DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on April 15, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
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 January 28, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basceri on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thombare (US 2021/0140043) in view of Yang (US 2003/0190423).
In regards to claim 1, Thombare teaches an apparatus comprising:
a first charge vessel (shown, not individually labeled) connected to an reactant vessel to supply a reactant to a shower head which is well known to be within a process chamber (fig. 4; para. 39, 43, 51);
a second charge vessel (shown, not individually labeled) connected to the reactant vessel to supply the reactant to the shower head (fig. 4; para. 39, 43);
a first and second valves which are connected to the first charge vessel and the second charge vessel (shown, not individually labeled), the valves connect the charge vessels to the shower head (fig. 4; para. 39, 43);
a controller (629) which controls the supply of gases and material which are delivered to the process chamber (fig. ; para. 53-54, 61, 65-66).
Thombare teaches multiple pulses of reactant are supplied for one pulse of precursor (para. 43).
Thombare does not explicitly teach the process of supply a first pulse of the reactant from the first canister to the processing chamber during the dose step of the ALD sequence by activating the first valve; and supply a second pulse of the reactant from the second canister to the processing chamber during the dose step of the ALD sequence by activating the second valve before a pressure of the first pulse of the reactant from the first canister falls below a threshold.
However, Yang teaches a process of a pulse-424 of a second precursor (420) is supplied to the chamber by opening a valve. Yang teaches prior to the end of the pulse-424 (before a pressure of the first pulse of the reactant from the first canister falls below a threshold), a pulse-434 of a third precursor is introduced into the chamber by opening of a valve. Yang teaches the second and third precursors are overlap for a period time and the valve for the second precursor is closed (fig. 4b-4c; para. 50-51).
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 overlap in pulses of material of Yang onto the supply multiple pulses of reactant of Thombare because Yang teaches it will improve the deposition process (para. 55).
In regards to claim 2, Thombare teaches a third charge vessel (shown, not individually labeled) connected to a purge gas to supply the purge gas to the shower head (fig. 4; para. 43);
a third valve is connected to the third charge vessel (shown, not individually labeled), the third valve connects the third charge vessel to the shower head (fig. 4; para. 43).
Thombare teaches the purge gas is supplied, but does not explicitly teach the process of
a third pulse of the purge gas from the third canister to the processing chamber during the purge step of the ALD sequence by activating the third valve, where the third pulse is supplied after supplying the second pulse of the reactant in the dose step.
However, the apparatus of Thombare and Yang are capable of having the third valve shown to be connected to the third charge vessel for purge gas, to supply the pulse of purge gas after the second pulse of the reactant/precursor.
The courts have held that 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 (MPEP 2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed April 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basceri and Shibata 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 Thombare and Yang as discussed above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights