DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 23-30 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) The cited art fails to disclose an etching device in which the etchant storage chamber and the etching chamber are each pressurized by compressed gas sources. Ma, for instance, merely discloses a single pressurization source for the storage tank, and the remaining references do not suggest a second compressed gas source to pressurize the etching chamber (p. 14).
(2) The cited art fails to disclose a storage chamber heated by a jacket with an attendant power supply. Although Hirose discloses a heating jacket, it purpose is to vaporize a precursor material in a CVD system rather than to heat an etchant disposed within a storage chamber (p. 14).
(3) Ma supplies an etchant in response to pressure fluctuations in the storage tank, but claim 23 requires the provision of the etchant in accordance with a preset pressure condition in the etching chamber (p. 15).
In response,
(1) The examiner accepts this characterization of Ma but observes that Iwahata avails a nitrogen source (12) to purge the internal atmosphere of a liquid etching chamber. As explained in the outstanding 103 rejection, the nitrogen is necessarily pressurized within its source container and may be considered properly “compressed” for this reason.
(2) One of ordinary skill would understand the operability of a heating jacket to be independent of the processes executed within some downstream chamber. That is, Hirose’s heating jacket is effective for the purpose heating a liquid within the enclosed container because of its innate mechanical structure; the jacket’s capacity to perform this heating operation does not depend upon whether the subsequent chamber performs deposition or etching. For this reason, Applicant’s observation that a deposition chamber is downstream of Hirose’s precursor container whereas an etching chamber is downstream of Ma’s precursor container does not redound upon the internal logic of the rejection.
Ultimately, Hirose’s jacket is relevant to Ma’s system because the former discloses a suitable means by which to regulate liquid precursor temperature within a storage container, and Ma’s system can be improved by regulating the temperature of a liquid precursor within the reference’s storage container.
(3) The examiner observes that the claim limitations directed to the delivery of the etchant in response to the attainment of a “preset pressure” are recitations of intended use. In such cases, the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the relevant functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – 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)).
More specifically, at any arbitrary pressure within the etching chamber of Ma, which may be deemed the “preset pressure,” the operator can simply open the valve of the connection assembly and the discharge conduit of the exhaust assembly. Of course, by similar means, the operator can also regulate the pressure of the storage chamber to yield the necessary pressure differential to induce etchant flow toward the etching chamber.
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 – “equipment” 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 “pressure control equipment” of claim 23;
The “etching chamber exhaust assembly” of claim 23;
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 pressure control equipment is inadequately defined, thereby prompting 112 rejections.
The etching chamber exhaust assembly (152) will be interpreted as a discharge conduit in accordance with paragraph [0071] of the specification, as well as Figure 1.
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 23 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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. In claim 23, applicant has changed “connected unit” to “connection assembly,” “pressurization unit” to “pressure control equipment,” “first pressurization unit” to “storage chamber pressurization assembly,” and “second pressurization unit” to “etching chamber pressurization assembly.” In addition, claim 23 recites an “etching chamber exhaust assembly” and a “heater assembly.” The original disclosure does not provide support for any of these terms, specifically the substitution of “assembly” and “equipment” for “unit.” The examiner observes that assembly and equipment, like unit, are generic placeholders; therefore, substituting the former for the latter does not remove the limitation from 112f. In every instance, the examiner prescribes reinserting unit for “assembly” and “equipment” as necessary. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will assess the contested limitations as if the suggested corrections have already been implemented.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim has been amended to stipulate that the heater assembly (142) is now a subcomponent of the storage chamber pressurization assembly (141), but this is incorrect. As clarified by paragraph [0068], what is now called the storage chamber pressurization assembly (141), the heater assembly (142), and the storage chamber exhaust assembly (143) are independent features that are not subordinate to each other. Rather, these features collectively compose the “first pressurization maintaining unit,” which is no longer claimed. Because claim 25 characterizes the hierarchy of Applicant’s invention in a manner unsupported by the original disclosure, the contested limitation constitutes new matter.
Further, claim 25 recites the feature of a “storage chamber exhaust assembly,” but this term is not supported by the original disclosure. As noted above, “assembly” is no less generic than the term it replaces, “unit,” but at least the latter is supported by the specification. To advance prosecution, the examiner will assess the contested limitation as if unit has already been substituted for assembly.
Claim 29 and its dependent are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim has been amended to recite a “cleaning assembly,” but this term is not supported by the original disclosure. As noted above, “assembly” is no less generic than the term it replaces, “unit,” but at least the latter is supported by the specification. To advance prosecution, the examiner will assess the contested limitation as if unit has already been substituted for assembly.
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 23 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 fifth and sixth paragraphs of claim 23 recite “pressure control equipment” which comprises a “storage chamber pressurization assembly” and an “etching chamber pressurization assembly.” Because the latter two terms are generic placeholders, they cannot be relied upon to structurally define the “pressure control equipment,” which itself is a nonce term. For this reason, the metes of “pressure control equipment” is indefinite. The examiner suggests deleting any reference to “pressure control equipment” and simply reciting the sub-features of the two pressurizations assemblies. Because the pressurization assemblies are not unified in terms of function or proximity, the utility of reciting them within a larger category, like “pressure control equipment,” seems tenuous. To advance prosecution, the examiner will provisionally accept the prior art disclosure of two pressurization assemblies as satisfying the contested limitation of the “pressure control equipment.”
Separately, the sixth paragraph of claim 23 defines the nonce term “etching chamber pressurization assembly” as an “etching chamber exhaust assembly.” Both of these terms are generic placeholders, but a generic placeholder cannot be relied upon to confer a structural definition to another nonce term, by definition. For this reason, the metes of “etching chamber pressurization assembly” are indefinite. To advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret the metes of both generic placeholders to be commensurate, so the prior art disclosure of an “exhaust assembly” will be taken to satisfy the contested limitation. Rather than reciting an “etching chamber exhaust assembly,” the examiner suggests simply reciting the 112(f) definition elaborated above: a discharge conduit.
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 23-25 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al., US 2011/0079247, in view of Iwahata et al., US 2016/0365238, Endo et al., US 2019/0311919, and Hirose et al., US 2014/0290575.
Claim 23: Ma discloses an etching device, comprising:
An etchant storage chamber (201) in which an etchant is stored [0018];
A connection assembly, including:
An etchant pipe having a first end communicating with the etchant storage chamber (201) and a second end communicating with an etching chamber (214) (Fig. 2);
An etching chamber (214) containing an object to be etched (W), and which communicates with the etchant storage chamber through the connection unit;
A pressure control equipment, including:
A storage chamber pressurization assembly (209), including a first compressed gas source, connected to the etchant storage chamber and configured to adjust a pressure therein [0018].
Ma is silent regarding the claimed features of a valve and pump, which are both members of the “connection unit,” as well as the “etching chamber pressurization assembly” for the etching chamber. Regarding the final omission, Iwahata discloses a liquid etching chamber coupled to a gas supply (12) for the delivery of nitrogen ([0063]; Fig. 2). Necessarily, the nitrogen is provided under pressure within a container, which the examiner understands to satisfy the claimed feature of “compressed gas.” In addition, Iwahata provides an exhaust pipe (44) for the evacuation of gas [0061]. It would have been obvious to integrate Iwahata’s pressurization mechanisms within Ma’s etching chamber to establish an optimal processing pressure to obviate the vaporization of the etchant.
Concerning the first two features, Endo depicts an exemplary connection assembly (4, 6) for delivering liquid from a storage chamber (27) to a downstream processing chamber (2) (Fig. 2). As with Ma, Endo provides an etchant pipe (32) coupling the storage and processing chambers, yet further discloses the use of a pump (34) and valve (37) to selectively regulate the delivery of the fluid [0066-67]. It would have been obvious to incorporate these features within Ma’s connection unit to achieve the predictable result of regulating the flow rate of liquid to the etching chamber.
Regarding the new material directed to the heater assembly, although Endo provides a heater for regulating the temperature of a liquid precursor, it does not necessarily “contact an outer surface of the container” of the etchant storage chamber as the final paragraph of claim 23 now requires. Alternative configurations are known, however, as Hirose demonstrates. With reference to Figure 1, Hirose embeds a heater assembly (31) within the outer boundary of a liquid storage chamber, whereby said member contacts an outer surface of an inner container (3) accommodating the liquid [0018]. The assembly is formed as a jacket coupled to a power supply (36) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to reproduce this design within the system of the prior art, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, the resultant composite prior art apparatus is structurally capable of selectively regulating the delivery of etchant via the selective blocking unit in view of pressure conditions, as the penultimate paragraph of claim 23 requires – 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 24: Necessarily, closing the valve of the connection assembly will block the movement of etchant to the etching chamber.
Claim 25: Ma’s first pressurization unit includes first compressed gas source (209) and a first discharge conduit (208) [0018]. As discussed under the rejection of claim 23, Hirose provides a heater assembly.
Claim 26: Endo situates a container (27) accommodating an etchant inside an etchant storage chamber (Fig. 2). The aforementioned heating assembly is to be installed about the outer surface of the container, as shown by Figure 1 of Hirose.
Claim 27: Iwahata provides a second compressed gas source (12) and a second discharge conduit (45) [0061].
Claim 28: The operator of the composite prior art apparatus is capable of executing the control sequence elaborated by this claim, whereby 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)).
Claims 29-30: Iwahata provides a rinsing liquid coupled to a supply line (10) which can be used to clean the etchant [0066].
Claim 31: The operator can use the pressurization units to regulate the etching chamber pressure within the claimed range – 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 32: The chemical supplied 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)). An operator can provide any of the enumerated solutions.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hayashi et al., US 2016/0062372. Hayashi provides an etchant storage chamber (L), a connection unit (81), an etching chamber (20), and a pressurization maintaining unit (64) ([0021]; Fig. 1).
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