DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant request for reconsideration filed on July 2, 2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-38, and 45-48 are canceled; claims 49-57 are new.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but the new grounds of rejection render them moot.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 49 and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., JP 2014-150229, in view of Weidman, US 2006/0165892, Tanaka et al., US 2018/0204720, and Todd, US 2003/0022528. (Applicant furnished a machine translation of Shimizu in the 7/6/21 IDS, which is being relied upon for purposes of this Office letter.)
Claim 49: Shimizu discloses an integrated system, comprising (Fig. 1):
A raw material source (13, 21) containing a raw material [0025];
A precursor synthesis chamber (42) including an inlet (38) and an outlet (54) [0081];
Wherein the inlet (38) is in communication with the raw material source;
Wherein the synthesis chamber is capable of reacting the raw material to synthesize a film-forming precursor;
A thin film processing chamber (101) having in inlet (103) in direct communication with the outlet of the precursor synthesis chamber [0086];
Wherein the thin film processing chamber receives the film-forming precursor from the synthesis chamber and consumes said precursor to generate a thin film.
Shimizu, though, is silent regarding the claimed features of a “monitoring system” and a “controller.” In supplementation, Weidman also teaches an integrated system yet further contemplates a plurality of sensors which monitor and detect precursor synthesis and thin film formation [0079-0080]. As an example, Weidman provides a combined “process/substrate metrology chamber” which avails at least embedded electronic sensors to measure film thickness [0109]. A controller (480) is further configured to receive data from the sensors regarding precursor consumption and film formation [0079].
Regarding conditions (i) and (ii), Weidman’s controller “is adapted to monitor the process(es) being performed in the process chamber 603, in an effort to assure that at least one of the source vessels…contains a desired amount of [precursor]…In this way, the gas delivery system 602 is adapted to look ahead and adjust the rate of generation of the [precursor] as needed” [0079]. Todd, though, goes further than simply ensuring sufficient levels of precursor by prescribing feeding the precursor at the very rate at which it is consumed during the film formation step [0045]. This strategy has been shown to improve deposition uniformity and resource economy [0044]. Further, Todd avails an ex-situ sensor like a spectroscope to determine thin film processing parameters [0073]. In view of these deliverances, it would have been obvious to integrate spectrometry detection techniques, as well as a controller to execute these techniques, within the system of the primary reference to promote the operation of supplying the precursor at a rate commensurate with its subsequent consumption.
Shimizu, it should be noted, supplies the precursor from the synthesis chamber directly to the processing chamber “in real time” and “without storing” said precursor [0092]. In other words, the rate of the precursor’s generation is equivalent to the rate of its supply to the processing chamber. Given this structural constraint of Shimizu’s system, Todd’s guidance of supplying the precursor to the processing chamber at its ensuing rate of consumption is precisely commensurate with the act of synthesizing the precursor at the rate of its consumption. (Again, this is because, in the system of Shimizu, the rate of precursor supply will always be the same as the rate of precursor generation.) In this way, the prior art teaches the synchronization of precursor synthesis to the preexisting rate of precursor consumption, thereby satisfying condition (ii).
Regarding condition (iii), Weidman already admits to the very phenomenon: “the [precursor] generation process can be kinetically limited by the reaction rate of ozone…Therefore…the [precursor] generation process will have a maximum generation rate at which the [precursor] can be formed and thus the throughput of the deposition chamber may be limited by this process” [0079]. It is the position of the Office that, given a case of insufficient precursor formation, it is simply common sense for the operator to decelerate the deposition process. The only other option is to allow the precursor supply to expire prematurely, leaving the deposition process unfinished. Given the preeminence of the former option, it would have been “obvious to try” this alternative, as choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, regarding the new material concerning ex-situ monitoring, Tanaka provides concentration sensors at both the supply and exhaust pipes of a process chamber in order to calculate the amount of gas consumed during processing, i.e., Tanaka measures a “differential,” in the language of claim 1 [0011]. This differential is then incorporated within the memory of a programmable controller to regulate the supply of the reactant subsequently. It would have been obvious to supplement the composite prior art apparatus with supply and exhaust concentration sensors to promote the established objective of determining precursor consumption.
Claims 55-56: These limitations are directed to the intended use of the apparatus, as the operator is capable of providing select raw materials which ultimately yield nickel carbonyl, for instance, within the precursor synthesis chamber. It has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). In other words, the composite prior art apparatus is capable of generating the claimed outcome of a nickel carbonyl precursor through an intended operation directed by the operator.
Claim 57: Weidman’s processing chamber is a batch tool.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Weidman, Tanaka, and Todd, and in further view of McMillan et al., US 5,138,520.
Although Weidman provides a sensor for the detection of a parameter relating to precursor synthesis, the cited prior art is silent regarding a sensor for the monitoring of a “property of the thin film.” McMillan, though, provides an integrated system comprising a process chamber (2) and a precursor synthesis chamber (14), whereby a mechanical sensor (32) assesses the proceedings of thin film formation and relays that data to a controller (36) which, in turn, modifies the precursor inputs accordingly (5, 30-45). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to incorporate sensors to achieve the predictable result of accurate feedback control.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Weidman, Tanaka, and Todd, and in further view of Collins et al., US 2017/0335450.
Shimizu is silent regarding the feature of a vent but, as delineated by Figure 1, Collins couples an exhaust line (120) to the precursor synthesis chamber to “remove unwanted vapor from the ampoule, or to purge out other undesirable gases” [0044]. As the primary reference shares this desideratum, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to integrate a vent outlet within the synthesis chamber.
Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Weidman, Tanaka, and Todd, and in further view of Sneh et al., US 6,551,399.
Claim 52: Shimizu is silent regarding the presence of other processing units. Sneh, though, describes an integrated system (30) comprising a precursor synthesis chamber (38) and a processing chamber (31), whereby this battery is situated within each unit (53) disposed about a central transfer chamber to constitute a cluster arrangement (12, 27-30; Figs. 13-14). It would have been obvious to replicate Shimizu’s processing unit within a cluster tool to augment throughput, in addition to the finding that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claims 53-54: The type of gas supplied gas is a matter of intended use – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). The operator can selectively provide the same or different precursors to the thin film processing chamber.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Ganguli et al., US 2004/0015300. Ganguli teaches an integrated system comprising a process chamber and a precursor synthesis chamber (124), whereby a monitoring system (410) and controller (136) perform real-time monitoring of film formation and adjust the inputs to the synthesis chamber to ensure sufficient levels of precursor [0027-0030, 0060-0062].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights