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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/23/26.
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 1-7, 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2022/0285174) in light of Sasaki et al. (US 2012/0119337).
Claims 1-6: Kong teaches a processing apparatus (Abst.), comprising: a process chamber (TU2) including an exhaust hole (110) facing a side of a wafer space (WR) for accommodating a plurality of wafers (Figs. 1A-1E; ¶¶ 0024-0036); a first nozzle (PS) facing the exhaust hole which can supply process gas to the wafers (Figs. 1A-1E; ¶¶ 0024-0036); and a second nozzle (FS) which supplies inert gas to the wafer region and has a plurality of first ejection holes (FH2) which are opened toward the first nozzle and a plurality of second ejection holes (FH1) which are opened toward the exhaust hole (Figs. 1A-1E; ¶¶ 0024-0036), wherein the first and second nozzles are capable of mixing the process and inert gases at the edges of the wafers (Figs. 1A-1E; ¶¶ 0050-0054).
Kong does not discuss the physical location of the wafers with respect to the ejection holes. Sasaki teaches a processing apparatus comprising a nozzle having a plurality of ejection holes (Abst.; Fig. 2) and explains that the various ejection holes correspond to the wafers in the processing chamber in order to improve uniformity of the supply gas (¶ 0066). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have ensured that all of the various ejection holes in Kong correspond to wafers throughout the wafer region in Kong in order to have ensure uniformity of the supplied gases.
Claim 7: Kong, as discussed above, teaches that the first and second ejection holes are provided at different positions (Fig. 1C). With respect to the flow rate, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, the apparatus of Kong is capable of supplying the inert gas at a flow rate.
Claim 9: Kong teaches that the angle between lines connecting the first nozzle (PS) and the center of the wafer region and the second nozzle (FS) and the center of the wafer region is about 100˚ (Fig. 1B).
Claim 10: While Kong fails to teach that this angle is less than 90˚, Kong teaches additional positions (GS) for nozzles supplying inert gas are also suitable in this process (Fig. 1B). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a different angle, such as one less than 90˚ with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11: Kong teaches that the second nozzle (FS) is disposed at both the top and bottom of the first nozzle (PS) (Fig. 1A, e.g.).
Claim 12: Kong teaches that the process chamber includes a cylindrical inner tube (TU2) with a first nozzle chamber and a second nozzle chamber that protrude outward and accommodate the first and second nozzles (Fig. 1A, e.g.).
Claims 13-14: Kong teaches that the angle between FH1 and FH2 is between 60 and 120˚ (Fig. 1C).
Claim 16: Kong teaches that the apparatus is capable of mixing the process and inert gases in the wafer region (¶ 0053).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong and Sasaki in light of Sakai et al. (US 2022/0341041).
Claim 8: Kong does not discuss whether the apparatus is capable of generating a vortex. Sakai teaches a processing apparatus and explains that the angle between ejection holes can be adjusted to create a vortex of gases which ensures mixing occurs (¶ 0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have ensured that the apparatus of Kong was capable of generating a vortex in order to have assisted with gas mixing.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong and Sasaki in light of Hiramatsu et al. (US 2020/0407851).
Claims 15 and 17: Kong is silent regarding the inclusion of dummy wafers. Hiramatsu teaches a processing apparatus similar to Kong (Abst.; Fig. 4B) and explains that dummy wafers are included above and below the target wafers and corresponding to ejection holes (Fig. 4B) in order to improve film uniformity on the target wafers (Abst.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have sandwiched the target wafers between dummy wafers as in Hiramatsu in order to have improved film uniformity with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights