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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026, and the supplemental amendment filed on March 2, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 23, 26, 30, and 39 are amended; claims 46 and 47 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose the new material reciting “first and second pulses, where the second pulses are higher temperature pulses than the first pulses,” as codified by each independent claim (pp. 16-17).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding rejections. Subsequent further search, however, new rejections have been applied below.
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 – “source” and “system,” 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 “first heat source” of claims 1, 26, and 29;
The “delivery system” of claims 1, 26, and 29;
The “second heat source” of claim 4;
The “temperature control system” of claim 47.
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 first heat source (126) is being interpreted as one or more flash lamps (128) in accordance with paragraph [0053] of the specification.
The delivery system (160) is being interpreted as containing at least one source, one valve, one mass flow controller, and a mixing manifold in accordance with paragraph [0055].
The second heat source (116) will be interpreted as heaters in accordance with paragraph [0054].
The temperature control system (150) will be interpreted as a fluid source (152), a pump (154) and a series of fluid channels (114) in accordance with paragraph [0054].
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 29 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 contemplates an embodiment in which the thermal annealing step includes “not pulsing the heat source.” However, this stands in direct contradiction to the parent claim, claim 26, in view of the most recent amendments. Specifically, the final paragraph of claim 26 directly stipulates that “thermal annealing…includ[es] pulsing the heat source.” Clearly, this statement forecloses the claim 29 embodiment of “not pulsing the heat source.” Correction is required. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclose of a pulsed heat source as satisfying the contested limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As elaborated above, claim 26 has been amended to explicitly stipulate that “thermal annealing…includ[es] pulsing the heat source.” Claim 29, however, contemplates an embodiment entailing “not pulsing the heat source.” In this way, claim 29 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13, 26-27, 29-31, 33-37, 39-40, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2018/0218915, in view of Wang et al., US 2017/0154806, and Hunter, US 2013/0029499.
Claims 1, 3, 35-36, 39, 46: Kim discloses an atomic layer etch system, comprising:
A processing chamber (58) (Fig. 1);
A substrate support (62) disposed in the processing chamber and configured to support a substrate (66) [0035];
A first heat source (86), e.g., a bank of flash lamps [0037];
A delivery system (100) configured to supply gas to the processing chamber [0040], including:
Plural gas sources (104);
Plural valves (106);
Plural mass flow controllers (108);
A mixing manifold (110);
A controller (130) configured to control the delivery system and the first heat source to perform an ALE process [0042, 0074].
Kim’s controller executes, sequentially, a pretreatment process (314) in which hydrogen plasma is exposed to the substrate surface, an atomistic adsorption step (328), and thermal annealing (336) ([0030-31, 0054]; Fig. 7). The annealing step avails flash lamps to catalyze an etching step by raising the reaction temperature [0012, 0037].
Regarding the adsorption step, Kim does not name a “ligand” as the precursor. In supplementation, Wang executes an ALE process involving a substrate pretreatment process (310) and a subsequent atomistic adsorption step (330) ([0153]; Fig. 3). Regarding the latter, Wang supplies a ligand exchanger such as Hacac [0154-155]. It would have been obvious to avail Hacac during Kim’s adsorption step since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Lastly, although Kim provides a heat source (86), such as flash lamps or lasers to deliver a localized heat pulse, the reference does not address the claimed technique of delivering two pulses of increasing intensity [0037]. Hunter, though, attests that the provision of a first, low intensity pulse, modifies the adhesive properties of the substrate film to obviate delamination during the subsequent, high intensity pulse [0022-24]. In view of this evidence, it would have been obvious to precede Kim’s localized heat pulse with a low-intensity pulse to prime the thin film for the subsequent high intensity pulse [0025].
Claims 2, 9, 33-34: The composition of the substrate does not constitute patentable subject matter – expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)).
Claims 4-5: Kim provides heaters (72) within the substrate support [0035]. The use of the heaters is a matter of intended use – 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)).
Claim 8: Kim generates a plasma [0008].
Claims 11, 27, 31-32: The type of gas supplied 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).
Claim 13: Kim performs a “predetermined number of iterations” (Fig. 7). The content of the processing, including the content of the provided chemical species, is a matter of intended use.
Claim 26: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. Regarding the final paragraph stipulating “only two surface modification steps,” one can arbitrarily select the pretreatment and adsorption steps as satisfying this threshold.
Claim 29: The operator can silence the pulsing of the heat source.
Claim 30: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. Regarding the final paragraph stipulating the “introduction of only two reactants,” Blomberg teaches an iterative process in which a single reactant may be supplied to the substrate at two separate steps (100, 120) (Fig. 1; [0159ff]). The first step may be taken as “modifying the surface” and the second as “atomistic adsorption.” Lastly, the claim enumerates a series of modification steps including “maintaining a pressure within the processing chamber at less than the predetermined pressure.” Arbitrarily, regardless of the pressure within the processing chamber, the “predetermined pressure” can be taken as a higher value.
Claim 37: The temperature within the reaction chamber is a matter of intended use which can be regulated by the operator: 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).
Claim 40: An operator can adjust the temperature of the annealing process – 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 43-45: Each of these recitations is a matter of intended use, whereby the operator can simply supply the appropriate compound to Kim’s apparatus for delivery to the processing environment. 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).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang and Hunter, and in further view of Feigelson et al., US 2019/0341261.
Kim provides a temperature control system (90) comprising a fluid source (92) and a pump (94) to deliver the coolant to a series of fluid channels (68) formed within the substrate support (62) [0038]. The reference does not disclose the claimed act of cooling the substrate “between each consecutive pair” of pulses. Feigelson, however, attests that, between consecutive laser pulses emitted during an annealing step, it is desired for the substrate to cool to its baseline temperature (T2) ([0053]; Fig. 1). Because Kim already provides a means adapted to promote the objective of cooling the substrate between pulses, it would have been obvious to regulate the temperature control system to do so, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Lai et al., US 2018/0240682. Lai executes an ALE sequence comprising depositing a ligand (303), applying “radiative energy” to facilitate etching (305), and then performing additional cycles until the desired feature has been appropriately formed (Fig. 3).
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