DETAILED ACTION
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana (2009/0266296) in view of Yamada, Shibuya and Ma (2006/0269667) and alternatively in further view of Okabe (2009/0186479).
Tachibana teaches a semiconductor processing device and method comprising:
- a reactor (see 101 per Fig. 1 and related text), and a vaporizer, see 151, while Tachibana does not expressly teach a valve leading into the vaporizer, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such a valve would be well understood – there is further necessarily a source that feeds the vaporizer and it would have been routine and obvious to include such a valve between for the purpose of isolating and/or controlling the flow – valves in any such processing equipment are pervasive.
Tachibana does not, however, teach maintaining a pressure in the vaporizer at or below a total pressure of the reactant vapor. Yamada, however, teaches that for the purposes of avoiding residue form liquid formation, it is useful to control the pressure within a vaporizer as low as possible [0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to control the pressure in the vaporizer of Tachibana to as low as possible as Yamada teaches that maintaining a low pressure helps to avoid residues when vaporizing liquid materials. The range of pressure would be understood to include temperatures at or below the dew point if that resulted in effective vaporization of the material. In regard to the feedback of a measured pressure – the teachings of Yamada implicitly teach the presence of a pressure measurement device. It would be understood that in order to control the pressure in the vaporizer, then the pressure must be detected. In any case, it is understood that the pressure is controlled based on the feedback of the pressure as described. Likewise, the temperature is also an understood value to be “based on” because the temperature of a vaporizer necessarily impacts the pressure.
- Tachibana teaches transferring the reactor vapor to a process control chamber, see either of the buffer tanks, which include pressure gauges, the material flows from the vaporizer through a (second) valve, see 153a/b.
- Tachibana further teaches that the pressure of the buffer tank (i.e. process control chamber) is modulated [0020-25] and based on the presence of the pressure gauge based on the pressure. The system likewise would be understood to be impacted by the temperature and therefore the modulation is “based on the temperature”.
For clarification – the two steps that are both “based on” a temperature are mental steps. Since the systems are held at some temperature, anything that occurs is necessarily “based on” a temperature.
The teachings further include flowing the material into the reactor from the process control chamber (Figure, [0019-22]), which is understood to control all steps, the flow is controlled through a third valve, see injection control valve 155 [0020].
In regard to two different temperature zones, the art is silent, but Shibuya teaches that it is useful to keep downstream material at a temperature the same or higher than at the vaporizer – see Figs. 1 and 4 in regard to both the apparatus and method of Shibuya. Shibuya teaches that it is known to apply a heater to downstream material in the case of the prior art and to include a process control chamber, i.e. mass flow meter, 7 of Shibuya. Additionally, Ma teaches that it is useful to use filters for purity of the gases and also to heat such at higher temperature than a vaporizer [0032].
It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to hold the second thermal zone at a second temperature greater than the first temperature of the first thermal zone as Shibuya and Ma teach that it is known to hold a thermal zone downstream of a vaporizer at a temperature higher than the vaporizer, understood as helping prevent recondensation.
In regard to stepping up or stepping down the vapor pressure, the combined teachings include keeping the one area at a higher temperature than the other region, as noted above. The vapor pressure is impacted by the temperature, therefore the vapor pressure is stepped up in the zone with the higher temperature.
The Office takes the initial position as presented above, but as the combined teachings do not explicitly include a pressure measurement on the vaporizer, the teachings of Okabe are further applied in the alternative. Okabe teaches that it is useful to include a pressure detector with a vaporizer in order to maintain steady vaporization [0009-10]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply a pressure detector to the vaporizer of the combined art as, initially, the teachings include controlling a pressure but Okabe further teaches that it allows better control.
In regard to the process control chamber comprising a volume, the “volume” is not particularly limiting but in any case the process control chamber is taught as per Tachibana and understood to include a volume as claimed and all elements of the system are in fluid communication with each other.
In regard again to the second thermal zone at a second temperature relative to the first temperature, initially the combined art generally teaches keeping a temperature downstream higher than a temperature at the vaporizer, to avoid recondensation. The inclusion of additional portions of the processing apparatus in the different thermal zones is not inventive wherein the teachings include such elements and temperature zones. Furthermore, generally control of temperature will not support patentability, see MPEP 2144.04 II. A. While not specifically claiming a range, the instant claim refers to one range relative to the other and does not support any criticality.
All elements of claims 1, 6 and 13 are met per the combined prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Yamada are likewise applicable to the pressure control chamber – wherein the process control chamber (i.e. buffer chamber) is analogous to the vaporizer in that is intended to support the material in a vaporized state but is merely a different piece of hardware for the purpose of easing delivery to the process chamber.
Regarding claims 4, 7-9 and 14-16, in regard to the specific claim language, the combined teachings include that the flow rate is controlled and implicitly teach such a controller and calculation steps (wherein the actual calculating step is in any case a mental step), there must be some pressure setpoint known in order to determine when the pressure is out of range and the flow rate needs to be adjusted – therefore all of the claimed steps are met.
Regarding claim 5, as noted above, Tachibana teaches determining the pressure of the process control chamber as noted and also adjusting a flow of the vapor in response to changes. The steps of calculating and comparing are mental steps but nonetheless understood as part of the process wherein the buffer tank includes a pressure transducer and control unit (156) and controls based on the control unit – there is understood to be a predetermined pressure set point in order to control the process to that pressure which is understood to be somehow calculated wherein the buffer tank includes at least a specific reactant vapor.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 17-20, in regard to the claims, the teachings include a desired pressure upper limit, while not specifically stating calculating this value, it is understood that the prior art performs the same [0022-27]. The teachings include the transducer (P) and the same control of modulating the pressure in response to variations to maintain the pressure to a setpoint as claimed using the control unit 156.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combined teachings are silent on a specific temperature range, but as per above, selection of a temperature is not generally patentable without a showing of criticality. For the second temperature to be 5 to 50 degrees greater than the first would have been obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 14, the step of calculating is a mental steps but nonetheless understood as part of the process wherein the pressure of the chamber (process control chamber) is controller. There is understood to be a predetermined pressure set point in order to control the process to that pressure which is understood to be somehow calculated wherein the chamber includes at least a specific reactant vapor.
Regarding claim 21, the teachings of Ma include that the filter is held at a higher temperature than the vaporizer therefore it is configured to evaporate droplets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the teachings do not include the specifically claimed elements in the particularly claimed first and second thermal zones. The Office does not agree. The teachings of Shibuya are applied broadly – there are number of elements within the downstream portion of Shibuya’s teachings. When combining the teachings of multiple references it follows that the elements of each reference are not necessarily included within each reference, hence the reason for the obviousness rejection. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the techniques is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See id. at 417. In this case, all elements of the instant claim are present in the art as described and it would be a matter of ordinary skill and creativity to carry out the process as claimed.
In this case, setting forth various well-known substrate processing system elements to be in one thermal zone and other well known (and taught by the prior art) to be in a second thermal zone, and then defining the thermal zones to have relative temperature differences is not beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art teaches all of the claimed components and also the desire to prevent recondensation of gases, as such, the control of all elements in either zone to be of certain temperature is obvious without any showing of criticality.
It is further noted that Ma teaches the filter being at a higher temperature than the vaporizer, and the filter is downstream of the same therefore it follows to be obvious that the filter would be in the second, higher temperature, zone.
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