DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 June 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claim 13 is 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.
With regard to Claim 13, it is unclear as to how the membrane, which is an electrode per Claim 12, can be positioned between the wafer support and itself. For purposes of examination, Claim 13 is presumed to depend from Claim 11.
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.
2. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2006/0214593 to Denpoh et al. (“Denpoh”).
With regard to Claims 11-12, Denpoh teaches a wafer processing chamber comprising gas inlets 29, 39 a wafer support 12, and a showerhead 32 which diffuses gas to the substrate (see Abstract; FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0042], [0044]-[0045]). The support 12 also comprises gas supply holes 28 for diffusing gas (see ¶ [0042]). The wafer support 12 and the showerhead 32 serve as electrodes which act on gas introduced in the chamber (see ¶¶ [0039], [0044]-[0050]). Concurrently, each of support 12 and showerhead 32 constitute a type of membrane diffuser comprising a plurality of openings and residing between gas inlets and the wafer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denpoh as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of US 2013/0284097 to Ranish et al., effectively filed 25 April 2012, (“Ranish”).
With regard to Claim 13, Denpoh teaches membrane diffusers in the form of the support 12 and showerhead 32; however since the diffusers are themselves electrodes, the reference does not expressly teach positioning the diffusers between the wafer and electrodes. Ranish is similarly directed to a gas process chamber for semiconductors, and teaches independently controllable and movable gas diffusers 115 residing above the substrate which enable uniform material deposition, process repeatability, and improved efficiency (see Abstract; FIGs. 1-3; ¶¶ [0007], [0022], [0028], [0034], [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated controllable membrane diffusers residing above the substrate and below the upper electrode in the device of Denpoh, as taught by Ranish, in order to obtain the advantages taught by Ranish.
4. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denpoh as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of US 2008/0115728 to Matsuda et al. (“Matsuda”).
With regard to Claims 13-15, Denpoh teaches membrane diffusers in the form of the support 12 and showerhead 32; however since the diffusers are themselves electrodes, the reference does not expressly teach positioning the diffusers between the wafer and electrodes. Matsuda is similarly directed to wafer processing devices, and teaches provision of multiple vertically- and laterally-positionable nozzles 114, 115 for provision of diverse processing gases to a processing chamber (see Abstract; FIGs. 1-2, 5-6; ¶¶ [0024]-[0025]). According to Matsuda, an electronic controller manages nozzle actuation and position to provide a uniform deposition on the wafer surface (see ¶¶ [0009], [0011]-[0012], [0027]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented a plurality of vertically- and laterally-movable and controllable membrane diffuser electrodes in the method of Denpoh, as taught by Matsuda, in order to conduct uniform processing of wafers using a variety of process gasses.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,602 (“‘602”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, with respect to instant Claim 17, Claims 1 and 7 of ‘602 are directed to a method of wafer processing comprising introducing a gaseous material into a process chamber inlet, controlling distribution of gaseous material within the chamber via multiple controllable diffusers by generating controllable forces acting in various directions, and conducting signals between diffusers. With respect to instant Claim 19, Claim 8 of ‘602 is directed to controlling the voltage of the controllable diffusers.
6. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over either of Claims 1 or 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,602 (“‘602”) in view of Denpoh. To the extent that the ‘602 patent does not recite a membrane, Denpoh is noted as teaching a showerhead comprising a plurality of holes through which gas is distributed into a process chamber. It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a showerhead as a type of membrane for gas distribution in practicing the method of ‘602 as taught by Denpoh.
7. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over either of Claims 1 or 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,602 (“‘602”) in view of Matsuda. To the extent that the ‘602 patent does not recite multiple distances between generated forces and the gas inlet, Matsuda is noted as teaching a plurality of diffusers with variable lateral and vertical positions to ensure uniform deposition. It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have practiced the ‘602 methods as claimed by varying diffuser positions to obtain uniform deposition as taught by Matsuda, thereby generating controllable forces at multiple distances from the gas inlet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed. Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is deemed to be Denpoh, Ranish, and Matsuda; however the references do not teach or suggest suspending a second electrode from a first electrode via a conductor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Tim Meeks can be reached at 571-272-1423. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights