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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on December 15, 2024 is acknowledged.
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:
gas supply system in claim 1;
flow control device in claim 5.
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 gas supply system in claim 1 is being interpreted as being a gas source as seen in Figure 3 reference 42, and
the flow control device in claim 5 is being interpreted as being a known flow controller as defined in Paragraph 0033.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 limitation “the at least one gas analyzer is configured to sample from prior to the at least one process chamber the at least one precursor gas flow” is not taught or suggested in the specification or drawings. The specification clearly teaches in Paragraph 0033 and Figure 3 that process gas 42 outputs at least one process gas flow 46, 50 to a remote plasma source 70, which produces a radical flow, and the radical flow is sampled by a gas analyzer 82, and finally the radical flow is supplied to the processing chamber 90. The reactant supply 44 outputs at least one precursor gas flow 52, 56 to the process chamber 90. The radical flow and precursor gas flow mix in the processing chamber.
Nowhere in the specification or drawings does it teach or show that the precursor gas is measured by the gas analyzer.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “at least one gas analyzer in communication with and configured to sample from prior to the at least one process chamber the at least one radical flow” and claim 19 requires “the at least one gas analyzer is configured to sample from prior to the at least one process chamber the at least one radical flow”. Thus claim 19 does not properly limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lay et al, US 2019/0093218 A1, in view of Hwang et al, US 2020/0335313 A1, and Bartlett et al, US 9,034,142 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Lay et al teaches an apparatus 200 for feedback control in plasma processing systems using radical sensing, comprising: at least one process gas supply system 210 configured to output at least one process gas 201-203 and at least one precursor gas flow 204-205; at least one plasma source 222 configured to receive the at least one process gas 201-203 and generate at least one radical flow, wherein the at least one precursor gas flow is introduced into the at least one generated radical flow at the entrance of the pipe connected to the at least one processing chamber entrance 233; at least one process chamber 231 in communication with the at least one plasma source 222, wherein the at least one process chamber 231 receives the at least one precursor gas flow and the at least one radical flow and directs at least a portion of the received at least one precursor gas flow and the received at least one radical flow to one or more substrates (Paragraph 0010), the at least one process chamber configured to output at least one process chamber output 234; at least one gas analyzer 240 in communication with and configured to sample the at least one process chamber output 234; and at least one controller 250 communication with at least one of the process gas supply system 210 via control connection 251, at least one plasma source 222 via control connection 252, and at least one process chamber 231 via control connection 253, the controller 250 configured to generate at least one control signal based on data from the at least one gas analyzer 240 via control connection 254 and selectively control at least one of the process gas supply system 210, and at least one plasma source 222 (see Paragraph 0029). (Figure 2)
Lay et al differs from the present invention in that Lay et al does not teach that: the gas analyzer samples from prior to the process chamber the at least one radical flow; or at least one output valve positioned proximate to or in fluid communication with at least one process chamber output; and control the at least one output valve to control at least one of a flow rate of gas exiting the at least one process chamber or a pressure within the at least one process chamber.
Hwang et al teaches in Figure 6 the use of a gas analyzer 120 prior to the chamber and a gas analyzer 130 downstream of the chamber 400.
Bartlett et al teaches at least one output valve (not labeled Column 13 lines 24-25) positioned proximate to or in fluid communication with at least one process chamber output (Figure 7); and a system controller 722 that controls the at least one output valve to control the flow rate of gas exiting the at least one process chamber and a pressure within the at least one process chamber (Column 13 lines 13-25).
The motivation for adding a gas analyzer prior to the process chamber in the apparatus of Lay et al is to monitor the radicals exiting the remote plasma source or prior to the at least one or more process chambers and to better control the concentration and uniformity of the radicals supplied to the processing chamber as taught by Hwang et al.
The motivation for adding the at least one output valve of Bartlett et al to the apparatus of Lay et al and to control the valve using the controller of Lay et al is to provide a valve and a controller to control the flow of gases out of the processing chamber and the pressure in the processing chamber as taught by Bartlett et al and well known in the art.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that:
applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.). In this case, it would have been obvious to:
add a gas analyzer prior to the process chamber in the apparatus of Lay et al to monitor the radicals exiting the remote plasma source or prior to the at least one or more process chambers and to better control the concentration and uniformity of the radicals supplied to the processing chamber as taught by Hwang et al.
add the at least one output valve of Bartlett et al to the apparatus of Lay et al to control the flow of gases out of the processing chamber and the pressure in the processing chamber as taught by Bartlett et al and well known in the art.
automation is obvious. (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); MPEP 2144.04)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to: add the gas analyzer prior to the process chamber as taught by Hwang et al to the apparatus of Lay et al; to add the valve of Bartlett et al to the apparatus of Lay et al; and to use the controller of Lay et al to control the output valve of Bartlett et al so as to control the flow of gases out of the processing chamber and the pressure in the processing chamber as taught by Bartlett et al and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Lay et al teaches during use, said at least one plasma source 222 is configured to generate low-energy ions and atomic radicals in said at least one radical flow, directed into said one or more process chambers 231.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Lay et al teaches at least one gas analyzer further comprising at least one of a mass spectrometer and a special residual gas analyzer (see Paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Lay et al teaches said at least one process gas supply system includes a mass flow controller 211 (see Paragraph 0029), or another flow control device 221, 223 configured to receive the at least one control signal (via control line 251) from the at least one controller 250 based on data from the at least one gas analyzer 240 via control line 254 and to selectively control the mass flow controller or another flow control devices.
Regarding claim 6, Lay et al teaches said at least one controller 250, during use, capable of continuously adjusting one or more operational parameters of the apparatus based on gas analyzer data received from the at least one gas analyzer sampling, in real-time, the radical gas flow from said plasma source. (Paragraph 0029)
Regarding claim 19, Lay et al and Hwang et al teach that the at least one gas analyzer is configured to sample from prior to the at least one process chamber the at least one precursor gas flow and the at least one radical flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments entitled “Analysis: Claim 1 Rejection”, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 17 and 19 under 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 Bartlett et al, US 9,034,142 B2.
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the arguments based on the idea of the benefits of controlling the flow out of the chamber are not supported by the specification. The specification merely teaches that the flow rate and the pressure of the process chamber can be controlled with an outlet valve and the controller can control the outlet valve. There is no teaching of controlling the concentration of radicals in the processing chamber by controlling the output valve.
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. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references could be used to reject at least claim 1 under 103, specifically: US 20230375506 A1; WO 2019241718 A1; US 9034142 B2; and US 20090178714 A1. The following references also teach an outlet valve: WO 2019241718 A1, US 20190035698 A1, JP 2006121072 A, and JP 2006121072 A.
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
Prosecution Insights