DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of inert gas storage containers disposed on positions of the outer wall to interpose the first and second storage container must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The language related to a plurality of inert gas storage containers that are disposed on positions of the outer wall to interpose the first and second storage container therebetween is not supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 15, 22-27 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgensen (2003/0054099) in view of White (2010/0266765).
Jurgensen teaches a substrate processing system comprising:
- a process container configured to process a substrate, see 10 in Fig. 1,
- a storage container in contact with an outer wall of the process container – see storage containers 5 and 5’, housing tanks 1 and 3 [0057-58], and
- wherein the teachings include that the tanks are heated independently of the reactor [0033] to a specific temperature, it is understood that there is some type of a temperature regulator. As per MPEP 2144.01 it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference. In this case, wherein the temperature is specifically controlled, there is necessarily a temperature regulator as claimed.
In further regard to the supply of gas from a gas source, Jurgensen does teach supply 35 of an inert gas [0058] but in any case the use of the apparatus is intended use. it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, previously applied in claim 2 and not repeated The system is capable of (and demonstrates) having a gas supplied and therefore the claim limitations are met.
In regard to the regulation of the temperature – this is again intended use, but Jurgensen generally teaches as per above the heating of material to reach a certain temperature and then it is supplied to the chamber.
The teachings include a heater [0042], and valves (i.e. flow controllers) [0034]. Again, the use of the valves for gas flow is intended use, but further as noted there is a carrier gas supply
Claim 1 now requires a controller, Jurgensen does not teach a controller, but the rejection of claim 15 is applied and combined with that of claim 1,.
Regarding claim 15, all elements of the claim are taught as above,
The flow of gas from the storage container is addressed per [0057-66].
To the extent that Jurgenson does not explicitly teach that a computer readable medium is used to carry out the process, the teachings of White are applied. White teaches that with an apparatus wherein a reactant gas is supplied to a substrate, see Fig. 1 and related text, also [0006], it is useful to use a computer with a storage medium to carry out control of the process steps [0048]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to use the computer control system of White with the apparatus of Jurgenson as such a control system (understood as including a computer readable medium and program) would be useful in carrying out a process, such as the step of supplying any gases.
The arguments made above to claim 15 with regard to the computer system are equivalent to those of the claimed “controller” of claim 1, see further White [0048].
In further regard to the process steps required by claim 15, the storage container stores some gas as noted and further the temperature regulation effects all elements stored within the storage container (gas and liquid), and the liquid is vaporized to form gas). As per the above description of Jurgenson, temperature is regulated prior to flowing into the process container.
Regarding claims 2-4, the system is capable of controlling the temperature of the containers to any temperature or pressure as desired, the particular set point is an intended use based on the desired temperature and material within the containers.
Regarding claims 5-7, as in claims 2-4, the use of the containers to store any gas such as and including an inert gas is intended use, as is a first and second gas wherein at least one is stored in the container – but in any case further see the different materials in the different containers (5,5’) [0057-58] and inert carrier gas [0017].
Regarding claim 25, as per above, the container hold different materials, see particularly [0023, 57] in reference to different properties of different materials and different temperatures.
Regarding claims 22-24, as per above, the containers hold different materials, see particularly [0023, 57] in reference to different properties of different materials and different temperatures. The system includes valves on each container [0034]. In regard to the control of the valves as required by claims 22, 23 and 24, each embodiment is controlled in a different manner. The teachings of Jurgenson include a vapor deposition process and the teachings of White include a CVD and/or ALD process – to control the gases in the different orders as claimed would have been obvious in view of the control of an ALD and/or CVD process. The claims are not limiting – and per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. a change in sequence of adding ingredients is not patentable without a showing of criticality. In this case, the disparate claims suggest a lack of criticality of the order of turning on/off the gas supplies.
Regarding claim 26, as per above, the container hold different materials, see particularly [0023, 57] in reference to different properties of different materials and different temperatures. In regard to the controller to control the temperatures relative to the decomposition temperature, that is taught by White as per claims 15 and 16 above and not repeated.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teaches of Jurgenson and White are described above, while the teachings do not explicitly embody the temperature of the storage containers lower than that of the substrate, initially, the claim requires that the controller is capable of controlling the containers to a temperature lower than that of the substrate, it would generally be understood that the controller would be capable of the same use. Further, wherein a substrate is being heated up to the desired temperature that were higher than the container temperature, the temperature would in any case be controlled lower at some point during the heating up.
Alternatively, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. In this case, it is a mere selection of substrate temperature and/or selection of the supply temperature such that the relative temperatures are as claimed.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, the teachings include the multiple gases as described in each container– with the temperatures of the different containers controlled to different temperatures [0057] thereby teaching the plurality of heaters (i.e. to control 5 and 5’ to different temperatures it is necessary to have different heaters).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the elements of the first and second gas are intended use of the apparatus but in any case Jurgenson teaches supply of a gas as per above. In regard to the plurality of inert gas storage containers, Examiner takes Official Notice that such containers would be obvious to supply materials to a process chamber. It is further /alternatively noted that Jurgenson already teaches storage containers as noted so including additional ones for other elements to be used in the process container would have been an obvious duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). In regard to the gas supply pipes – such pipes are routine and obvious for provided gases in such chambers and would be necessary, see the pipes in the noted Figs. of Jurgensen and White.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, as per above, Jurgensen teaches multiple storage containers and also flow controllers (valves) [0034]. To further include a valve upstream and downstream would have been obvious for the purpose of controlling flow. Jurgensen is not limited and it is a duplication of parts for the same purpose.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgensen.
Regarding claim 28, the teachings are silent on the aspect ratio of the containers, however, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. that a selection or change of size is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case there is no demonstration of criticality so it would have been obvious to form the containers with an aspect ratio equal to or greater than 1 as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state that the newly added claims are supported, but the Office does not agree that there is support for the full scope of the claims.
Applicants argue that there is a difference between the inflow and storage of gas. The Office does not agree. The claims are drawn to apparatus, and not the method of handling a gas. The state of the matter is immaterial to the claimed structure. Father, Jurgensen’s apparatus includes an input gas, thereby demonstrating the capability of handling a gas. Applicants own language in the arguments states:
“Jurgensen does not disclose or suggest the technique…”. The claim is NOT drawn to a technique.
Point B of applicants makes similar arguments about temperature control. For claim 1, temperature control is irrelevant. The teachings include the claimed heater and therefore the claim limitations are met.
Point C addresses heat management and in the second paragraph addresses the difference in the heat flow of Jurgensen and the instant claimed invention – again, the heat flow is a usage of the apparatus and not relevant. Amended claim 1 only requires a heater installed in the process container.
In regard to claim 15, the elements of he storing gas are required, but are met by at least the inert gas of Jurgensen, and the temperature is regulated. The claim does not required the details of the arguments in points A-C in the response.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights