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, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/21/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig 1-5 and 10, numerous parts are missing a line to connect the number label to the part. Applicant is kindly requested to file a corrected version in which the lines are visible such as the version filed with the original PCT/JP2022/035264 application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2017/0253971 of Kawamorita et al., hereinafter Kawamorita.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, Kawamorita teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 14), comprising: a process chamber (422 Fig 14 processing container [0112]) in which at least one substrate (wafer W Fig 14) is processed [0112]; at least one nozzle (shown as 130d in Fig 14, but note that the injector 130i Fig 16 may be used instead [0129-0132]) including a plurality of gas introduction passages (incoming lines shown but not numbered in Fig 16 [0130-0131], see the analogous labeled 141b, 142b, and 143b of Fig 15 and see 121g, 122g Fig 16) configured to introduce a gas [0126] and a fluid communication portion configured to partially bring the plurality of gas introduction passages into fluid communication with each other (111d, 112 Fig 16 [0130-0131]); and a plurality of gas suppliers configured to supply the gas to the plurality of gas introduction passages (200 Fig 14 and [0033-0034] and see Fig 1 showing 161-163 as structures of 200).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamorita teaches the gas is supplied from the plurality of gas suppliers to at least two gas introduction passages of the plurality of gas introduction passages (Fig 16 demonstrates 3 gas introduction passages, incoming lines shown but not numbered in Fig 16 [0130-0131], see the analogous labeled 141b, 142b, and 143b of Fig 15 and see 121g, 122g Fig 16).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamorita teaches the at least one substrate includes a plurality of substrates (see stack of wafers W Fig 14 [0112]), and wherein the process chamber includes a substrate holder (wafer boat 434 Fig 14 [0114]) configured to be capable of holding the plurality of substrates [0114].
Regarding claim 15, Kawamorita teaches the gas is supplied parallel to a surface of the at least one substrate [0119] (see also [0129-0132]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0222615 of Kato et al., hereinafter Kato.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamorita remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kawamorita teaches the plurality of gas introduction passages are formed by a gas guide arranged inside the at least one nozzle (includes 121g, 1212a, 122g, and 1222a Fig 16 [0130]), but fails to teach the fluid communication portion is installed between an inner wall of the at least one nozzle and an outer edge of the gas guide because Kawamorita teaches the fluid communication portion is in the middle of the plates. Not that this appears to represent a mere rearrangement of parts. Further, Addressing the same problem of a substrate processing apparatus with gas introduction (abstract, Fig 8), Kato teaches fluid communication portion (325 Fig 9) is installed between an inner wall of the at least one nozzle and an outer edge of the gas guide (Fig 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kato demonstrates this positioning allows for gas to flow from one section to another in the nozzle rendering it a simple substitution of one known element (baffle wall with gas passage of Kato) for another (baffle wall with inner gas passage hole of Kawamorita) to achieve predictable results (flow of gas from one section to another within a nozzle).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Kawamorita teaches the gas guide is constitute by plates (Fig 16).
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. The plate of Kawamorita includes a horizontal plate and vertical plates (1212a, 1213a, 1222a, 1223a Fig 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. In the combination as applied to claim 2 including Kato to teach the communication portion at the plate end surface, the combination results in the communication portion on a plate end surface of the horizontal plates (1212a and 1222a Fig 16).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0083372 of Inoue et al., hereinafter Inoue.
Regarding claim 4, Kawamorita teaches the gas includes a processing gas [0035] but fails to teach the apparatus is capable of being operated in a manner in which an inert gas is supplied from the plurality of gas suppliers to a gas introduction passage other than a gas introduction passage to which the processing gas is supplied among the plurality of gas introduction passages. Note that the specific gases are directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). However, the apparatus of Kawamorita is not capable of being operated in a manner in which a different gas is only supplied to a passage other than the one to which a processing gas is supplied because Kawamorita teaches a shared supply to each portion with gas mixing upstream of the supply to each portion of the nozzle. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 11-13), Inoue teaches the gas may be introduced to each nozzle section (68A-C Fig 11-13) from each different gas source (74-76 Fig 13) with individual gas supply control [0058-0060]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kawamorita to include the gas introduction structure of Inoue because Inoue teaches this allows for flexible adjustment of the gas supply and flow rate to each section [0058-0060] which increases control of the uniformity of processing zones. Note that with the configuration taught by Inoue in the combination as applied herein the apparatus is capable of being operated such that one section only receives an inert gas.
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. In the combination as applied, the gases have individual flow rate control (see Inoue 80 Fig 13) and the apparatus is capable of being operated with the recited flow rate. 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). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 4 above. Note that different gases may be different process gases or a process gas and an inert gas.
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 4 above. Note that Kawamorita and Inoue both teach at least 3 sections.
Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita in view of US Patent Application Publication 20140283750 of Okada et al., hereinafter Okada.
Regarding claim 10, Kawamorita fails to teach the at least one nozzle includes a plurality of nozzles installed in multiple stages in a height direction of the substrate holder. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract and Fig 12A), Okada teaches an apparatus using a plurality of nozzles (25a-25d and corresponding 26a-d Fig 12A), installed in multiple stages in a height direction of the apparatus (Fig 12A) because Okada teaches this allows for equalizing the gas supply path length and equalizing processing subspaces [0139]. This arrangement allows for processing in a larger chamber with more wafers in a batch and ensures more even processing even in a smaller chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamorita to include a plurality of the nozzles installed in multiple stages in a height direction because Okada teaches this arrangement improves processing uniformity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamorita in view of Kato as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0098841 of Tsuda, hereinafter Tsuda.
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. Kawamorita fails to teach the vertical plates on both sides in a width direction of the at least one nozzle are widened outward in the width direction from an upstream side to a downstream side of a flow of a processing gas. Initially it is noted that this represents a change in shape of the vertical plates of Kawamorita. Further, in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing Tsuda demonstrates vertical plates in the gas nozzle widened outward in the width direction from an upstream side to a downstream side of a flow of a processing gas (see 41-46 Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the vertical plates of Kawamorita to include this shape arrangement because Tsuda demonstrates it successfully allows gas to flow downstream which enlarging the rate [0057-0058].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0253969 teaches similar teachings as the applied Kawamorita (see Fig 3, 13, and 15). US 2016/0138158 teaches a gas nozzle with internal guides (341 Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights