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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 3, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 2 and 25 are amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material of claim 25 which codifies a “flow guide element…positioned between a batch of substrates…and a precursor gas inlet.” Lindfors, for instance, provides a series of apertures (416) integrated within a series of tubes (410, 412, 414) that deliver precursor gas to each substrate. Because a given aperture is designed to supply gas to a corresponding substrate, this structure cannot satisfy the claimed imperative of supplying gas to a “batch” of substrates (p. 10). To properly satisfy the new material of claim 25, Lindfors’ apertures (416) would have to be arranged to provide gas to a plurality of substrates. This is not feasible given the structure of Lindors’ cassette, since each substrate is confined within a dedicated compartment by upper and lower substrate holders, where a given aperture can only supply gas to its corresponding compartment (p. 11).
In response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Firstly, the examiner notes that “flow guide element” is being treated as a nonce term prompting 112(f) analysis. As elaborated below, the Office is interpreting “flow guide element” as any one of a plurality of apertures, a mesh, or a perforated plate. These three definitions vary substantially in their scope, with the “perforated plate” being the narrowest. Given the broadest definition, a plurality of apertures, the deliverances of Lindfors appear to clearly satisfy the new material.
Taking Figure 4 of Lindfors as representative, we find a series of horizontally-oriented substrates (418, 420, 422, 424) arrayed in a vertical stack, with a dedicated holder (402) bearing each substrate. In turn, three support rods (410, 412, 414) extending vertically from the reaction chamber lid (320) suspend the dedicated holders [0073]. Integrated within the support rods are a series of apertures (416) that deliver gas from a series of upstream “precursor in-feed lines,” which the examiner understands to read upon the claimed “precursor gas inlet” [0077-78]. It is the position of the Office that this arrangement of vertically-stacked wafers, situated within an unconfined holding architecture, properly constitutes a “batch” organization. Notably, Lindfors refers to this very arrangement as “minibatch.”
Continuing, the twelve apertures (416) depicted by Figure 4 may be taken to constitute the “flow guide element,” i.e., a plurality of apertures. Regarding the gas flow path upstream of these apertures, Lindfors avails “precursor in-feed lines” to supply gas to a series of channels formed within the reaction chamber lid [0078]. In turn, these channels funnel the gas into the hollow support rods (410) and then through the apertures (416). Clearly, the aforesaid precursor in-feed lines, which the Office is taking as the claimed “precursor gas inlet,” are further from the substrate batch than the apertures. Thus, it may be said that these apertures are “between a batch of substrates…and a precursor gas inlet.” Even if the fluid channels formed in the chamber lid (320) were taken as the “precursor gas inlet,” the limitation would remain satisfied, as the uppermost set of apertures (416) is disposed between the lid and the substrate batch.
Lastly, regarding Applicant’s contention that a given aperture of Lindfors does not supply precursor to plural substrates, the examiner observes that this argument is wholly incommensurate with the language of the contested limitation. There is no requirement, either explicit or implied, that a given aperture must feed plural substrates. Rather, the flow guide element, as a whole, must supply gas to the plural substrates. That being said, because the cassette holder bearing the minibatch is not laterally confined, a modicum of the precursor emitted by, say, the most central set of three apertures will necessarily diffuse beyond the diameter of their proximate holder (420) and deposit upon another substrate. In this way, Lindfors satisfies even the most stringent interpretation of the new material.
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 a generic placeholder – “element” and “arrangement,” in this case – that is 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 “removable flow guide element” of claim 11;
The “heat source element” of claim 12;
The “first actuator arrangement” of claim 25;
The “second actuator arrangement” of claim 25;
The “flow guide element” of claim 25.
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 removable flow guide element will be interpreted as a plurality of apertures in accordance with paragraph [0041] of the specification.
The heated source element (170) will be interpreted as a fluid source in accordance with paragraph [0112].
The first actuator arrangement will be interpreted as an actuator (210) for horizontally transferring substrates through the first load-lock in accordance with paragraphs [0117] and [0134].
The second actuator arrangement will be interpreted as an actuator (240) for lowering the substrates into the reaction chamber in accordance with paragraph [0131].
The flow guide element (520) will be interpreted as one of a plurality of apertures, a mesh, or a perforated plate in accordance with paragraph [0147].
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(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 11 is 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. This claim, which depends from independent claim 25, introduces the feature of a “removable flow guide element.” Claim 25, however, has been amended to recite “a flow guide element.” It is unclear, then, if the “removable flow guide element” of claim 11 further clarifies the flow guide element of claim 25, or if claim 11 is codifying another flow guide element distinct from that of claim 25. Clarification is required. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will provisionally interpret claim 11 as further clarifying the flow guide element of claim 25.
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 2-4, 11, 13-14, 17-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindfors et al., US 2006/0196418, in view of Bruce, US 2008/0041314, Komoto et al., US 2009/0230342, and Yamazaki, 4,582,720.
Claims 2, 25: Lindfors provides a vacuum chamber (1202) enclosing a reaction chamber (204) which performs an ALD process (Figs. 13-14). In addition, Lindfors avails a wand, i.e., the “first actuator arrangement,” for transferring substrates (1304) horizontally to a cassette (1214) disposed within the vacuum chamber. The substrates (1304) are oriented horizontally and stacked vertically (Fig. 13). Within the reaction chamber, a precursor is flowed laterally across the respective surfaces of the horizontal substrates ([0078]; Figs. 4-5). The reference also provides a second actuator arrangement (1208) which raises and lowers the cassette (1214) containing the stacked wafers (1304) between loading and processing positions [0092]. The second actuator directly couples to the reaction chamber lid (304) such that the insertion of the cassette into the reaction chamber simultaneously seals the chamber with the lid (Fig. 12).
Regarding the new material, Lindfors forms a series of apertures (416) with the hollow support rods (410) for distributing a gas to the batch of substrates contained with the cassette structure [0077]. The examiner understands the apertures, collectively, to read upon the claimed “flow guide element” of claim 25. Further, Lindfors provides a series of gas inlets which couple to channels formed in the reaction chamber lid (320) before feeding to the apertures [0078]. Because the apertures (416) are closer to the substrates than the gas inlets, it can be said that the flow guide element is “positioned between a batch of substrates…and a precursor gas inlet,” as the claim set requires.
Lindfors, though, is silent regarding the claimed feature of a movable vertical shield. The Office cites Bruce to address this deficiency, who describes a high-temperature process chamber (18) which receives substrates from a load lock (16) [0031-32]. In order to confine heat to the processing environment, Bruce selectively positions a retractable thermal shield (46) in front of the gate valve (44) separating the process chamber (18) from the adjacent transfer chamber (14) ([0033-34]; Fig. 3). The Office also cites Komoto, who stipulates that the components of a gate valve are vulnerable to deterioration under conditions of high temperature [0041]. Coupled with the fact that Lindfors’ vacuum chamber must accommodate temperatures up to 500 degrees Celsius [0076], it would have been obvious to provide a thermal shield at the loading port of Lindfors’ vacuum chamber to mitigate heat transmission to the gate valve. It would also be obvious to provide a load lock to facilitate the transition from atmospheric to vacuum pressures within the apparatus while minimizing contamination.
Lastly, claim 25 requires the transfer of a cassette from the load lock to a cassette holder disposed within the vacuum chamber. Lindfors, on the other hand, essentially maintains a permanent cassette (1214) within the vacuum chamber, whereby substrates are transferred individually to and from the cassette via a loading slot (1204) (Fig. 13). In supplementation, Yamazaki demonstrates that it is known to convey a cassette (70) containing a substrate array (60) laterally between adjacent chambers rather than transferring substrates individually (5, 5-59; Fig. 1). The Office understands this technique to be an alternate yet equivalent means by which to achieve the same objective of conveying a batch of substrates to a processing environment, whereby the selection of either alternative is obvious over the other. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 3: Bruce provides a second load lock (22) [0037].
Claim 4: Lindfors provides a gate valve at the load port of the vacuum chamber, whereby this may be taken as the “first loading valve.
Claims 11, 13: Lindfors provides multiple gas inlets, which necessarily comprise apertures, i.e., the “flow guide element” (Fig. 5).
Claim 12: Lindfors provides a heater to regulate the temperature of a fluid source to ensure the chemical is at the appropriate temperature for processing and in the correct phase [0119].
Claim 14: Lindfors provides a cassette (1214) for holding a batch of substrates [0046].
Claim 17: Cooling can be executed post-processing simply by withholding heat.
Claim 18: The pressure applied to the load-lock and reaction chambers is a matter of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – it has been held that claims directed to an 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)). An operator can establish a lower pressure in prior art’s load-lock.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindfors in view of Bruce, Komoto, and Yamazaki, and in further view of Lee et al., US 7,998,762.
Claim 5: Lindfors’ apparatus is structured as a spoke-type tool, as opposed to the applicant’s in-line design. As such, the vacuum chamber does not possess two loading openings corresponding to two load-locks. Addressing this deficiency is Lee, who attests to the equivalency of these two designs: Figure 1A shows a processing chamber linearly situated between two load-locks, and Figure 1B depicts a plurality of chambers surrounding a central hub (4, 36ff). Lee confirms that these configurations are compatible with ALD processing, and a valve (1306) is interposed between the process chamber and each load-lock in the in-line arrangement (14, 1-6). It would have been obvious to configure Lindfors’ system as an in-line arrangement, since both spoke and in-line cluster tools are equivalent for the purpose of processing substrates at high rates of throughput, and the selection of either alternative would be within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 6: Given an in-line layout, a second actuator is necessarily required to translate the substrate horizontally through the second load-lock.
Claim 8: This claim is drawn to the intended use of the apparatus – an operator can control the gate valve and shield to move simultaneously – 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).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindfors in view of Bruce, Komoto, and Yamazaki, and in further view of Ko et al., US 2003/0200924.
Lindfors is silent regarding the matter of gas measurement. In supplementation, Ko affixes a detector (40), such as an RGA, to a deposition chamber (10) to enable the “real time detection of the resulting gases generated by the reaction” ([0028], Fig. 2). This data can then be used for purposes of endpoint detection and feedback control. It would have been obvious to integrate a gas detector within Lindfors’ system to improve the accuracy of the deposition process. It can also be said that the RGA is indirectly coupled to the load-lock.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindfors in view of Bruce, Komoto, and Yamazaki, and in further view of Kilpi et al., US 2015/0299859.
Claim 15: Lindfors does not address the matter of rotating the cassette but Kilpi, elaborated fully in prior correspondences, rotates the batch of substrates within the reaction chamber (Figs. 3, [0051ff]). It would have been obvious to incorporate this technique within Lindfors’ apparatus to promote deposition uniformity.
Claim 16: Lindfors is silent regarding the matter of a front end, but Kilpi provides a loading module (405) and robot (431) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to incorporate these features within Lindfors’ apparatus to facilitate the predictable result of loading and unloading substrates to and from the system.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Lindfors et al., US 2010/0028122. Lindfors provides an ALD system comprising a reaction chamber (481) situated within a vacuum chamber (401) [0055]. An actuator loads the reaction chamber from the top via the chamber lid (Fig. 4).
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