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:
Gas mixing unit in claims 1; and
Control unit in claims 6 and 7.
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 mixing unit is interpreted as a container in which gases are mixed as seen in Figure 1; and
Control unit is interpreted as a controller 900 as seen in 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.
The claim limitation “plurality of source gas supply units” in claim 1 is no longer being interpreted under 112(f) because claim 1 has been amended to include sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to include the following limitations “the plurality of source gas supply units comprise: a plurality of source storages in which a plurality of source materials for generating the plurality of source gases are respectively stored with a liquid state; a plurality of source storage heaters configured to respectively heat the plurality of source storages; and a plurality of source gas pipes configured to form flow paths that respectively connect the plurality of source storages and the gas mixing unit”.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al, US 2022/0403513 A1, in view of Nakabayashi, JP-5194737 B2, and Tsujita et al, US 2022/0029194 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Winkler et al teaches Winkler et al teaches an apparatus 100 for processing a substrate, comprising: a plurality of source gas supply units (114, 116, 118, 126, 128, 130, and associated piping, Figure 1) configured to respectively supply a plurality of source gases among which at least one contains (3- Dimethylaminopropyl)Dimethylindium (DADI) (Paragraph 0039); a gas mixing unit 112 connected to each of the plurality of source gas supply units via valves 120, 122, 124 and having an inner space in which each of the plurality of source gases moves at a passing speed less than a supply speed of each of the plurality of source gases (Figure 1, inherent due to the size of the volume of 112); and a chamber 102 connected with the gas mixing unit 112 and having a reaction space to which the source gases mixed in the inner space are supplied (Figure 1); a mixed gas pipe (pipe connecting gas mixing unit 112 and chamber 102) configured to form a flow path configured to connect the gas mixing unit 112 and the chamber 102 (Figure 1); and a control unit 108 configured to control each of the plurality of source gas supply units, wherein the plurality of source gas supply units comprise: a plurality of source storages 114, 116, 118 in which a plurality of source materials for generating the plurality of source gases are respectively stored with a liquid state (Figure 1); a plurality of source gas pipes (pipes containing valves 120, 122, 124) configured to form flow paths that respectively connect the plurality of source storages and the gas mixing unit 112; wherein the inner space has a cross-sectional area crossing a direction in which the plurality of source gases pass, which is greater than a sum of cross-sectional areas of the flow paths respectively formed in the plurality of source gas pipes (Figure 1); and the flow path formed in the mixed gas pipe has a cross-sectional area less than that of the inner space crossing the direction in which the plurality of source gases pass. (Figure 1).
Winkler et al differs from the present invention in that Winkler et al does not teach that the flow path formed in the mixed gas pipe has a cross-sectional area greater than a sum of cross-sectional areas of the flow paths respectively formed in the plurality of source gas pipes.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known how to determine the optimum cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe compared to the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes by routine experimentation. Having determined that the optimum cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe is greater than the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes, such person would have been motivated to modify Winkler et al make the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe greater than the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes.
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 relationship between the flow of gas into and out of the mixing chamber is dependent on the relationship of the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe and the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes. This relationship is fundamental in fluid dynamics and is explained by Bernoulli’s principle and controlled (or calculated) with Bernoulli’s equation:
ρA1V1= ρA2V2
or re-arranged as:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where:
V1 is the velocity of the flow into the mixing chamber;
V2 is the velocity of the flow exiting the mixing chamber;
A1 is the cross-section area of the source gas pipes; and
A2 is the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipes.
Thus, the relationship of the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe and the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes (A1/A2) is a well-known result-effective variable in the calculation of the fluid flow in the art of fluid dynamics as evidenced in Bernoulli’s equation above. To that end, the relationship between the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe and the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes is a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Winkler et al to optimize the relationship between the cross-section area of the mixed gas pipe and the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes by making the cross-sectional area of the mixed gas pipe greater than the combined cross-section area of the source gas pipes. To that end, the claimed subject matter is obvious in view of Winkler et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Winkler et al differs from the present invention in that Winkler et al does not teach a mixed gas pipe heater configured to heat the mixed gas pipe.
Nakabayashi teaches a gas mixing unit 104 mixed gas pipe 103 configured to form a flow path configured to connect the gas mixing unit 104 and the chamber 101, and a mixed gas pipe heater 102 configured to heat the mixed gas pipe 103.
The motivation for adding the mixed gas pipe heater of Nakabayashi to the mixed gas pipe of Winkler et al is to maintain the temperature of the precursor gas in the mixed gas pipe and to prevent the precursor gas from condensing in the mixed gas pipe as taught by Nakabayashi and well known in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the mixed gas pipe heater of Nakabayashi to the mixed gas pipe of Winkler et al.
Winkler et al and Nakabayashi differ from the present invention in that they do not teach a plurality of source storage heaters configured to respectively heat the plurality of source storages; or that the control unit controls the plurality of source storage heaters so that the plurality of source storages are maintained at different temperatures, and controls the mixed gas pipe heater so that the mixed gas pipe is maintained at a temperature in a range from 30°C to 150°C.
Tsujita et al teaches a plurality of source storages 23, 24, 25 in which a plurality of source materials for generating the plurality of source gases are respectively stored with a liquid state; a plurality of source storage heaters (ribbon heaters wrapped around the source storages and pipes, Paragraph 0336, 0342) configured to respectively heat the plurality of source storages; and a control unit 35 controls the plurality of source storage heaters so that the plurality of source storages are maintained at different temperatures, and controls the mixed gas pipe heater so that the mixed gas pipe is maintained at a temperature in a range from 30°C to 150°C (Paragraph 0131, 0134, 0147, 0166-0169).
The motivation for adding a plurality of source storage heaters of Tsujita et al to the plurality of source storages of Winkler et al and Nakabayashi is to control the temperature of the source storages.
The motivation for using the controller of Winkler et al and Nakabayashi to control the plurality of source storage heaters so that the plurality of source storages are maintained at different temperatures, and controls the mixed gas pipe heater so that the mixed gas pipe is maintained at a temperature in a range from 30°C to 150°C as taught by Tsujita et al is to control the temperature of the source storages and mixed gas pipe as taught by Tsujita et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a plurality of source storage heaters of Tsujita et al to the plurality of source storages of Winkler et al and Nakabayashi; and use the controller of Winkler et al and Nakabayashi to control the plurality of source storage heaters so that the plurality of source storages are maintained at different temperatures, and control the mixed gas pipe heater so that the mixed gas pipe is maintained at a temperature in a range from 30°C to 150°C as taught by Tsujita et al.
Regarding claim 5, Winkler et al, Nakabayashi, and Tsujita et al were discussed above and do not teach the inner space has a volume greater than a maximum volume of the plurality of source gases supplied per hour from the plurality of source gas supply units.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum volume of the mixing chamber by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum volume, such person would have been motivated to modify Winkler et al, Nakabayashi, and Tsujita et al to make the mixing chamber the optimum volume.
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, it is well known that the volume of the mixing chamber determines how much gas the mixing chamber can hold. To that end, the volume of the mixing chamber a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Winkler et al, Nakabayashi, and Tsujita et al to include the optimum volume of the mixing chamber. To that end, claim 5 is obvious in view of Winkler et al, Nakabayashi, and Tsujita et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claim 6, Winkler et al teaches that the plurality of source gas supply units further comprise a plurality of carrier gas suppliers 132 configured to supply a carrier gas to each of the plurality of source storages, and wherein the control unit 108 adjusts a supply amount of each of the carrier gases supplied from the plurality of carrier gas suppliers 132 via control valves 126, 128, 130.
Regarding claim 7, Winkler et al teaches that the control unit 108 adjusts the supply amount of each of the carrier gases in proportional to a mixing ratio of the source gases mixed in the inner space. (Paragraph 0043)
Regarding claim 8, Winkler et al teaches that the plurality of source storages comprise: a first source storage 114 configured to store one of the source materials containing (3-Dimethylaminopropyl)Dimethylindium (DADI); a second source storage 116 configured to store a source material containing at least one of trimethylgallium (TMG) and triethylgallium (TEG); and a third source storage118 configured to store a source material containing at least one of diethylzinc (DEG) and dimethylzinc (DMZ). (Paragraph 0039)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the arguments directed to the 103 rejection of claim 4, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
As discussed above, Bernoulli’s equation shows the well-known relationship of the cross-section area of the gas inlet (A1) and the gas outlet (A2). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to optimize the relationship to obtain the desired flow rate in the mixed gas pipe.
Bernoulli’s equation is based on the conservation of energy, specifically, the energy at the inlet and the energy at the outlet of the mixing chamber. The energy at the inlet is the sum of the energy at each of the gas inlets. Thus the inlet cross-section area (A1) is the sum of the areas of the source gas pipes.
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 following references teach a precursor source heater or a mixed gas pipe heater: US-9169555-B2, US-7651570-B2, US-6110283-A, US-5190913-A, US-4549889-A, US-20220411962-A1, US-20210197157-A1, US-20160222511-A1, US-20080000416-A1.
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 at (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