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 (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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
The inert gas supply system in claims 13-15; and
The process gas supply system in claims 13-15.
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. Specifically:
The inert gas supply system is interpreted to be the first inert gas supply system 20 as described in Paragraphs 0028-0031 and Figure 1; and
The process gas supply system is interpreted to be the process gas supply system 30 as described in Paragraphs 0032-0035 and Figure 1.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation “hydrogen-containing gas” in claims: 1 and its dependent claims 23-26; 2; 4; 5; 13 and its dependent claims 14 and 15; and 16-22, is not supported by the specification. Hydrogen is used 3 times in the specification and it always refers to “a hydrogen gas”, which refers to hydrogen gas not a hydrogen-containing gas.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al, US 2009/0197424A1, in view of Mahajani, US 2007/0049053 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 16, and 24, Sakai et al teaches: a substrate processing apparatus 202 comprising: an inert gas supply system 22c,d-28c,d, Paragraph 0066 disposed in a process chamber 4 in which a substrate 10 is processed and configured to supply one or more inert gases (N2, Ar) to the substrate 10 in the process chamber; a process gas supply system 22a,b-28a,b configured to supply a mixed gas comprising an second inert gas and a process gas to the substrate in the process chamber; and a controller 240 configured to control the process gas supply system 22a,b-28a,b and the inert gas supply system 22c,d-28c,d, Paragraph 0066 to load a substrate into a process chamber (Figure 6, Paragraph 0045); and process the substrate by supplying a first inert gas (Ar, Paragraph 0068) to a peripheral portion of the substrate10 (Figure 3) and simultaneously supplying the mixed gas of the second inert gas (N2 Paragraph 0066) and the process gas (TEMAH gas) to a surface of the substrate 10 in the process chamber to process a wafer to manufacture a semiconductor device; wherein a concentration of the process gas at the peripheral portion of the substrate is adjusted by the first inert gas, and a concentration of the process gas at a central portion of the substrate is adjusted by the second inert gas.
Sakai et al differs from the present invention in that Sakai et al does not teach that the second inert gas (carrier gas) is a hydrogen-containing gas.
Mahajani teaches the use of nitrogen or hydrogen as a carrier gas for use with TEMAH (Paragraph 0026).
The motivation for replacing nitrogen with hydrogen as the carrier gas in the apparatus of Sakai et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent carrier gas for TEMAH as taught by Mahajani. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.). In this case, it would have been obvious to replace nitrogen carrier gas of Sakai et al with the hydrogen carrier gas of Mahajani.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace nitrogen with hydrogen as the carrier gas in the apparatus of Sakai et al as taught by Mahajani.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sakai et al and Mahajani teaches that the carrier gas is selected based on a process to be applied to the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, hydrogen has a diffusion coefficient different than that of the Ar gas.
Regarding claim 5, hydrogen has a diffusion coefficient greater than that of the Ar gas.
Regarding claim 14, Sakai et al teaches that the inert gas supply system and the process gas supply system 22a-d are provided at a predetermined distance apart in a circumferential direction of the substrate 10. (Figures 2-3)
Regarding claim 15, Sakai et al teaches the inert gas supply system 22c,d is disposed on each side of the process gas supply system 22a,b.
Regarding claim 17, the molecular weight of the hydrogen gas is different from a molecular weight of the Ar gas.
Regarding claim 18, the molecular weight of the hydrogen gas is smaller than the molecular weight of Ar gas.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum flow rates of the three gases by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum flow rates, such person would have been motivated to modify Sakai et al to include the optimum flow rate of the three gases.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, the relative flow rates of the three gases controls the uniformity of the gas distribution and the uniformity of the deposited layer. To that end, the relative flow rates of the three gases are result-effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sakai et al and Mahajani to include the claimed relative flow rates of the three gases.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sakai et al and Mahajani teach that the hydrogen-containing gas is selected based on a surface area of the substrate.
Regarding claim 22, Mahajani teaches that the hydrogen-containing gas comprises hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 23, both Sakai et al and Mahajani teach that the surface of the substrate comprises a laminate structure including predetermined layers or films.
Regarding claim 25, Sakai et al teaches that the process gas comprises a metal-containing gas including at least one of Hf or Zr. (Paragraph 0066)
Regarding claims 25, Mahajani teaches that the process gas comprises a metal-containing gas including at least one of Al or Hf. (Paragraph 0023)
Regarding claim 26, Mahajani teaches the process gas comprises a silicon-containing gas. (Paragraph 0023)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 102 and 103 in view of Sakai et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Mahajani, US 2007/0049053 A1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. CN101816065 teaches that the first and second inert gas can be the same of different, and can be used with Sakai et al in a 103 rejection.
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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716