DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on December 30, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 21 are amended; claims 6 and 9 are canceled.
The applicant contends:
(1) The limitations being treated under 112(f) by the Office are, in fact, terms of art well understood within the industrial community and not generic placeholders (p. 11).
(2) Kobayashi does not teach an “integrated” system, which must include “in-situ and ex-situ sensors, spectroscopies, and spectrometries and a controller” (pp. 15-16).
(3) Weidman does not suggest synchronization of precursor generation in the synthesis chamber with precursor consumption in the deposition chamber, as claimed. Rather, the reference synthesizes and then stores a precursor within a source vessel, whereby the instant claim set precludes the act of storage (p. 16).
(4) The Office relies upon paragraph [0073] of Todd to address the claim 1 limitation of “in-situ…detection techniques comprising…spectroscopy,” but the techniques elaborated by this excerpt are all ex-situ in nature (pp. 17-18).
(5) Irrespective of the deliverances of Kobayashi and Todd, the “only method that could be used to supply the precursor at the rate of consumption…is the empirical method of trial and error” (p. 20).
(6) Regarding condition (ii) of claim 1, the Office presumes that it would simply be common sense to retard thin film formation given a scenario of insufficient precursor. However, one of ordinary skill would “never” decelerate operations within a process chamber because this will “adversely affect the deposition reaction and the resulting film properties.” Further, contra the Office’s characterization, Weidman seeks to obviate a scenario where the generated level of precursor is insufficient. And, finally, condition (ii) relates to “optimizing the synthesis of the precursor,” which is the opposite of the Office’s hypothetical of insufficient precursor formation (p. 21).
In response,
(1) The examiner disagrees. Take one of the limitations at issue: “solid or liquid delivery system.” Firstly, “system” is sufficiently broad to theoretically encompass every known entity in the galaxy: both a quark and a planet can be plausibly be deemed a “system,” for example. If such a signifier cannot be properly deemed generic, then the entire concept of genericness loses any semblance of meaning. For this reason, Applicant’s assertion that “system” is not generic cannot be treated seriously. Note, the qualifier of “solid or liquid delivery” is functional and has no bearing on the status of “system” as a nonce term.
Second, Applicant contends that the claimed “solid or liquid delivery system” is “well known in the art to signify a device or apparatus that vaporizes and controls the pressure…of solid or liquid precursors” (p. 11). Problematically, “device” and “apparatus” are just as generic as “system” and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis by which to concretely define the latter. For essentially every 112(f) term, Applicant provides a definition that relies upon another nonce term, thereby nullifying the effort entirely: “An ‘impurity adsorption system’…is also well known in the art to signify a device or apparatus that is equipped to adsorb” (p. 12). The examiner observes that “a device or apparatus that is equipped to adsorb” is a paradigmatic example of a nonce term. The Office’s 112(f) analysis is maintained.
(2) This argument is incommensurate with the scope of the claim 1 which reads: “detection techniques comprising embedded electronic sensors, spectrometry, and/or spectroscopy.” The syntax of “and/or” implies that the disclosure of only one of the enumerated techniques is sufficient to satisfy the terms of this particular limitation.
(3) The examiner observes that, on page 18 of the reply filed on 8/7/24, Applicant wrote, “being synchronized is not synonymous with being equal” and provided the following definition: “they ‘operate, work, etc., at the same rate and exactly together; recur together.’” If, as Applicant’s remark implies, “synchronization” does not require equal rates of generation and consumption but merely the coincident or “commensurate” occurrence thereof, then the limitation becomes tautological: it will be satisfied in every case. (Applicant appears to use “commensurate” as a synonym for synchronized on page 16 of the instant response.) There will always exist some mathematical factor which can be applied to render a given rate of generation proportionate to a given rate of consumption, regardless of the specific values of each. The examiner suggests explicitly clarifying the metes of “synchronized” in objective terms. For purposes of examination, the examiner will use the definition provided in the aforementioned reply, which clearly encompasses operations of Weidman.
Lastly, Applicant’s assertion that Weidman “stores” precursor isn’t germane because Weidman is not cited to address this particular limitation. Kobayashi and Todd, collectively, address this aspect of the claim set, as detailed below under the 103 rejection of claim 1.
(4) The examiner accepts Applicant’s characterization of Todd’s sensors, and the rejection has been modified to clarify that the sensors are, in fact, ex-situ. Weidman, it should be noted, discloses in-situ electronic sensors [0109]. Thus, collectively, the composite prior art apparatus discloses a permutation of in-situ and ex-situ techniques, as required by the fifth paragraph of claim 1.
(5) Applicant’s observation does not undermine the integrity of the rejection of record and, in fact, is consistent with it. Given a 103 combination rejection where the teaching of a secondary reference must be incorporated within the primary reference, it is understood that a modicum of routine experimentation is warranted, whereby such efforts are well within the scope of ordinary skill. In the instant case, Todd prescribes an act of provision where the rate of precursor supply is proportionate to its consumption within the reaction chamber [0045]. This is not a mysterious or byzantine imperative, and it is the Office’s position that a skilled artisan could implement this imperative within Kobayashi’s system with a reasonable expectation of success.
(6) Regardless of Applicant’s characterization of condition (ii), it is objectively the case that the language encompasses a limit-scenario where there is minimal or zero precursor synthesis occurring within the precursor synthesis chamber, at which point it is, in fact, reasonable to halt processing within the thin film processing chamber. The examiner does not endorse intentionally starving a deposition process given viable alternatives, but is simply observing that the claim language of condition (ii) is of sufficient breadth to encompass a starvation scenario lacking any viable alternatives, whereby ceasing operations within the processing chamber becomes entirely obvious. This, largely, is why condition (ii) is obvious: it accommodates a limit-scenario for which there exists only one feasible solution, whereby that solution is apprehensible to one of ordinary skill.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – “system” and “assembly,” in this case – that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “valve assembly” of claim 12;
The “manifold system” of claim 14;
The “solid or liquid delivery system” of claim 14;
The “purge gas system” of claim 14;
The “vent system” of claim 14;
The “particulate filtration system” of claim 14;
The “impurity adsorption system” of claim 14.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The valve assembly (103) will be interpreted as a plurality of valves in accordance with paragraph [0051] of the specification.
The manifold system will be interpreted as a conduit network in accordance with paragraph [0046].
The remaining generic placeholders from the list above are not given adequate definition by Applicant’s specification, prompting 112 rejections, below.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the preamble has been amended to read, “An integrate system for…consumption of the precursor without storage.” The examiner cannot locate support for this language in the specification, and there appears to be at least one instance of direct refutation. Paragraph [0047], for instance, characterizes the precursor formation chamber (101) as “not merely a storage container…but rather is a reactor.” From this statement, one can reasonably infer that the integrated system does, in fact, store precursor. Even so, to advance prosecution, the claim will be examined as written.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim defines the “manifold system” as consisting of a “solid or liquid delivery system, a purge gas system, a vent system,…a particulate filtration system, and an impurity adsorption system.” As detailed above within the Claim Interpretation section, each of these six terms are being interpreted as generic placeholders under 112(f). In other words, Applicant is defining one generic placeholder by reference to another generic placeholder, but this is a logical impossibility because a generic placeholder lacks content, by definition. Further, the specification fails to specify the specific structure for performing the associated functions in each instance. Without the disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 asserts, both under (i) and (ii), that the controller receives data from the monitoring system “simultaneous” to the downstream act of controlling a rate of precursor utilizing said data. This, of course, is a metaphysical impossibility, as the controller must receive and process the data before the data can be utilized for some other purpose, and the time value associated with the aforesaid acts of receiving and processing are non-zero. Previously, Applicant availed the term “subsequently,” which the examiner finds both accurate and intuitive. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will assess the contested limitation under the presumption that “subsequently” has already been substituted for “simultaneously.”
Separately, the penultimate paragraph reads: “(ii) receive and process data…regarding optimizing the synthesis of the precursor.” The examiner does not understand the value of the term “optimizing.” Read literally, the statement implies that the controller is merely processing data about optimizing precursor synthesis, not data relating to the ongoing synthesis process itself. Further, under condition (ii), it is the rate of precursor consumption within the reaction chamber that is, in a sense, controlled and optimized in view of a given rate of precursor generation. Thus, if the term “optimizing” must be used, it ought to be applied to precursor consumption under condition (ii). Correction is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as if the term “optimizing” had already been deleted.
Separately, the fourth to last paragraph has been amended to specify a “monitoring and detection system employing…monitoring and detection techniques comprising embedded electronic sensors, spectrometry, and/or spectroscopy.” Of course, only spectrometry and spectroscopy are “detection techniques.” An “electric sensor” is a physical measuring device, not a “technique.” Correction is required.
Separately, the fourth to last paragraph reads, “wherein the monitoring and detection system is configured to perform…detection of all three processing components: the thin film processing parameters…; the precursor synthesis…; and the precursor consumption.” The phrase “all three processing components” lacks antecedent basis because the category of “processing components” has not yet been articulated. Further, the aspect of “thin film processing parameters in the thin film processing chamber” appears to overlap with the aspect of “precursor consumption in the thin film processing chamber,” given that the rate of precursor consumption is necessarily a “processing parameter” of thin film growth. In other words, the “three processing components” are not independent concepts but clearly overlap in ways that render their scope indefinite. Correction is required. The examiner suggests clarifying simply that the monitoring and detection system assesses precursor synthesis and precursor consumption, and the claim will be provisionally assessed under this presumption to expedite prosecution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim attributes the function of calculating a differential to the controller, whereas claim 1 attributed this identical function to the “monitoring and detection system.” Thus, the entity responsible for generating the claimed differential is unclear, and clarification is required. Further, it is unclear if the “differential” of claim 3 refers to the “differential” of the antepenultimate paragraph of claim 1, or if it refers to a different feature. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of either a controller- or monitoring system-generated algorithm as satisfying the contested limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, as this claim depends from now canceled claim 9. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will assess claim 10 as depending from claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim refers to a “manifold system,” which is being interpreted as a nonce term under 112(f). However, the claim proceeds to define “manifold system” by reference to other nonce terms: “delivery system,” “purge gas system,” “vent system,” “filtration system,” and “adsorption system.” Because a generic placeholder lacks content, it is improper to define such a term by relying upon another generic placeholder. Since the definition of “manifold system” cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite. Further, the examiner notes that the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the associated function of any of the previously enumerated nonce terms. And because the specific structure associated with each nonce term is undefined, the metes of each term is indefinite. Thus, the claim is indefinite in accordance with a second grounds. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a fluid delivery conduit as satisfying the contested limitation in accordance with paragraph [0046] of Applicant’s specification.
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 1, 3-4, 7, 12, 14, 30-32, and 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi in the 7/6/21 IDS, which is being relied upon for purposes of this Office letter.)
Claims 1, 3-4, 45-46: Kobayashi discloses an integrated system, comprising (Fig. 1):
A raw material source (13, 21) [0025];
A precursor synthesis chamber (42) [0081], including:
An inlet (38) in communication with the raw material source;
An outlet (54);
A processing chamber (101) directly connected to the precursor synthesis chamber [0086], including:
An inlet (102) coupled to the outlet of the precursor synthesis chamber.
Kobayashi, though, is silent regarding the claimed features of a “monitoring and detection system” and a “controller.” In supplementation, Weidman also teaches an integrated system yet further contemplates a plurality of sensors, i.e., the “monitoring system,” which monitors and detects 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 condition (i), 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.
Kobayashi, 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 Kobayashi’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 Kobayashi, 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 (i).
Regarding condition (ii), 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.
Claim 7: Weidman monitors the raw material flow rate [0079].
Claim 12: As shown by Figure 4 of Weidman, the precursor synthesis chamber is separated by a valve from the processing chamber.
Claim 14: Vessel 640 of Weidman may be taken as the “manifold system.”
Claims 30-31: The type of gas and its condition of provision are matters of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations – 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). Kobayashi’s system is capable of supplying the enumerated gases at room temperature.
Claim 32: Weidman’s processing chamber is a batch tool.
Claims 47-48: Todd avails the detection techniques of ellipsometry and mass spectrometry, among others [0073].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi 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 an ex-situ 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Weidman, Tanaka, and Todd, and in further view of Collins et al., US 2017/0335450.
Kobayashi 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 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Weidman, Tanaka, and Todd, and in further view of Sneh et al., US 6,551,399.
Claim 21: Kobayahsi 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 Kobayashi’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 24-25: 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).
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].
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