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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on June 17, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 9-10, 14, and 17-18 were amended. Claims 11-13 were cancelled. Claims 9-10, 14, and 17 are in the application and pending examination. Claim 18 has been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
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 : “processing apparatus” and “delivery mechanism” in claim 9.
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
The previous rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 9, Lam teaches a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas (gas leaving 108) generated by vaporizing a solid raw material to a processing apparatus (102), the raw material gas supply system comprising: a vaporizer (108) configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas; a delivery mechanism (130, 140, 134) configured to deliver a solution, in which the solid raw material is dissolved in a solvent, from a solution source (130) storing the solution to the vaporizer (108), the vaporizer (108) includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container (walls of vaporizer 108), wherein the tray assembly (110) includes: a cylindrical column (120) extending upward from the bottom wall (bottom wall of 108) . (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Lam teaches an evaporator (180), but does not explicitly teach an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material.
Marganski is directed to system for delivery of reagents from solid sources.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer (276) to separate the solid raw material (solid source material). (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam teaches the vaporizer includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container, and a plurality of shelves (trays 112) configured to accommodate the solution (hold liquid precursor). (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam teaches the plurality of shelves (trays 12) are stacked in a vertical direction. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam does not explicitly teach the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path.
Hendrix is directed to using shelves to hold precursors for a vapor deposition process. (See Hendrix, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10.)
Hendrix teaches the tray assembly includes: a first member (1002) including a cylindrical sidewall (1092) , a disk-shaped bottom wall (bottom wall of 1002) ; and
a second member (1017 ) disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member (1002) and the second member (1010) of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path (1009), which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves (1010, 1020, 1030, 1040) are arranged along the spiral gas flow path. (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path; because Hendrix teaches this structure is capable of generating a large volume of reagent vapor for a batch of wafers or other objects, rather than for a single wafer or object (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
Regarding claim 9, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves.
Suzuki is directed to a precursor tray for use in a multi-tray solid precursor delivery system.
Suzuki teaches a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves; because Suzuki teaches this structure enables the flow of the gas over the precursor in the desired direction. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 10, 51-52, 55, 58, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
Regarding claim 10, Lam does not explicitly teach the evaporator includes at least one of a depressurizer configured to depressurize an interior of the vaporizer and a heater configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) includes at least one of a heater (254) configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 112-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the evaporator includes at least one of a heater configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
The previous rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) as applied to claim 10 and claim 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201430333621 A1 to Ronsse et al (hereinafter Ronsse) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki) as applied to claim 10 and claim 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201430333621 A1 to Ronsse et al (hereinafter Ronsse) .
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers.
Ronsse is using a plurality of vaporizers in a deposition process. (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21.)
Ronsse teaches include a plurality of vaporizers (520 or 521) connected in parallel with one another; and a controller (1000) configured to output a control signal which allows, when a part of the plurality of vaporizers (520 or 521) is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus (202), the solution to be delivered from the solution source (503, 504) to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (other of 520 or 521 not used in first step) such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (other of 520 or 521 not used in first step). (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21, paragraphs 2, 8-9, 11-12, 14-19, 36-40, 52-56, 61-62, 65-66, 68-71, 76, 79-80, 83-84, 86-94, 99-104, 108-118, 121-126, 130-146, 149-151, 155, 160, 162-163, 166, 169-174, Table 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers; because Ronsse teaches each portion of the device can be monitored and controlled separately so that proper temperature and pressure control and problems due to processing outside target ranges and malfunctions (i.e. leaks) can be avoided to provide a controlled deposition environment . (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21, paragraphs 2, 8-9, 11-12, 14-19, 36-40, 52-56, 61-62, 65-66, 68-71, 76, 79-80, 83-84, 86-94, 99-104, 108-118, 121-126, 130-146, 149-151, 155, 160, 162-163, 166, 169-174, Table 1.)
The previous rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) and in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) as applied to claims 10 and 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170362701 A1 to Logue et al (hereinafter Logue) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) and in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki) as applied to claims 10 and 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170362701 A1 to Logue et al (hereinafter Logue) .
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel with one another; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers
Logue teaches using a plurality of vaporizers in a deposition process.
