirectly and in fluid communication with gas dispersing channel that helps reduce the likelihood of blowing off reactants adsorbed on the surface of a substrate [see at least paras. 0106-0108, 0118].
Regarding claim 2, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 1, wherein the inner flow opening extends between the outlet cavity and an inward end of the respective one or more angled flow openings.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 3, wherein the ratio is within a range of 0.7 to 0.8 [see at least para. 0035, fig. 2 of Samir; Paras. 0118-0119 Wu]. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio is within a range of 0.7 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 2, wherein the second flange has a larger outer diameter than the first flange [see at least fig. 2 of Samir], and the outlet cavity is formed in an end face of the second flange.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 5, further comprising an inlet cavity [e.g. 219 Samir] formed in an end face of the first flange, wherein a baffle [e.g. 225 Samir] of the conduit is disposed between the inlet cavity and the outlet cavity.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 6, further comprising a plurality of holes [see at least figs. 4-5 Samir] extending through the baffle to fluidly connect the inlet cavity to the outlet cavity, wherein the plurality of holes are fluidly separated from the one or more angled flow openings by a metallic material [see at least paras. 0033, 0039 of Samir, para. 0111 of Wu] of the baffle.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 1, wherein the oblique angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 80 degrees [see at least para. 0118 of Wu]. Alternatively, the oblique angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 80 degrees is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oblique angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 80 degrees because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 8, wherein the oblique angle is greater than 0 degrees and equal to or lesser than 60 degrees [see at least para. 0118 of Wu]. Alternatively, the oblique angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oblique angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 1, wherein the one or more angled flow openings include a plurality of angled flow openings azimuthally spaced from each other by an equidistant angle [see at least paras. 0106-0108, fig. 10F of Wu].
Regarding claim 21, Samir discloses a flow adapter [e.g. 220 fig. 2] for mounting to a processing chamber [see at least processing chamber 205], comprising: a first flange [e.g. 217/218]; an inlet cavity [e.g. 225/226/221 fig. 4/5; see at least paras. 0052-0053] formed in a first end face adjacent the first flange; a second flange [e.g. 218/217]; an outlet cavity [e.g. 225/226/221 fig. 4/5; see at least paras. 0052-0053] formed in a second end face adjacent the second flange; and a conduit [e.g. the portion in between the first flange and the second flange; or see at least paras. 0034-0039 fig. 2] extending at least partially between the first flange and the second flange, the conduit comprising: a baffle [e.g. 225/226/221 fig. 4/5; see at least paras. 0052-0053] between the inlet cavity and the outlet cavity, an inner flow opening formed in the baffle, and one or more angled flow openings [e.g. 224/226a/222] extending between the outer face and the inner flow opening, the one or more angled flow openings oriented at an angle relative to the inner flow opening, the one or more angled flow openings have a first length [see at least fig. 2], and the inner flow opening has a second length that is larger than the first length [see at least fig. 2, first portion 226a ends at the end of channel 221]. See also the rejection of claim 1. Samir does not disclose at an oblique angle. However, Wu discloses at an oblique angle [see at least paras. 0106-0108, figs. 10F, 14A]. In addition, Wu discloses a one or more angled flow openings have a first length [see fig. 10F, 11C, 15C], and an inner flow opening has a second length that is larger than the first length [see at least fig. 10F, 11C, 15C].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Samir in accordance with the teaching of Wu regarding a gas conduit in order to provide a gas conduit coupled indirectly and in fluid communication with gas dispersing channel that helps reduce the likelihood of blowing off reactants adsorbed on the surface of a substrate [see at least paras. 0106-0108, 0118].
Alternatively, the one or more angled flow openings have a first length, and the inner flow opening has a second length that is larger than the first length is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second length larger than the first length because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation.
Regarding claim 22, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 21, wherein: the inner flow opening and the one or more angled flow openings are fluidly separated from the inlet cavity by material [e.g. the material between apertures 225, 226 Samir] of the baffle; and the second length is a ratio of the first length, and the ratio is at least 1.5 [see at least fig. 2 Samir; see fig. 10F, 11C, 15C Wu]. Alternatively, the ratio is at least 1.5 is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio is at least 1.5 because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation.
Regarding claim 23, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 21, further comprising: a plate [e.g. 230/215 Samir; paras. 0106-0108 Wu] sized and shaped to seat in a recess formed in the second end face, the plate comprises one or more apertures to flow precursors from the outlet cavity.
