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 and 3-7 are pending
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Claims 4-7 has been added
Claim 1 has been amended
Claim 7 has been withdrawn
Election by Original Presentation
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1 and 3-6 drawn to an ALD apparatus, classified in C23C16/45565.
Claim 7 drawn to a method for forming an oxide film, classified in H10P14/6339.
Newly submitted claim 7 is directed to an invention (Invention II – Method) that is independent or distinct from the invention (Invention I – Apparatus) originally claimed for the following reasons:
Invention II and Invention I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus of Invention I could be used to perform another method, such as a cleaning method, etching, or CVD. The method of Invention II could also be performed by another materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus comprising more than two sets of holes,
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 7 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (US 20110073038) in view of Tsuda (US 20100272895) and Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447), with Baluja et al. (US 20140053866) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Chien teaches an atomic layer deposition apparatus (apparatus of Fig. 11), wherein the atomic layer deposition apparatus comprises: a vacuum container (process chamber 3) equipped with the processing substrate (substrate 31); and a shower head (gas distribution plate 40) provided to be opposed to a processing surface of the processing substrate, wherein the shower head has at least a set of first holes (first openings 4010), and a set of second holes (second opening 404), wherein the set of first holes is equidistantly aligned in two first directions that are perpendicular to each other along the processing surface, the set of first holes being arranged in a first rectangular lattice shape (as evidenced by Fig. 10A and 11, the first openings 4010 are equidistantly aligned in two first directions),wherein the set of second holes is at a position that is displaced from the set of first holes along the processing surface, the set of second holes being equidistantly aligned in two second directions that are respectively parallel with the first two directions and being arranged in a second rectangular lattice shape, and wherein, the two first directions are respectively offset from and non-collinear with the two second directions (as evidenced by Fig. 10A and 11, the second openings 404 are equidistantly aligned at two second directions and are off set from the first openings 4010) [Fig. 10A-B, 11 & 0038-0039].
Chien does not specifically disclose wherein a distance between a center of each hole of the set of first holes and a corresponding center of each hole of the set of second holes is in a range of about 0.7 mm to 71 mm.
Tsuda teaches wherein a distance between a center of each hole of the set of first holes and a corresponding center of each hole of the set of second holes is in a range of about 0.7 mm to 71 mm (the length l between each holes 51-53b is 7 mm. Furthermore, as evidenced by Figs. 5b and 10-11, the length l is taken between centers of the holes) [Fig. 1-4, 7, 10 & 0075, 0091, 0121, 0131, 0135].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2144.05(I)]. It's further noted that Tsuda discloses that the distance between holes is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the distance between gas holes affect film characteristics [Tsuda - 0122, 0124]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum spacing between gas holes to obtain desired film characteristics. 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. Baluja et al. (US 20140053866) also discloses that the distances between gas holes can be adjusted to affect gas conductance [Baluja - 0024].
Furthermore, the limitations “for forming an oxide film on a processing substrate, the apparatus configured to supply to the processing substrate a source gas that contains an element constituting the oxide film, thereby forming an adsorbed layer of the source gas on a surface of the processing substrate, in a source gas supplying step; after the source gas supplying step, purge an excess gas of the source gas supplied in the source gas supplying step and a gas generated by an adsorption of the source gas onto the processing substrate, in a source gas purging step; after the source gas purging step, supply an ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater and an unsaturated hydrocarbon gas to the processing substrate formed thereon with the adsorbed layer of the source gas, thereby oxidizing the adsorbed layer adsorbed onto the processing substrate, in an oxidizing agent supplying step; after the oxidizing agent supplying step, purge an excess gas of the ozone gas and the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas, which are supplied in the oxidizing agent supplying step, and a gas generated by oxidizing the adsorbed layer of the source gas, in an oxidizing agent purging step; wherein at least one of the source gas purging step are carried out by introducing the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas into a vacuum container equipped with the processing substrate, wherein the atomic layer deposition apparatus is configured to repeat at least one cycle of the source gas supplying step, the source gas purging step, the oxidizing agent supplying step, and the oxidizing agent purging step, wherein the atomic layer deposition apparatus is configured to carry out at least one of supplying the source gas or supplying the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas together with supplying a carrier gas, and wherein supplying the carrier gas comprises, a first step of supplying the carrier gas at a predetermined flow rate, and a second step of resuming supplying the carrier gas at a flow rate that is higher than that of the first step, after supplying the carrier gas by the first step is stopped, to blow an ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater, to blow an unsaturated hydrocarbon gas, wherein a source gas that contains an element constituting the oxide film is supplied into the vacuum container, thereby forming an adsorbed layer of the source gas on a surface of the processing substrate, and wherein at least the ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater and the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas are supplied from the shower head to the processing surface of the processing substrate, thereby oxidizing the adsorbed layer,” 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 further noted that a gas supply source is capable of supplying any desired gas. Furthermore, Chien comprises two separate gas sources (first gas source 42 and second gas source 43), and as such, would be capable of supplying any type of gas through their respective injection holes. Tsuda discloses that it would be beneficial to include gas flow control for respective gas sources so that supply rates of gases can be controlled [Tsuda – 0117, 0141].
Additionally/alternatively, Panagopoulos discloses that it would be beneficial to have multiple controllable gas sources in order to have finer control over gas flow uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0019, 0021, 0024, 0029, 0052]. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the gas sources of Modified Chien to have finer control over gas flow uniformity. Therefore, the combination of references would result in an apparatus that is capable of performing the aforementioned intended use (control over gas flows would allow Modified Chien to perform purging or oxidizing steps in any sequence desired to form any respective film or layer).
Regarding Claim 3:
Chien teaches wherein a second hole of the second set of holes is positioned on a face center side of the first rectangular lattice shape (as evidenced by Fig. 10A, the second openings 404 have at least one hole located in a center region of the gas distribution late 40), and a first hole of the first set of holes is positioned on a face center side of the second rectangular lattice shape (as evidenced by Fig. 10A, the first openings 4010 have at least one hole located in a center region of the gas distribution late 40) [Fig. 10A-B, 11 & 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 6:
Chien teaches wherein the shower head is provided in a lid covering an opening of the vacuum container (gas distribution plate 40 along with first frame 410 and second frame 411, make up the lid of the process chamber 3) [Fig. 10A-B, 11 & 0038-0039].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (US 20110073038) in view of Tsuda (US 20100272895) and Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447), with Baluja et al. (US 20140053866) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Lam et al. (US 20100003406), with Ohkawa (US 5225740) and Dekempeneer et al. (US 20090114529) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Chien does not specifically disclose wherein the shower head comprises quartz glass.
Lam teaches wherein the shower head comprises quartz glass (showerhead assembly 600 and/or showerhead plate 602 may contain or be formed from a material such as quartz, ceramic, fused quartz, sapphire, pyrolytic boron nitrite (PBN) material, glass, silicate materials, silica materials, alumina materials, zirconia materials, alloys thereof, derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof) [Fig. 6A & 0062].
It would have been obvious to modify the showerhead of Modified Chien to comprise quartz glass, since Lam discloses that such is a suitable material for a showerhead [Lam - 0062]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Ohkawa (US 5225740) and Dekempeneer et al. (US 20090114529) disclose that fused quartz is a quartz glass [Ohkawa - Col. 8 lines 20-25; Dekempeneer - 0026].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (US 20110073038) in view of Tsuda (US 20100272895) and Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447), with Baluja et al. (US 20140053866) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Takeshita et al. (US 20060091104), with Tang et al. (US 20080050922) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Chien does not specifically disclose wherein the shower head comprises SiC.
Takeshita teaches wherein the shower head comprises SiC (the upper electrode 104 is a showerhead electrode comprising silicon carbide [Fig. 5 & 0034].
It would have been obvious to modify the showerhead of Modified Chien to comprise silicon carbide, since Takeshita discloses that such is a suitable material for a showerhead [Takeshita - 0062]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Tang et al. (US 20080050922) also discloses a silicon carbide showerhead [Tang - 0024].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the shower head has at least a set of first holes to blow an ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater, and a set of second holes to blow an unsaturated hydrocarbon gas…and wherein at least the ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater and the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas are supplied from the shower head to the processing surface of the processing substrate, thereby oxidizing the adsorbed layer,” because the applicant does not consider the limitations “to blow an ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater, and a set of second holes to blow an unsaturated hydrocarbon gas…and wherein at least the ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater and the unsaturated hydrocarbon gas are supplied from the shower head to the processing surface of the processing substrate, thereby oxidizing the adsorbed layer,” as intended use.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as claim 1 as it is currently written fails to disclose a physical, structural gas source comprising the claimed gases. Currently, it merely discloses that the apparatus is “configured to supply to the processing substrate a source gas…..supply an ozone gas of 20 volume % or greater.” As such, the source gas and ozone gas are not structural elements of the claim, but rather, intended results of the positively recited structural elements of the claims. In this case, the structural elements of the claim are “an atomic layer deposition apparatus, wherein the atomic layer deposition apparatus comprises: a vacuum container equipped with the processing substrate; and a shower head provided to be opposed to a processing surface of the processing substrate, wherein the shower head has at least a set of first holes, and a set of second holes, wherein a distance between a center of each hole of the set of first holes and a corresponding center of each hole of the set of second holes is in a range of about 0.7 mm to 71 mm, wherein the set of first holes is equidistantly aligned in two first directions that are perpendicular to each other along the processing surface, the set of first holes being arranged in a first rectangular lattice shape, wherein the set of second holes is at a position that is displaced from the set of first holes along the processing surface, the set of second holes being equidistantly aligned in two second directions that are respectively parallel with the first two directions and being arranged in a second rectangular lattice shape, and wherein, the two first directions are respectively offset from and non-collinear with the two second directions.”
As shown in the rejection above, Chien et al. (US 20110073038) in view of Tsuda (US 20100272895) and Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447) discloses all the structural elements of the claim as it is currently written, and as such, they read upon the limitations of the claim. 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 further noted that a gas supply source is capable of supplying any desired gas. Furthermore, Chien comprises two separate gas sources (first gas source 42 and second gas source 43), and as such, would be capable of supplying any type of gas through their respective injection holes. Tsuda discloses that it would be beneficial to include gas flow control for respective gas sources so that supply rates of gases can be controlled [Tsuda – 0117, 0141].
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. It is also important to note that while the examiner appreciates the applicant’s description as to the importance of the intended use, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the shower head comprises quartz glass, wherein the shower head comprises SiC,” but this argument is now moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Lam et al. (US 20100003406), Ohkawa (US 5225740), Dekempeneer et al. (US 20090114529), and Takeshita et al. (US 20060091104), Tang et al. (US 20080050922) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose wherein the shower head is provided in a lid covering an opening of the vacuum container. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, there is no further structural description provided for the “lid” in the current claim 6. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could broadly interpret “a lid.” As such, the gas distribution plate 40 along with first frame 410 and second frame 411 of Chien can be said to make up the lid of the process chamber 3 (it’s also noted that the three aforementioned structures are placed in an upper portion of the process chamber 3 and separate the interior of the process chamber 3 from the outside, thus serving as a lid for the process chamber 3) [Fig. 11 & 0039].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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