DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 25, 2025 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 25, 2025 was received. Claims 8-11 and 18 are now canceled. Claims 1, 6, 13-14, 17 and 20 were amended. Claims 21-22 were added
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued March 6, 2025.
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:
first flow measurement device in claims 1, 14 and 20;
second flow measurement device in claim 1, 14 and 20.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on claims 1-7, 10-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn because the claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Collins on claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12-13 and 20 are withdrawn because claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, Collins and Yagi on claims 2, 6, 10-11, 14-17 and 19 are withdrawn because claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-7, 12-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2014/0209021) in view of Collins (US 2017/0335450) and Ganguli (US 2004/0015300).
In regards to claims 1, 7, 13-16 and 19-20, Inoue teaches a film forming apparatus (100, semiconductor processing system) comprising:
a raw material container (3, source vessel) comprising a solid raw material (300, precursor) (fig. 1; para. 34-35);
a carrier gas supply unit (41, carrier gas source) (fig. 1; para. 34);
a mass flow controller (MFC-42) is connected to the carrier gas supply unit and to the raw material container, the mass flow controller (MFC-42) provides a flow rate control unit (carrier gas supply valve) which regulates a flow of the carrier gas and a thermal mass flow meter (MFM) (first flow measurement device), the mass flow controller (MFC-42) provides a flow rate measurement of the carrier gas supplied to the raw material container (fig. 1; para. 37-38, 47, 58, 69);
a mass flow meter (MFM-2) (second flow measurement device) is connected to an outlet of the raw material container, the mass flow meter (MFM-2) measures a flow of the carrier gas and a vaporized raw material from the raw material container (fig. 1-3; para. 39-45, 47-49);
an on/off valve-V1 (entrained gas supply valve) is downstream of the raw material container (fig. 1; para. 39);
a reaction chamber (11, process chamber) is connected to the mass flow meter (MFM-2), the reaction chamber receives wafers (W, substrates) (fig. 1; para. 32);
a control unit (5) comprises a flow rate calculation unit (51), where the control unit receives flow rate measurement value-Q3 from the mass flow meter (MFM-2) and flow rate measurement value-Q1 from the mass flow controller (MFC-42) each provide units of ‘sccm’ which is a volumetric unit of measure, and
the control unit calculate the difference value (Q3-Q1) based on the flow rate measurement values provided from the mass flow meter (MFM-2) (measured output flow) and the mass flow controller (MFC-42) (measured input flow) (fig. 1-2; para. 35, 41-42, 46, 48, 58-59).
Inoue teaches the control unit controls the mass flow controller (MFC-42) which controls the flow of carrier gas supplied to and out of the raw material container (fig. 1-3; para. 37, 58-60).
Inoue as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach
a supply control valve downstream of the entrained gas supply valve,
a control valve that pulses the vaporized precursor to the process chamber,
the controller has a process of calculate a total dose of the precursor delivered to the wafer based at least on a pulse width applied to the control valve for the process chamber and the volume flow rate of the vaporized precursor flow, and
an accumulator fluidly connected with the reaction chamber and the second flow measurement device.
However, Collins teaches a process gas dose valve-254 (supply control valve) which is provided between a process chamber (250) and vapor accumulation volume (203, accumulator). Collins teaches the process gas dose valve-254 and the vapor accumulation volume are provided downstream of a flow restrictor-262 of vaporizers (256) (fig. 1-2; para. 50-51, 56).
Collins teaches the process of atomic layer deposition involves pulses of reactants supplied to the chamber, where total amounts of vaporized reactant is based on the amount pulses of reactants and known vapor delivery rate (para. 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the process gas dose valve and vapor accumulation volume of Collins onto the film forming apparatus of Inoue, where the process gas dose valve and vapor accumulation volume would be positioned between the mass flow meter (MFM-2) and the reaction chamber because Collins teaches it will provide maintaining a constant overall flow rate of vaporized reactant and carrier gas (abstract).
Inoue and Collins as discussed, but do not explicitly teach calculate a total dose of the precursor delivered to a wafer based at least on a pulse width applied to a control valve for the process chamber and the volume flow rate of the vaporized precursor, monitor at least one of a remaining amount of the precursor in the source vessel or a deviation of the volume flow rate of the vaporized precursor, and issue an alarm when the remaining amount of the precursor is below a first predetermined value or when the deviation of the volume flow rate of the vaporized precursor is above a second predetermined value.
However, Ganguli teaches gas delivery system (120) which connects to a solid precursor delivery monitor (130) and a process chamber (110). Ganguli teaches valve-126 controls flow of a carrier gas to a vessel-124 which holds a precursor-122 and the valve-126 is controlled by a system controller (140) (fig. 1-2; para. 21-22).
Ganguli teaches a process where the mass flow rate of the precursor-122 calculated using the monitoring/measuring using information from the flow meter-134 of the solid precursor delivery monitor. Ganguli teaches the total mass of the precursor-122 delivered is calculated using the mass flow rate for the cycle by the cycle time (pulse width) (fig. 3; para. 33-49, 59-62). Ganguli teaches flow rate of the carrier gas is controlled after calculating/monitoring, in order to achieve the desired target mass flow rate (para. 60-62).
Ganguli teaches the remaining amount of the precursor-122 is calculated (monitored) using the information of total delivered to the process chamber and the initial amount. Ganguli teaches an alarm maybe outputted when the amount of precursor-122 remain falls below a threshold amount (fig. 3; para. 33-49, 59-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gas delivery system, solid precursor delivery monitor and the system controller of Ganguli onto the apparatus and controller of Inoue and Collins because Ganguli teaches it will reduce material waste and operating down time (para. 62).
In regards to claims 2 and 17, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Ganguli teaches the amount of precursor remaining is calculated (fig. 3; para. 42-44).
In regards to claim 3, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Inoue teaches the mass flow controller (MFC-42) (fig. 1; para. 37-38, 47, 58, 69).
In regards to claim 4, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Inoue teaches the mass flow meter (MFM-2) (fig. 1-3; para. 39-45, 47-49).
In regards to claim 5, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Inoue teaches the mass flow meter (MFM-2) is calibrated for the carrier gas and where the mass flow meter (MFM-2) is capable of being a high-temperature-compatible mass-flow meter since the mass flow material is exposed to the raw material which has been vaporized at temperature such as 250oC (fig. 1; para. 12, 35, 41).
In regards to claim 6, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Ganguli teaches the total amount of mass of the solid precursor to the process chamber is calculated/monitor (para. 40-42).
In regards to claim 12, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Inoue teaches a heating unit (31, heater) which heats the raw material container (fig. 1; para. 35).
In regards to claims 21-22, Inoue, Collins and Ganguli as discussed, where Ganguli teaches flow rate of the carrier gas is controlled after calculating/monitoring, in order to achieve the desired target mass flow rate (para. 60-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed September 25, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inoue, Collins and Ganguli.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717