Regarding claim 24, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 1, wherein the first flange, the second flange, and the conduit are sections of a single body that is integrally formed [see at least fig. 2 Samir; it’s considered as a single body when integrated]. Alternatively, the first flange, the second flange, and the conduit are sections of a single body that is integrally formed is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first flange, the second flange, and the conduit are sections of a single body that is integrally formed because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation; in addition, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly formed in pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard V. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘Firstly, the Office Action fails to provide an articulated rationale of obviousness for combining Samir and Wu as alleged. The Office Action (at Page 5) alleges that "it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Samir in accordance with the teaching of Wu regarding a gas conduit in order to provide a gas conduit coupled indirectly and in fluid communication with gas dispersing channel." However, such rationale fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify the cited port 222 of Samirto include the cited angle p of Wu since the "gas conduit 1050 [ ] may be indirectly coupled to and in fluid communication with gas dispersing channel 1028" without the angle p in Wu. Wu at Paragraph [0106] and Figure 10E. Indeed, "[i]t does not suffice to meet the motivation to combine requirement to recognize that two alternative arrangements . . . were both known in the art." Virtek Vision Int'l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., Case No. 22- 1998, Slip Op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024).’
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Samir in accordance with the teaching of Wu regarding a gas conduit in order to provide a gas conduit coupled indirectly and in fluid communication with gas dispersing channel that helps reduce the likelihood of blowing off reactants adsorbed on the surface of a substrate [see at least paras. 0106-0108, 0118].
Applicant argurs:
‘The Office Action's citations to Samir and Wu fail to teach at least "the one or more angled flow openings having a first diameter that is a ratio of a second diameter of the outlet cavity, and the ratio is at least 0.5," as recited in claim 1. Namely, cited Paragraph [0035] of Samir (in relation to previously-presented claim 3) refers to a diameter of apertures and not the cited first portion 224 of the port 222. The cited Paragraph [0035] of Samir also teaches a different range of "less than or about 50%." The Office Action fails to establish a diameter of the cited first portion 224 as a result-effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 Section Ill.C. ("Applicants may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization of a variable disclosed in a range in the prior art by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable."). Cited Paragraphs [0118] and [0119] of Wu also fail to cure the deficient citation to Samir. Similarly, the Office Action fails to provide any citations in relation to dependent claim 4.’
However, 225 and 226 are conduits having similar sizes. See at least figs, 2 and 4-5. Condit 226 has a first portion 226a and a second portion 226b that is extended vertically to have an aperture 225 or a second portion 224 that is extended at an angled extension to have a port 222, for example. Accordingly, aperture 225 and port 222 have the similar diameters. Therefore, the combination discloses the one or more angled flow openings having a first diameter that is a ratio of a second diameter of the outlet cavity [e.g. 225/226/221 fig. 4/5; see at least paras. 0052-0053 of Samir], and the ratio is at least 0.5 [see at least para. 0035, fig. 2 of Samir; Paras. 0118-0119 Wu]. In addition, regarding claim 4, the combination discussed above discloses the flow adapter of claim 3, wherein the ratio is within a range of 0.7 to 0.8 [see at least para. 0035, fig. 2 of Samir; Paras. 0118-0119 Wu]. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio is within a range of 0.7 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Applicant argues:
‘The claimed subject matter facilitates "enhanced flow stabilization and reduced turbulence of flow (such as turbulence of etchant gases), longer injection paths, more uniform flow of gases for uniform processing (such as uniformity of etching), added adjustability knob of argon flow for processing uniformity, and reduced mechanical complexity and enhanced modularity in structural footprints." Present Application at Paragraph [0069]. As an example, "the flow adapters 220, 620 may allow improved precursor mixing externally to the chamber, while protecting components from etchant damage." Id.
What is more in relation to claim 1, cited Paragraph [0117] of Wu teaches the forcing of a "circular gas flow 1020" in "converging channel 1034 a." See Figure 10E and Figure 10F of Wu. Such a circular flow would undermine the reduced turbulence of flow of the Present Application.’
However, the feature are not recited in the claims.
In addition, Applicant argues:
‘Lastly, the citation to Paragraph [0118] of Wu fails to disclose the ranges claims in dependent claim 8 and dependent claim 9.’
However, the combination discloses claim 8 and claim 9.
Alternatively, the oblique angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 80/60 degrees is a matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed any advantage to the particular claimed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oblique angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 80/60 degrees because the flow adapter needs a specific implementation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
