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 Amendment
The amendment and remarks filed 09/04/2025 are noted with appreciation.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/24/2025.
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/24/2025.
New claim 21 is grouped with the originally elected invention and species. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 21 are considered on the merits in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, set forth at ¶¶ 7-18 in the non-final Office action mailed 06/09/2025 (“non-final action”), has/have been considered in view of the amendment and is/are withdrawn.
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to require “wherein providing the first reaction chamber exclusive to the resource comprises providing control signals to one or more valves of the reactor system.” Specifically reciting “providing control signals to one or more valves of the reactor system” ties the mental process judicial exception to the specific elements of the apparatus that implements the steps of the method, thereby imposing meaningful limits on the claims. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Moreover, Applicant points to the instant disclosure which describes the method as avoiding cross-contamination or pressure disruption at [0047]-[0049], which is a disclosure of an improvement to the technology or technological field. See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Sep. 26, 2025, Appeal Review Panel Decision) (precedential) (claims directed to an improvement in the technology itself or a technical field are not directed to a judicial exception); MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, set forth at ¶¶ 19-35 in the non-final action, is/are maintained in view of the amendment.
Independent claim 1, as amended, now lists three determination steps:
(i) a first determination that providing a first reaction chamber access to a resource of a reactor system requires that the first reaction chamber have exclusive access to the resource;
(ii) a second determination that a second reaction chamber requires access to the resource; and
(iii) after . . . the second determination, a third determination that the second reaction chamber no longer requires access to the resource.
The prima facie case of record, established by US ‘745 in view of US ‘507, holds that it would have been obvious to have (a) used PCL-based control of US ‘745 on a multi-chamber vapor deposition system such as that of US ‘507, and/or (b) controlled the process of US ‘507 by PCL-based programming such as that of US ‘745. Specifically, US ‘507 teaches programming what is essentially a “bespoke” program for vapor deposition: “For example, a process engineer might decide that purging a wafer from a particular module requires a control program and parameter set that are different from that normally used by process recipes” [5:35-38]. In other words, if a particular bespoke recipe requires that one processing chamber be pumped-out (first determination), but another chamber not be, then both chambers need access to the pump in general (second determination), but the determination must be made that only the first chamber has need of the pump in the instant recipe (third determination), resulting in opening the valve to only the first chamber to be pumped out.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0127745 A1 in view of US 6,560,507 A.
Claim 1
US ‘745 teaches, in an atomic layer deposition process (ALD), using a system control computer 18 and a programmable logic controller (PLC) 20 to control operation of the processing chamber 14. The computer 18 controls process and purge gas valve control, as well as, e.g., heaters, lifts, pumps, and valves such as exhaust valves. See [0021-0022]. “In operation, the . . . computer 18 controls . . . functions such as loading a wafer for processing in the chamber 14, positioning the wafer at an appropriate place in the chamber 14 for processing, and pumping out the chamber 14. At a time when the chamber 14 is ready to perform an [ALD] process . . . the PLC 20 outputs command signals to the valves 12 . . . to selectively open and close the valves 12, and thereby to selectively expose the wafer to in the processing chamber 14 to gases from gas source 16.
Here, in US ‘745 the system control computer initiates the ALD process via the PLC. This reads on making, via one or more processors, a first determination that providing a first reaction chamber (chamber 14) access to a resource (process gas, purge gas, pumping, and exhaust) of the reactor system requires that the first reaction chamber have exclusive access to the resource (i.e., the PLC determines that x process is to be carried out in the chamber, requiring y resource – e.g., layer deposition requires process gas, purging requires purge gas, etc.).
US ‘745 does not teach that there is more than one reaction chamber, but nothing in the reference indicates that the system control computer or PLC is limited to operating an ALD apparatus consisting of a single processing chamber. Consequently, the Primary Examiner declines to so limit US ‘745.
US ‘507 teaches vapor deposition carried out in a wafer processing system having multiple modules wherein a recipe including information for what all of the modules are to be doing is carried out, e.g., by a program running on a computer. See abstract and 3:31-41. The function performed by each module can be carried out independently (e.g., special programs can be run for individual modules). See 5:28-53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have (1) used PCL-based control of US ‘745 on a multi-chamber vapor deposition system such as that of US ‘507 and/or (2) controlled the process of US ‘507 by PLC-based programming such as that of US ‘745. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully carrying out a desired process in a desired chamber rapidly with minimal refresh time. See US ‘745 at [0034].
Such a combination would include a second chamber’s not requiring the resource. In other words, in a multi-chamber system in which a first process gas is used to deposit a first layer in a first chamber, and a second process gas is used to deposit a different layer in a second chamber, the PLC would control the opening of a valve to supply the first process gas to the first chamber and the opening of a valve to supply the second process gas to the second chamber. Implicit in this control is the determination that the second process gas is not required in the first chamber and/or the second process gas is not required in the first chamber. This reads on the claimed making, via one or more processors, a second determination that a second reaction chamber does not require access to the resource and providing the first reaction chamber exclusive access to the resource in response to making the second determination.
In the alternative, as noted above, US ‘507 teaches programming what is essentially a “bespoke” program for vapor deposition: “For example, a process engineer might decide that purging a wafer from a particular module requires a control program and parameter set that are different from that normally used by process recipes” [5:35-38]. In other words, if a particular bespoke recipe requires that one processing chamber be pumped-out (first determination), but another chamber not be, then both chambers need access to the pump in general (second determination), but the determination must be made that only the first chamber has need of the pump in the instant recipe (third determination), resulting in opening the valve to only the first chamber to be pumped out.
Finally, US ‘745 teaches, at a time when the chamber 14 is ready to perform an [ALD] process . . . the PLC 20 outputs command signals to the valves 12 . . . to selectively open and close the valves 12, and thereby to selectively expose the wafer to in the processing chamber 14 to gases from gas source 16. See [0027].
Claim 4
As noted above, US ‘745 teaches that the PLC can control pumping. Consequently, the recipe executed by the PLC in the combination of US ‘745 in view of US ‘507 would be inclusive of such pumping as an action to be taken (i.e., a resource to be provided) in a particular chamber.
Claim 8
As noted above, US ‘745 teaches that the PLC can control pumping. Consequently, the recipe executed by the PLC in the combination of US ‘745 in view of US ‘507 would be inclusive of such pumping as an action to be taken (i.e., a resource to be provided) in a particular chamber.
Claim 10
As noted above, US ‘745 teaches, at a time when the chamber 14 is ready to perform an [ALD] process . . . the PLC 20 outputs command signals to the valves 12 . . . to selectively open and close the valves 12, and thereby to selectively expose the wafer to in the processing chamber 14 to gases from gas source 16. See [0027].
Claim 12
As noted above, US ‘745 teaches, at a time when the chamber 14 is ready to perform an [ALD] process . . . the PLC 20 outputs command signals to the valves 12 . . . to selectively open and close the valves 12, and thereby to selectively expose the wafer to in the processing chamber 14 to gases from gas source 16. See [0027].
Claim 13
Again here, the combination of US ‘745 in view of US ‘507 includes the allocation of resources according to the particular recipe and inherently requires a determination’s being made about which resources need to be apportioned to which chamber.
Claim 21
This claim recites identifying the state of the reactor system at the time of making the determination. This step is inherent in determining whether to allocate a resource. For example, in order to know whether to open or close a valve, it must be determined whether the valve is, in fact, open or closed.
Conclusion
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 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 WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
10 December 2025
Prosecution Insights