Logue teaches include a plurality of vaporizers (126 or 128) connected in parallel with one another; and a controller (automatic user interface 114) configured to output a control signal which allows, when a part of the plurality of vaporizers (126 is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus (142), the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (128) such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (128). (See Logue, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 6, 11, 21, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41-51, 54.) (Examiner is considering utilizing the other vaporizer (128) supplying high pressure output to the reactor when the first vaporizer (126) is suppling low pressure output to be equivalent to when a part of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers based on paragraphs 49-57.) Examiner is considering a control configured to output a control signal to be equivalent to an automatic interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers; because Logue teaches this structure allows precursor gas can be accumulated to provide run-to-run and tool-to-tool matching based on the controlled and stable delivery of flux. (See Logue, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 6, 11, 21, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41-51, 54.)
The previous rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 9, Lam teaches a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas (gas leaving 108) generated by vaporizing a solid raw material to a processing apparatus (102), the raw material gas supply system comprising: a vaporizer (108) configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas; a delivery mechanism (130, 140, 134) configured to deliver a solution, in which the solid raw material is dissolved in a solvent, from a solution source (130) storing the solution to the vaporizer (108), the vaporizer (108) includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container (walls of vaporizer 108), wherein the tray assembly (110) includes: a cylindrical column (120) extending upward from the bottom wall (bottom wall of 108) . (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Lam teaches an evaporator (180), but does not explicitly teach an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material.
Marganski is directed to system for delivery of reagents from solid sources.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer (276) to separate the solid raw material (solid source material). (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam teaches the vaporizer includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container, and a plurality of shelves (trays 112) configured to accommodate the solution (hold liquid precursor). (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam teaches the plurality of shelves (trays 12) are stacked in a vertical direction. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, Lam does not explicitly teach the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path.
Chaubey is directed to using shelves to hold precursors for a vapor deposition process. (See Chaubey, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 5.)
Chaubey teaches the tray assembly includes: a first member (housing and exterior walls of 400) including a cylindrical sidewall (walls adjacent 352) , a disk-shaped bottom wall (bottom wall of 400) ; and
a second member (350, 358 ) disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member (housing and exterior walls of 400) and the second member (350, 358 ) of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path (1009), which is centered on a central axis on the container (400) and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves (shelves formed by 350, 358) are arranged along the spiral gas flow path. (See Chaubey, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 5, paragraphs 22, 28-41, 49, and 57.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path; because Chaubey teaches the sloped interior and exterior disk structure improve properties of the sublimator including contact time, flow rate, and production of a stable, saturated carrier gas. (See Chaubey, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, and 9, paragraphs 22, 28-41, 49, and 57.)
Regarding claim 9, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves.
Suzuki is directed to a precursor tray for use in a multi-tray solid precursor delivery system.
Suzuki teaches a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves; because Suzuki teaches this structure enables the flow of the gas over the precursor in the desired direction. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 10, 51-52, 55, 58, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
Regarding claim 10, Lam does not explicitly teach the evaporator includes at least one of a depressurizer configured to depressurize an interior of the vaporizer and a heater configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) includes at least one of a heater (254) configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 112-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the evaporator includes at least one of a heater configured to heat the solution accommodated in the vaporizer; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
The previous rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) as applied to claim 10 and claim 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201430333621 A1 to Ronsse et al (hereinafter Ronsse) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki) as applied to claim 10 and claim 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201430333621 A1 to Ronsse et al (hereinafter Ronsse).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers.
Ronsse is using a plurality of vaporizers in a deposition process. (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21.)
Ronsse teaches include a plurality of vaporizers (520 or 521) connected in parallel with one another; and a controller (1000) configured to output a control signal which allows, when a part of the plurality of vaporizers (520 or 521) is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus (202), the solution to be delivered from the solution source (503, 504) to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (other of 520 or 521 not used in first step) such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (other of 520 or 521 not used in first step). (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21, paragraphs 2, 8-9, 11-12, 14-19, 36-40, 52-56, 61-62, 65-66, 68-71, 76, 79-80, 83-84, 86-94, 99-104, 108-118, 121-126, 130-146, 149-151, 155, 160, 162-163, 166, 169-174, Table 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers; because Ronsse teaches each portion of the device can be monitored and controlled separately so that proper temperature and pressure control and problems due to processing outside target ranges and malfunctions (ie leaks) can be avoided to provide a controlled deposition environment . (See Ronsse, Abstract, Figs. 15-21, paragraphs 2, 8-9, 11-12, 14-19, 36-40, 52-56, 61-62, 65-66, 68-71, 76, 79-80, 83-84, 86-94, 99-104, 108-118, 121-126, 130-146, 149-151, 155, 160, 162-163, 166, 169-174, Table 1.)
The previous rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) and in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) as applied to claims 10 and 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170362701 A1 to Logue et al (hereinafter Logue) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) and in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Chaubey et al Assignee: American Air Liquide, Inc. (hereinafter Chaubey) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki) as applied to claims 10 and 9, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170362701 A1 to Logue et al (hereinafter Logue).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Lam does not explicitly teach a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel with one another; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers
Logue teaches using a plurality of vaporizers in a deposition process.
Logue teaches include a plurality of vaporizers (126 or 128) connected in parallel with one another; and a controller (automatic user interface 114) configured to output a control signal which allows, when a part of the plurality of vaporizers (126 is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus (142), the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (128) such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers (128). (See Logue, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 6, 11, 21, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41-51, 54.) (Examiner is considering utilizing the other vaporizer (128) supplying high pressure output to the reactor when the first vaporizer (126) is suppling low pressure output to be equivalent to when a part of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the other part of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers based on paragraphs 49-57.) Examiner is considering a control configured to output a control signal to be equivalent to an automatic interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of vaporizers including a first vaporizer and a second vaporizer connected in parallel; and a controller configured to output a control signal which allows, when the first vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers is in a state capable of supplying the raw material gas to the processing apparatus, the solution to be delivered from the solution source to the second vaporizer of the plurality of vaporizers such that the solid raw material is separated from the solution in the other part of the plurality of vaporizers; because Logue teaches this structure allows precursor gas can be accumulated to provide run-to-run and tool-to-tool matching based on the controlled and stable delivery of flux. (See Logue, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 6, 11, 21, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41-51, 54.)
Double Patenting
The previous rejection of claim 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Application No. 17/753,602 ( now US Pat. Num. 12,571,096 B2 reference application) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Application No. 17/753,602 ( now US Pat. Num. 12,571,096 B2 reference application) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference application teaches a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas generated by vaporizing a solid raw material to a processing apparatus (a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas to a processing apparatus) , the raw material gas supply system comprising: a vaporizer configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas (a vaporization device configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas) ; and a delivery mechanism configured to deliver a solution, in which the solid raw material is dissolved in a solvent , from a solution source storing the solution to the vaporizer (a delivery mechanism configured to deliver the dispersion from the storage container to the vaporization device).
The reference application does not explicitly teach an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer (276) to separate the solid raw material (solid source material). (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
The reference application does not explicitly teach the vaporizer includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container, wherein the tray assembly includes: a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall.
Lam teaches the vaporizer (108) includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container (walls of vaporizer 108), wherein the tray assembly (110) includes: a cylindrical column (120) extending upward from the bottom wall (bottom wall of 108) . (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vaporizer includes a container, a tray assembly provided in the container, wherein the tray assembly includes: a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; because Lam teaches this structure provides an output of the enclosure with the desired composition of the carrier gas and vaporized precursor. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
The reference application does not explicitly teach an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer (276) to separate the solid raw material (solid source material). (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, the reference application does not teach the plurality of shelves are stacked in a vertical direction.
Lam teaches the plurality of shelves (trays 12) are stacked in a vertical direction. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plurality of shelves are stacked in a vertical direction; because Lam teaches this structure enables to allow carrier gas to flow freely across the liquid precursor. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, the reference application does not explicitly teach the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path.
Hendrix is directed to using shelves to hold precursors for a vapor deposition process. (See Hendrix, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10.)
Hendrix teaches the tray assembly includes: a first member (1002) including a cylindrical sidewall (1092) , a disk-shaped bottom wall (bottom wall of 1002) ; and
a second member (1017 ) disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member (1002) and the second member (1010) of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path (1009), which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves (1010, 1020, 1030, 1040) are arranged along the spiral gas flow path. (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path; because Hendrix teaches this structure is capable of generating a large volume of reagent vapor for a batch of wafers or other objects, rather than for a single wafer or object (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
Regarding claim 9, the reference application does not explicitly teach a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves.
Suzuki teaches a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves; because Suzuki teaches this structure enables the flow of the gas over the precursor in the desired direction. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 10, 51-52, 55, 58, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
The previous rejection of claim 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 15 of copending Application No. 17/761,091 (reference application 2) based on claims filed 9/16/2025 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 17/761,091 (reference application 2) based on claims filed 9/16/2025 in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150145154 A1 to Lam Research Corporation (hereinafter Lam) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080191153 A1 to Marganski et al (hereinafter Marganski) in view of US 20150191819 A1 to Hendrix et al Assignee: Entegris, Inc. (hereinafter Hendrix) and US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al; (hereinafter Suzuki).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference application teaches a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas generated by vaporizing a solid raw material to a processing apparatus (a raw material gas supply system for supplying a raw material gas to a processing apparatus) , the raw material gas supply system comprising: a vaporizer configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas (a vaporization device configured to vaporize the solid raw material to generate the raw material gas) ; and a delivery mechanism configured to deliver a solution, in which the solid raw material is dissolved in a solvent , from a solution source storing the solution to the vaporizer (a delivery mechanism configured to deliver the dispersion from the storage container to the vaporization device).
The reference application does not explicitly teach an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material.
Marganski teaches an evaporator (276) configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer (276) to separate the solid raw material (solid source material). (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an evaporator configured to evaporate the solvent of the solution delivered from the delivery mechanism and accommodated in the vaporizer to separate the solid raw material; because Marganski teaches this structure enables separation of the solvent from the solid and facilitates the refurbishment and reuse of the supply vessel and materials after the volatilization operation is complete. (See Marganski, Abstract, paragraphs 113-115, 221-229, 233; and Fig. 6.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, the reference application does not teach the plurality of shelves are stacked in a vertical direction.
Lam teaches the plurality of shelves (trays 12) are stacked in a vertical direction. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plurality of shelves are stacked in a vertical direction; because Lam teaches this structure enables to allow carrier gas to flow freely across the liquid precursor. (See Lam, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 25-33, and 37.)
Additionally regarding claim 9, the reference application does not explicitly teach the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path.
Hendrix teaches the tray assembly includes: a first member (1002) including a cylindrical sidewall (1092) , a disk-shaped bottom wall (bottom wall of 1002) ; and
a second member (1017 ) disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member (1002) and the second member (1010) of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path (1009), which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves (1010, 1020, 1030, 1040) are arranged along the spiral gas flow path. (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the tray assembly includes: a first member including a cylindrical sidewall, a disk-shaped bottom wall, and a cylindrical column extending upward from the bottom wall; and
a second member disposed at a location between the sidewall and the column and on the bottom wall;
wherein the first member and the second member of the tray assembly form a spiral gas flow path, which is centered on a central axis on the container and extends upward in a spiral manner, and wherein the plurality of shelves are arranged along the spiral gas flow path; because Hendrix teaches this structure is capable of generating a large volume of reagent vapor for a batch of wafers or other objects, rather than for a single wafer or object (See Hendrix, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8-16, 97-104, 112, 115-116, 127-131, 136, 139-145, and Figs. 1,10-11, 29.)
Regarding claim 9, the reference application does not explicitly teach a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves.
Suzuki teaches a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 52, 55, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of through-holes are formed in the cylindrical sidewall of the first member along a circumferential direction at a height corresponding to a lowermost shelf among the plurality of shelves; because Suzuki teaches this structure enables the flow of the gas over the precursor in the desired direction. (See Suzuki, Abstract, paragraphs 10, 51-52, 55, 58, and 60; and Figs.3-6.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-10, 14, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US 20060112883 A1 to Suzuki et al (hereinafter Suzuki) is being used to address the limitations added to claim 9 in a first set of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20100255198 A1 to Cleary et al teaches projections disposed in a spiral assembly in a sublimator or vaporizer. (See Cleary, paragraph 194, and Fig. 9.)
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights