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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 have been amended
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds, wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and a fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds, wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead.”
Regarding Claims 8-12:
Claims 8-12 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds, wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and a fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds, wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsung et al. (US 20150184287) in view of Won et al. (US 20060156980) and Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), with Potts et al. (US 4772296) as evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Tsung teaches a gas feed system (section 700) for supplying process gases to a process chamber for an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, comprising: a central gas feed (fluid conduit 702) configured to deliver the process gases throughout a showerhead (showerhead portion 730) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0056]; wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead (fluid conduit 702 supplies an inert gas to the showerhead portion 703) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Tsung does not specifically disclose the central gas feed having: a first manifold; a second manifold; a third manifold; a fourth manifold; and a feed line connecting to the fourth manifold; wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds.
Won teaches the central gas feed (gas supply pipe 126a) having: a first manifold (3-way valve 132); a second manifold (3-way valve 134); a third manifold (3-way valve 234); a fourth manifold (4-way valve 154), and a feed line (first carrier gas supply pipe 126a) connecting to the fourth manifold; wherein a plurality of segments (the gas pipe segments between the respective 3-way and 4-way valves) connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold (the 3-way and 4-way valves, as previously annotated) [Fig. 12-15 & 0060, 0063, 0079, 0089].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Won to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve purge efficiency, decrease gas stagnation, provide further control over gas flows [Won - 0040, 0113-115].
Additionally/alternatively, Ishikawa teaches the central gas feed (the gas line where flow controller 309 is disposed) having a manifold (outer mixing chamber 401) [Fig. 4 & 0036, 0040].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Tsung to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve gas mixing and film morphology [Ishikawa - 0034, 0042]. It is noted that utilizing a mixing chamber at each of the junctions of Tsung would be a mere duplication of parts [See MPEP 2144.04 VI B]. Potts et al. (US 4772296) also discloses that utilizing a mixing manifold helps components be more thoroughly combined [Potts - Col. 10 lines 8-18]
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds." If the gas junction of Tsung were to each have a manifold in a manner similar to the junctions of Won, the valves 704 of Tsung would then be fluidly connected to respective manifolds.
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to deliver the process gases throughout a showerhead, enabling delivery of an ALD precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of a fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an inhibition or passivation gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an oxidizer gas into the central gas feed; the feed line enabling delivery of an inert gas into the central gas feed; wherein delivery of the inhibition or passivation gas via the third manifold into the central gas feed is independent of delivery of the ALD precursor gas via the first manifold into the central gas feed, and independent of delivery of the oxidizer gas via the fourth manifold into the central gas feed,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a fluid line is capable of supplying any fluid (Won also discloses that more than two source supply lines can be used) [Won – 0087, 0109]. Furthermore, the gas feed system (section 700) of Tsung would be capable supplying gases to a whole showerhead without partitions [Tsung - 0056]. It is also noted that each of the inlets of Tsung comprises a valve 704, and as such, the gas feed system would be capable of isolating each gas from each other [Tsung – Fig. 7 & 0056].
Regarding Claim 2:
Tsung does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of segments in the central gas feed includes: a first segment connecting between the first manifold and the showerhead; a second segment connecting between the second manifold and the first manifold; a third segment connecting between the third manifold and the second manifold; and a fourth segment connecting between the fourth manifold and the third manifold.
Won teaches a first segment connecting between the first manifold and the showerhead;
a second segment connecting between the second manifold and the first manifold; a third segment connecting between the third manifold and the second manifold; and a fourth segment connecting between the fourth manifold and the third manifold (the first to fourth segments are the respective gas line segments between the respective 3-way and 4-way valves) [Fig. 12-15 & 0060, 0063, 0079, 0089].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Won to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve purge efficiency, decrease gas stagnation, provide further control over gas flows [Won - 0040, 0113-115].
Regarding Claim 3:
Tsung teaches a first valve (the valve 704 present on the line that reactant 1 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056]; a second valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 2 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7); a third valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 3 is feeding); a fourth valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 4 is feeding); and a fifth valve (the valve 704 present on the line that inert gas source 706 is feeding) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Furthermore, the limitations “that controls the delivery of the ALD precursor gas to the first manifold; that controls the delivery of the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the second manifold; that controls the delivery of the inhibition or passivation gas to the third manifold; that controls the delivery of the oxidizer gas to the fourth manifold; that controls the delivery of the inert gas to the feed line,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a valve on a fluid line is capable of controlling the flow of whatever fluid is flowing through the line.
Regarding Claim 4:
Tsung teaches a second feed line (the gas line that inert gas source 708 is feeding) connecting to the first manifold; a sixth valve (the valves 704 present on the gas line that inert gas source 708 is feeding) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the first valve controls the delivery of the ALD precursor into the second feed line; that controls delivery of the inert gas into the second feed line, wherein the delivery of the inert gas into the second feed line configured to purge the second feed line following the delivery of the ALD precursor into the second feed line,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a valve on a fluid line is capable of controlling the flow of whatever fluid is flowing through the line.
Regarding Claim 5:
Tsung teaches a controller that controls operation of the plurality of valves (the controller 438 is in operable communication with the fluid supply system 436; controller 438 controls the flow of processing fluids. The fluid conduits 702 and the valves 704 are configurable to selectively place the showerhead portion 730 in fluid communication with the various fluid sources) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0047-0050, 0055-0056].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsung et al. (US 20150184287) in view of Won et al. (US 20060156980) and Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), with Potts et al. (US 4772296) as evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of McSwiney et al. (US 20050163927) and Ahn et al. (US 20030201540).
The limitations of claims 1-5 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Tsung teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of valves to enable performing a gap fill process on a substrate, including: (a) delivering the ALD precursor gas and the oxidizer gas to the process chamber, to enable consecutively perform a plurality of cycles of an ALD process (multiple ALD cycles and processes are performed; the fluid supply system 436 supplies appropriate processing fluids such as precursors and oxidants) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0048, 0059-0061]; (b) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the ALD process from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Fig. 7 & 0056], (d) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the plasma treatment from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Tsung - Fig. 7 & 0056].
Modified Tsung does not specifically disclose (c) delivering the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the process chamber, to enable generating a fluorine plasma to perform a plasma treatment on the substrate.
McSwiney teaches delivering the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the process chamber, to enable generating a fluorine plasma to perform a plasma treatment on the substrate (the silicon precursor source may be a cyclodisilazane derivative with fluorine substitutions) [Fig. 3B-3D & 0026].
McSwiney discloses that precursor choice is a result effective variable. Specifically, the choice of precursor can be adjusted to obtain a desired film on a substrate [McSwiney - 0023]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an appropriate precursor in order to obtain a desired film on a substrate [McSwiney - 0023, 0026]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Tsung does not specifically disclose (e) repeating, in order, operations (a) through (d) until a predefined plurality of cycles of operations (a) through (d) has been performed.
Ahn teaches (e) repeating, in order, operations (a) through (d) until a predefined plurality of cycles of operations (a) through (d) has been performed (a predetermined number of cycles for depositing the BN monolayer are repeated sequentially to obtain a BN thin film) [Fig. 1 & 0049].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Tsung to repeat its ALD cycle, as in Ahn, to obtain a desired film thickness [Ahn - 0049].
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsung et al. (US 20150184287) in view of Won et al. (US 20060156980) and Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), with Potts et al. (US 4772296) as evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 7:
Tsung teaches a gas feed system for supplying process gases to a process chamber for an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, comprising: a central gas feed (fluid conduit 702) configured to deliver the process gases to a showerhead (showerhead portion 730) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0056], and a feed line (the line that inert gas source 706 feeds) connecting to a fourth valve (valve 704) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Tsung does not specifically disclose the central gas feed having: a first manifold; a second manifold; a third manifold; wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds.
Won teaches the central gas feed (gas supply pipe 126a) having: a first manifold (3-way valve 132); a second manifold (3-way valve 134); a third manifold (3-way valve 234); wherein a plurality of segments (the gas pipe segments between the respective 3-way and 4-way valves) connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold (the 3-way valves as previously annotated), and the fourth manifold (4-way valve 154) [Fig. 12-15 & 0060, 0063, 0079, 0089].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Won to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve purge efficiency, decrease gas stagnation, provide further control over gas flows [Won - 0040, 0113-115].
Additionally/alternatively, Ishikawa teaches the central gas feed (the gas line where flow controller 309 is disposed) having a manifold (outer mixing chamber 401) [Fig. 4 & 0036, 0040].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Tsung to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve gas mixing and film morphology [Ishikawa - 0034, 0042]. It is noted that utilizing a mixing chamber at each of the junctions of Tsung would be a mere duplication of parts [See MPEP 2144.04 VI B]. Potts et al. (US 4772296) also discloses that utilizing a mixing manifold helps components be more thoroughly combined [Potts - Col. 10 lines 8-18]
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds." If the gas junction of Tsung were to each have a manifold in a manner similar to the junctions of Won, the valves 704 of Tsung would then be fluidly connected to respective manifolds.
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to deliver the process gases throughout a showerhead, enabling delivery of an ALD precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of a fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an inhibition or passivation gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an oxidizer gas into the central gas feed; the feed line enabling delivery of an inert gas into the central gas feed; wherein delivery of the inhibition or passivation gas via the third manifold into the central gas feed is independent of delivery of the ALD precursor gas via the first manifold into the central gas feed, and independent of delivery of the oxidizer gas via the fourth manifold into the central gas feed,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a fluid line is capable of supplying any fluid (Won also discloses that more than two source supply lines can be used) [Won – 0087, 0109]. Furthermore, the gas feed system (section 700) of Tsung would be capable supplying gases to a whole showerhead without partitions [Tsung - 0056]. It is also noted that each of the inlets of Tsung comprises a valve 704, and as such, the gas feed system would be capable of isolating each gas from each other [Tsung – Fig. 7 & 0056].
Regarding Claim 8:
Tsung does not specifically disclose a first segment connecting between the first manifold and the showerhead; a second segment connecting between the second manifold and the first manifold;
and a third segment connecting between the third manifold and the second manifold.
Won teaches a first segment connecting between the first manifold and the showerhead; a second segment connecting between the second manifold and the first manifold; a third segment connecting between the third manifold and the second manifold.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Won to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve purge efficiency, decrease gas stagnation, provide further control over gas flows [Won - 0040, 0113-115].
Regarding Claim 9:
Tsung teaches a first valve (the valve 704 present on the line that reactant 1 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056]; a second valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 2 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7), a third valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 4 is feeding); and the fourth valve (the valve 704 present on the line that inert gas source 706 is feeding) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Furthermore, the limitations “that controls the delivery of the ALD precursor gas to the first manifold; that controls the delivery of the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the second manifold; that controls the delivery of the oxidizer gas to the fourth manifold; that controls the delivery of the inert gas to the feed line,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a valve on a fluid line is capable of controlling the flow of whatever fluid is flowing through the line.
Regarding Claim 10:
Tsung teaches a second feed line (the gas line that inert gas source 708 is feeding) connecting to the first manifold; and a fifth valve (the valves 704 present on the gas line that inert gas source 708 is feeding) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the first valve controls the delivery of the ALD precursor into the second feed line; that controls delivery of the inert gas into the second feed line, wherein the delivery of the inert gas into the second feed line configured to purge the second feed line following the delivery of the ALD precursor into the second feed line.” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a valve on a fluid line is capable of controlling the flow of whatever fluid is flowing through the line.
Regarding Claim 11:
Tsung teaches a controller that controls operation of the plurality of valves (the controller 438 is in operable communication with the fluid supply system 436; controller 438 controls the flow of processing fluids. The fluid conduits 702 and the valves 704 are configurable to selectively place the showerhead portion 730 in fluid communication with the various fluid sources) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0047-0050, 0055-0056].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsung et al. (US 20150184287) in view of Won et al. (US 20060156980) and Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), with Potts et al. (US 4772296) as evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 7-11 above, and further in view of McSwiney et al. (US 20050163927) and Ahn et al. (US 20030201540).
The limitations of claims 7-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Tsung teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of valves to enable performing a gap fill process on a substrate, including: (a) delivering the ALD precursor gas and the oxidizer gas to the process chamber, to enable consecutively perform a plurality of cycles of an ALD process (multiple ALD cycles and processes are performed; the fluid supply system 436 supplies appropriate processing fluids such as precursors and oxidants) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0048, 0059-0061]; (b) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the ALD process from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Fig. 7 & 0056]; (d) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the plasma treatment from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Tsung - Fig. 7 & 0056].
Modified Tsung does not specifically disclose (c) delivering the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the process chamber, to enable generating a fluorine plasma to perform a plasma treatment on the substrate.
McSwiney teaches delivering the fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas to the process chamber, to enable generating a fluorine plasma to perform a plasma treatment on the substrate (the silicon precursor source may be a cyclodisilazane derivative with fluorine substitutions) [Fig. 3B-3D & 0026].
McSwiney discloses that precursor choice is a result effective variable. Specifically, the choice of precursor can be adjusted to obtain a desired film on a substrate [McSwiney - 0023]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an appropriate precursor in order to obtain a desired film on a substrate [McSwiney - 0023, 0026]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Tsung does not specifically disclose (e) repeating, in order, operations (a) through (d) until a predefined plurality of cycles of operations (a) through (d) has been performed.
Ahn teaches (e) repeating, in order, operations (a) through (d) until a predefined plurality of cycles of operations (a) through (d) has been performed (a predetermined number of cycles for depositing the BN monolayer are repeated sequentially to obtain a BN thin film) [Fig. 1 & 0049].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Tsung to repeat its ALD cycle, as in Ahn, to obtain a desired film thickness [Ahn - 0049].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsung et al. (US 20150184287) in view of Won et al. (US 20060156980), Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), McSwiney et al. (US 20050163927) and Ahn et al. (US 20030201540), with Potts et al. (US 4772296) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 13:
Tsung teaches a gas feed system (section 700) for supplying process gases to a process chamber for an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, comprising: a central gas feed (fluid conduit 702) configured to deliver the process gases throughout a showerhead (showerhead portion 730) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0056]; wherein the central gas feed provides a single source for delivering the process gases to the showerhead (fluid conduit 702 supplies an inert gas to the showerhead portion 703) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056]; a first valve (the valve 704 present on the line that reactant 1 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056]; a second valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 2 is feeding; valves 704 are present in all processing fluid lines, as evidenced by Fig. 7); a third valve (the valve 704 present on the line that precursor 4 is feeding); the fourth valve (the valve 704 present on the line that inert gas source 706 is feeding) [Fig. 7 & 0020, 0055-0056]; a controller that controls operation of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth valves (the controller 438 is in operable communication with the fluid supply system 436; controller 438 controls the flow of processing fluids. The fluid conduits 702 and the valves 704 are configurable to selectively place the showerhead portion 730 in fluid communication with the various fluid sources) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0047-0050, 0055-0056], wherein the controller is configured to control said valves to enable performing a gap fill process on a substrate, including: (a) delivering the ALD precursor gas and the oxidizer gas to the process chamber, to enable consecutively perform a plurality of cycles of an ALD process (multiple ALD cycles and processes are performed; the fluid supply system 436 supplies appropriate processing fluids such as precursors and oxidants) [Fig. 4, 7 & 0048, 0059-0061]; (b) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the ALD process from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Fig. 7 & 0056]; (d) delivering the inert gas to the process chamber to enable purging process gases from the plasma treatment from the process chamber (inert gas sources 706, 726, 728, or 708 can be used to feed inert gas into the chamber) [Fig. 7 & 0056].
Tsung does not specifically disclose the central gas feed having: a first manifold; a second manifold; a third manifold; wherein a plurality of segments connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold, and the fourth manifold, wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds.
Won teaches the central gas feed (gas supply pipe 126a) having: a first manifold (3-way valve 132); a second manifold (3-way valve 134); a third manifold (3-way valve 234); wherein a plurality of segments (the gas pipe segments between the respective 3-way and 4-way valves) connect a plurality of manifolds, wherein the plurality of manifolds includes the first manifold, the second manifold, the third manifold (the 3-way valves as previously annotated), and the fourth manifold (4-way valve 154) [Fig. 12-15 & 0060, 0063, 0079, 0089].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Won to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve purge efficiency, decrease gas stagnation, provide further control over gas flows [Won - 0040, 0113-115].
Additionally/alternatively, Ishikawa teaches the central gas feed (the gas line where flow controller 309 is disposed) having a manifold (outer mixing chamber 401) [Fig. 4 & 0036, 0040].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each gas junction of the central gas feed of Tsung to each have a manifold, as in Ishikawa, to improve gas mixing and film morphology [Ishikawa - 0034, 0042]. It is noted that utilizing a mixing chamber at each of the junctions of Tsung would be a mere duplication of parts [See MPEP 2144.04 VI B]. Potts et al. (US 4772296) also discloses that utilizing a mixing manifold helps components be more thoroughly combined [Potts - Col. 10 lines 8-18]
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein a plurality of valves is configured for delivery of gases to the plurality of manifolds." If the gas junction of Tsung were to each have a manifold in a manner similar to the junctions of Won, the valves 704 of Tsung would then be fluidly connected to respective manifolds.
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to deliver the process gases throughout a showerhead, enabling delivery of an ALD precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of a fluorine-containing plasma precursor gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an inhibition or passivation gas into the central gas feed; enabling delivery of an oxidizer gas into the central gas feed; the feed line enabling delivery of an inert gas into the central gas feed; wherein delivery of the inhibition or passivation gas via the third manifold into the central gas feed is independent of delivery of the ALD precursor gas via the first manifold into the central gas feed, and independent of delivery of the oxidizer gas via the fourth manifold into the central gas feed,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a fluid line is capable of supplying any fluid (Won also discloses that more than two source supply lines can be used) [Won – 0087, 0109]. Furthermore, the gas feed system (section 700) of Tsung would be capable supplying gases to a whole showerhead without partitions [Tsung - 0056]. It is also noted that each of the inlets of Tsung comprises a valve 704, and as such, the gas feed system would be capable of isolating each gas from each other [Tsung – Fig. 7 & 0056].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered but and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 112a has been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 USC 112b has been set forth herein in light of the amendments.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, a new rejection under 35 USC 103 has been set forth above. As such, the applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103 are now moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Won et al. (US 20060156980), Ishikawa et al. (US 20070259112), and Potts et al. (US 4772296) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718