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 1-11 and 18-20, in the reply filed on January 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-11 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 18 and their dependent claims require “precursor conduit consists of a single straight elongated segment extending between a proximate end and a distal end, and wherein the proximate end is directly coupled to an outlet of the precursor source container, and the distal end is directly coupled to an inlet of the deposition chamber”.
Claim 4 and 18 and their dependent claims also require “a primary valve installed at the precursor conduit”. It is not clear where the primary valve is installed, as the precursor conduit is a single piece that is attached directly to the outlet of the precursor source container and the inlet of the deposition chamber.
Claim 7 also requires “a first pressure sensor configured to measure a first pressure at an upstream side of the primary valve; and a second pressure sensor configured to measure a second pressure at a downstream side of the primary valve”. It is not clear where the first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor are installed, as the precursor conduit is a single piece that is attached directly to the outlet of the precursor source container and the inlet of the deposition chamber.
Claim 8 and its dependent claims also require “a supplemental carrier gas conduit coupled to the precursor conduit”. It is not clear where the supplemental carrier gas conduit is coupled to the precursor conduit, as the precursor conduit is a single piece that is attached directly to the outlet of the precursor source container and the inlet of the deposition chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kesala, US 20010042523A1.
Kesala teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a thin film deposition system, comprising: a deposition chamber 60, a precursor source container containing a precursor source; and a precursor conduit (not labeled see Figure 2 below), wherein the precursor conduit consists of a single straight elongated segment extending between a proximate end and a distal end, and wherein the proximate end is directly coupled to an outlet of the precursor source container, and the distal end is directly coupled to an inlet of the deposition chamber (not labeled see Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternately, if it is held that Figure 2 does not teach that the precursor conduit is straight as argued by the Applicant, then the combination of Figure 1 and Figure 2 suggests that the precursor conduit could be straight. It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04.IV.B) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the precursor conduit straight as suggested by Figures 1 and 2 of Kesala.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the precursor conduit extends horizontally or
substantially horizontally. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 4, a primary valve installed at the precursor conduit, wherein the primary valve is switched off when a semiconductor fabrication process performed in the deposition chamber is completed. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 5, the semiconductor fabrication process is an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding claim 6, as indicated by the symbol in Figure 2, the primary valve is a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 7, a first pressure sensor configured to measure a first pressure at an upstream side of the primary valve; and a second pressure sensor configured to measure a second pressure at a downstream side of the primary valve (See Figure 2 above). The limitation “wherein the primary valve is switched off when the second pressure is higher than the first pressure” is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Kesala teaches all of the claimed structure and is capable of functioning in the claimed manner. Thus the limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Kesala.
Regarding claim 8, a supplemental carrier gas conduit coupled to the precursor conduit, wherein supplemental carrier gas is delivered to the precursor conduit through the supplemental carrier gas conduit. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 9, a pressure of the supplemental carrier gas in the supplemental carrier gas conduit is higher than an atmosphere (atm). The specific pressure the supplemental carrier gas is supplied is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Kesala teaches all of the claimed structure and is capable of functioning in the claimed manner. Thus the limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Kesala.
Regarding claim 10, a carrier gas source configured to provide a carrier gas; and a mass flow controller in gas communication with the carrier gas source and the precursor source container; and wherein the mass flow controller is further coupled to the supplemental carrier gas conduit and configured to adjust the pressure of the supplemental carrier gas in the supplemental carrier gas conduit. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 18, a thin film deposition system, comprising: a deposition chamber 60 comprising an inlet; a precursor source container comprising an outlet and figured to accommodate a precursor source; a precursor conduit coupled between the precursor source container and the deposition chamber, wherein the precursor conduit consists of a single straight elongated segment comprising a proximate end directly coupled to the outlet of the precursor source container and a distal end directly coupled to the inlet of the deposition chamber (See Figure 2 above); and a primary valve installed at the precursor conduit (See Figure 2 above), wherein the primary valve is switched off when a semiconductor fabrication process performed in the deposition chamber is completed.
Regarding claim 19, the precursor conduit is elongated and extends substantially horizontally between a proximate end and a distal end, and wherein the proximate end is coupled to an outlet of the precursor source container, and the distal end is coupled to an inlet of the deposition chamber. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 20, the precursor source includes pentakis(DiMethylAmido)Tantalum (V) (PDMAT). PDMAT is the material vaporized by the apparatus. It has been held that "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore the precursor source being PDMAT is of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 21, a thin film deposition system, comprising: a deposition chamber 60; a precursor source container containing a precursor source; and a precursor conduit coupled between the deposition chamber and the precursor source container, wherein the precursor conduit consists of a single straight elongated segment comprising a proximate end directly coupled to an outlet of the precursor source container and a distal end directly coupled to an inlet of the deposition chamber. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the precursor conduit extends horizontally or substantially horizontally. (See Figure 2 above)
Regarding claim 24, a primary valve installed at the precursor conduit (See Figure 2 above), wherein the primary valve is switched off when a semiconductor fabrication process performed in the deposition chamber is completed.
Regarding claim 25, the semiconductor fabrication process is an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding claim 26, as indicated by the symbol in Figure 2, the primary valve is a solenoid valve.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kesala, US 20010042523 A1, in view of Morozumi et al, TW 201245485 A.
Kesala was discussed above.
Kesala differs from the present invention in that Kesala does not teach a compressor configured to increase the pressure of the supplemental carrier gas in the supplemental carrier gas conduit.
Morozumi et al teaches a compressor 32b configured to increase the pressure of the carrier gas in the carrier gas conduit 32.
The motivation for adding the compressor of Morozumi et al to the supplemental carrier gas conduit of Kesala is to increase the pressure of the supplemental carrier gas in the supplemental carrier gas conduit as taught by Morozumi et al. Furthermore, 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.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the compressor of Morozumi et al to the supplemental carrier gas conduit of Kesala as taught by Morozumi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed to Kesala, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
The Examiner has updated the annotated drawings to more accurately match the amended claims and arguments.
It is true that schematic drawings (P&ID drawings) may not show the actual piping layout as argued, and the piping layout of Figure 2 may not be the same as the actual layout; however, it is also true that the layout of Figure 2 may be the same as the actual layout. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that the layout shown in Figure 2 cannot be used as the actual layout. The Examiner notes that Applicants drawings are all schematic drawings and are subject to the same problems argued.
The Examiner notes that Figure 1 shows a perspective view of the apparatus shown in Figure 2. When Figure 1 and Figure 2 are taken together, they teach or at least suggest that the precursor conduit is an elongated single straight pipe extending from the precursor source 41 into the deposition chamber 60.
In regard to the physical limitation that the precursor conduit is elongated, the newly annotated Figure 2 clearly shows the precursor conduit is elongated (i.e. the conduit is longer than it is wide).
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 § 102 or 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 claims 1, 18, and 21 under 102: US 20240344976 A1; US 20240003008 A1; US 20220205083 A1; US 20210404058 A1; US 20200157680 A1; US 20200149155 A1; US 20150267297 A1; US 20070269596 A1; and US 20040083787 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 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