DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4-5 and 7-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “wherein each modular component of the set of modular components is interchangeable such that interchanging a first modular component of the set of modular components for a second modular component of the set of modular components results in a corresponding change in a sequence of functions performed by the set of modular components” such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al is presented 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are:
the displacement measuring device of Claim 12, which is interpreted as a displacement sensors and equivalents thereof [0030]
a heating component of Claim 15, which is interpreted as infrared heating elements of infrared heating elements or laser heating elements [0036]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Yudovsky teaches a modular reactor head 30 Fig. 1-6 (a cluster tool is a modular system and the head 30 is a modular component implicitly) for use with a thin film deposition system [0002] comprising: a set of modular components (30 or 221 as shown in Fig. 6 with sections formed by partitions 160, thus making the components implicitly modular), the set of modular components adjacent each other in a first direction (horizontal direction) the set of modular components include at least two precursor gas modular components (precursor a red, precursor b yellow) for depositing at least two precursor gases onto a substrate; wherein the at least two precursor gas modular components are separated by at least one other modular component, an exhaust modular component (pump, blue 150) and an inert gas modular component (purge gas, 140, green) [0022-0075].
Yudovsky teaches the set of components altogether are considered modular, as they can be moved, removed, or replaced [0055], but does not expressly teach the individual components of the set are modular, wherein each modular component of the set of modular components is interchangeable such that interchanging a first modular component of the set of modular components for a second modular component of the set of modular components results in a corresponding change in a sequence of functions performed by the set of modular components.
Chen teaches an entire precursor unit Fig. 1-5 which is formed be a set of components 1, in which separate gases [0050] can be introduced in sequence via separate components 1, and separate gas lines 111 said components/modular injectors 1 can be adjusted for distances, [0043-0053].Chen teaches the modular injector is mechanically assembled and can be connected by the channel structure and the seal so that the injector can be cleaned and replaced separately due to the injector modularity [0026-0027]. Furthermore, Chen teaches an adjustment lever connected to an injector/component 1, via a bolt, which is used to adjust the distance for different deposition requirements [0050].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky with fixed plates to separate the individual treatment factors, by making the components modular with the adjustment levers, as per the teachings of Chen. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to remove and clean the components and adjust distances for desired processing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus would have each modular component of the set of modular components is removable for cleaning and thus also implicitly interchangeable, as interchanging the components would be a functional limitation that is not limited by a structure, such that interchanging a first modular component of the set of modular components for a second modular component of the set of modular components results in a corresponding change in a sequence of functions performed by the set of modular components, as Chen expressly teaches a sequence is determined by the order of the gases, as removing and cleaning the components would result in claimed limitations. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Yudovsky teaches at least one of the set of modular components comprises: a reactor channel (channel formed by 160); and a reactor channel opening (injectors, as shown in Fig. 1), with vacuum exhaust as well [0104],.
In regards to Claim 5, Yudovsky teaches the reactor channel opening (injectors 120, 130, 140) delivers a gaseous with a higher exit velocity at one end of the reactor channel opening than at an opposite end of the reactor channel opening, as the openings are injectors which sends pulsed or continuous flows of the gas, which is how the velocity of the gas is different from the gas sources before the injector and higher towards to the substrate).
In regards to Claim 9, Yudovsky teaches the set of modular components are mounted at predetermined heights with respect to each other, as they are in the same plane.
In regards to Claim 10, Yudovsky teaches a thin film deposition system 100 Fig. 1-4 comprising: a substrate support 65, 66 for supporting a substrate 60; a modular reactor head 30 (a cluster tool is a modular system and the head 30 is a modular component implicitly) for depositing thin films onto the substrate, the modular reactor head including a set of modular components (sections formed by partitions 160, thus making it implicitly modular), the set of modular components adjacent each other in a first direction (horizontal direction) the set of modular components include at least two precursor gas modular components (precursor a red, precursor b yellow) for depositing at least two precursor gases onto a substrate; wherein the at least two precursor gas modular components are separated by at least one other modular component, an exhaust modular component (pump, blue 150) and an inert gas modular component (purge gas, 140, green) and a modular reactor head position system (in the form of the actuator 298 and diverter controller 290 Fig. 12) for positioning the modular reactor head with respect to the substrate on the substrate support [0022-0075].
Yudovsky teaches the set of components altogether are considered modular, as they can be moved, removed, or replaced [0055], but does not expressly teach the individual components of the set are modular, wherein each modular component of the set of modular components is interchangeable such that interchanging a first modular component of the set of modular components for a second modular component of the set of modular components results in a corresponding change in a sequence of functions performed by the set of modular components.
Chen teaches an entire precursor unit Fig. 1-5 which is formed be a set of components 1, in which separate gases [0050] can be introduced in sequence via separate components 1, and separate gas lines 111 said components/modular injectors 1 can be adjusted for distances, [0043-0053].Chen teaches the modular injector is mechanically assembled and can be connected by the channel structure and the seal so that the injector can be cleaned and replaced separately due to the injector modularity [0026-0027]. Furthermore, Chen teaches an adjustment lever connected to an injector/component 1, via a bolt, which is used to adjust the distance for different deposition requirements [0050].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky with fixed plates to separate the individual treatment factors, by making the components modular with the adjustment levers, as per the teachings of Chen. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to remove and clean the components and adjust distances for desired processing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus would have each modular component of the set of modular components is removable for cleaning and thus also implicitly interchangeable, as interchanging the components would be a functional limitation that is not limited by a structure, such that interchanging a first modular component of the set of modular components for a second modular component of the set of modular components results in a corresponding change in a sequence of functions performed by the set of modular components, as Chen expressly teaches a sequence is determined by the order of the gases, as removing and cleaning the components would result in claimed limitations. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 11, Yudovsky teaches the modular reactor head position system comprises a displacement system or a divertor system/controller 299, 298 that displaces the modular head to a desired angle.
In regards to Claim 13, Yudovsky teaches the modular reactor head position system comprises: a leveling system 299, 298 for gap control between the modular reactor head and the substrate support, as it controls the tilt of the modular reactor head [0059-0068].
In regards to Claim 15, Yudovsky teaches the substrate support comprises: an upper plate (top plate of 65) for supporting the substrate; and a heating component for heating the upper plate in the form of radiant lamps, which are implicitly infrared heating elements [0038].
In regards to Claim 17, Yudovsky teaches the precursor fluid modular component comprises actuators 298 to control precursor fluid deposition, as it tilts the gas at different angles for precursor fluid deposition, which is controlling the deposition.
In regards to Claims 18 and 22, Yudovsky in view of Chen do not expressly teach each modular component of the set of modular components is interchangeable such that the at least two precursor gas modular components are not separated by the at least one other modular component, however, this is considered a functional limitation or that of intended use. Specifically, because the modular components are removable in Yudovsky in view of Chen, and Chen expressly teaches a sequence of processes can be determined by each component, by removing and replacing the components, the order can be changed, thus making the components interchangeable to create two precursor gas modular components are not separated by the at least one other modular component, as an implicit intended use. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A in Claims 1 and 10 above.
In regards to Claims 19 and 23, Yudovsky in view of Chen teaches each modular component of the set of modular components is configured to be unmounted from the modular reactor head (case 21 of Chen), as per the teachings of Yudovsky in view of Chen in the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 above.
In regards to Claims 20 and 24, Yudovsky in view of Chen teaches each modular component of the set of modular components is mounted to the modular reactor head via one or more slots in each modular component, or holes for the bolts that adjust the distances, as per the modified components of claims 1 and 10 above.
In regards to Claims 20 and 24, Yudovsky in view of Chen teaches each modular component of the set of modular components is mounted to the modular reactor head via one or more slots (holes for the bolts of 24) in each modular component.
In regards to Claims 21 and 25, Yudovsky in view of Chen teaches the modular reactor head comprises a mounting rod (bolts) passing through the slots to mount each modular component, as per the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 above.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0205769 to Lee et al.
The teachings of Yudovsky in view of Chen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 7 and 8, Yudovsky in view of Chen does not expressly teach the temperature control modular component comprises: a metal plate for controlling a temperature of a modular component adjacent the temperature control modular component or that the temperature control modular component comprises a reactor channel for either receiving a cooling liquid to cool the metal plate or a heating liquid to heat the metal plate.
Lee teaches that the modular reactor head 400 Fig. 4, 5 wherein the head is a body made out of a conductive material (aluminum, stainless steel, nickel [0040]) which is a metal plate for controlling a temperature of a modular component adjacent the temperature control modular component where there is a reactor channel 522 [0040-0041] that are cooling medium channels that circulate a cooling medium to cool the body, i.e., control the temperature of the metal plate/modular component [0028-0066].
Lee teaches that the reactivity of the radicals or reactive species may drop if their temperature is excessively high and as such as cooling is necessary [0041].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky in view of Chen by adding the temperature control modular component, as disclosed in Claims 7 and 8, with the cooling channels, as per the teachings of Lee. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to cool the body such that the reactivity of the radicals/reactive species does not drop. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0350688 to Boyd et al.
The teachings of Yudovsky in view of Chen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 12, Yudovsky teaches the displacement system comprises: and a set of actuators 298 to adjust the angle or tilting of the gas [0028-0068].
Yudovsky in view of Chen does not expressly teach a set of displacement measuring device.
Boyd teaches a showerhead Fig. 1 with a faceplate 118 that has sensors 170 (which can be laser sensors [0026]) that indicate the bottom surface of the showerhead with actuators 150 for adjusting the position of the showerhead such that the showerhead can adjust the gap between the showerhead and the substrate, along with a control system to maintain a gap [0027-0050].
Boyd teaches that maintaining gap spacing and alignment can improve film quality but the sensors can also be used to determine equipment issues such as tuck lift pins, substrate support misalignment, flatness run out or misalignment of the substrate [0035].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky in view of Chen with the teachings of Boyd and added the sensors to the actuator. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of controlling the gap for improve film quality, such that it is a displacement measuring device. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0277885 to Duff et al.
The teachings of Yudovsky in view of Chen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 14, Yudovsky in view of Chen does not expressly teach the substrate support comprises a vacuum system for holding the substrate against the substrate support.
Duff teaches a conveyor belt 60 Fig. 1-3 wherein the conveyor belt has vacuum chucks 100 that moves the substrate between stations [0019-0032]. Duff teaches that having self-contained vacuum chucks on the conveyor belt simplifies the process by facilitating high volume processing [0006-0007].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky in view of Chen, by adding self-contained vacuum chucks, as per the teachings of Duff. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of simplifying the process by facilitating high volume processing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious of the conveyor belt with one with a vacuum chuck. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0147889 to Yudovsky et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0131637 to Chen et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2004/0067641 to Yudovsky (hereinafter referred to as ‘641).
The teachings of Yudovsky in view of Chen are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 16, Yudovsky in view of Chen does not expressly teach the substrate support comprises a motor system but Yudovsky does teach a track.
‘641 teaches a track 70 for a substrate shuttle 60 the track including a motor for moving the shuttles/carriers and the track [0026, 0049, 0020-0059].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yudovsky in view of Chen with the teachings of ‘0641.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious of the conveyor belt with motor. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights