DETAILED ACTION
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 06/23/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1-2 have been amended.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 is objected to because all of the newly added limitations have NOT been underlined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meara et al (US 2017/0236719) in view of LaVoie et al (US 2018/0308695) and Kato et al (US 2015/0126044).
Regarding claim 1:
O’Meara teaches an atomic layer processing system (batch processing system, 10) configured to planarize a patterned substrate (200) [fig 1 & 0020], comprising: a spatial atomic layer processing chamber (process chamber, 16) comprising a rotating platen (susceptor, 48) [fig 1 & 0025]; and a controller (system controller, 36) [fig 1 & 0024].
O’Meara does not specifically teach a sensor that provides sensor data related to a property of the patterned substrate and/or a reaction in the spatial atomic layer processing chamber; and the controller coupled to the sensor to receive the sensor data, the controller configured to utilize the sensor data to adjust at least one operating parameter of the atomic layer processing system so as to achieve a desired amount of planarization of the patterned substrate.
LaVoie teaches a sensor (sensor) that provides sensor data (signals) related to a property of the patterned substrate and/or a reaction in the spatial atomic layer processing chamber (monitor the plasma and other process characteristics) [0090, 0105]; and the controller (sensor controller, 750) coupled to the sensor (sensor) to receive the sensor data (output signals), the controller (750) configured to utilize the sensor data to adjust at least one operating parameter of the atomic layer processing system (appropriately programmed feedback and control algorithms may be used with data from these sensors to maintain process conditions) [fig 7 & 0090, 0105].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of O’Meara to comprise a sensor and a controller coupled thereto configured to utilize the sensor data to adjust at least one operating parameter of the atomic layer processing system, as in LaVoie, to enable use of feedback and control algorithms in order to maintain process conditions as desired [LaVoie – 0105].
O’Meara modified by LaVoie does not specifically disclose the at least one operating parameter includes a rotational speed of the rotating platen.
Kato teaches at least one operating parameter includes a rotational speed of the rotating platen (rotational speed of the rotary table 2) [fig 13-14B & 0156-0161].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the at least one operating parameter of modified O’Meara to include a rotational speed of the rotating platen because the rotational speed effects etching uniformity and can be used as a control knob of etching characteristics [Kato – 0161].
Although taught by the cited prior art [Kato – 0161], the claim limitations “to control a selectivity of the atomic layer processing system toward upper horizontal surfaces of the patterned substrate as compared to lower surfaces of the patterned substrate so as to achieve a desired amount of planarization of the patterned substrate” have not been afforded patentable weight because they simply express the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, applicant’s remarks dated 06/23/2026 admit this fact (“the controller’s use of sensor data to adjust rotational speed directly governs this selectivity mechanism”) [page 7].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified O’Meara teaches the controller (sensor controller, 750) is further configured to utilize the sensor data (output signals) to adjust at least one additional operating parameter, the at least one additional operating parameter being at least one of a temperature, a gas flow, a gas ratio, a pressure, a vacuum level, or a number of cycles (see 0105) [LaVoie – 0090, 0105].
Regarding claims 3-12:
The claim limitations “wherein the chamber is configured to provide or receive a patterned substrate with a first layer having at least a first portion on an upper surface, a second portion on a lower surface and a sidewall between the upper and lower surface”, “wherein the chamber is configured to expose the first layer to a first precursor gas to form a modified layer on the first layer such that the modified layer is preferentially formed on the upper surface as compared to the lower surface”, “wherein the chamber is configured to at least partially remove the modified layer after it is formed of the first layer, wherein the forming the modified layer on the first layer and the at least partially removing the modified layer preferentially etches the upper surface as compared to the lower surface so as to lessen a height of the first portion on the upper surface to a greater extent than a height of the second portion on the lower surface”, “wherein the sensor data is indicative of a thickness of at least one of the first or second portion of the first layer”, “wherein system is configured cyclically perform the forming the modified layer and the at least partial removing the modified layer over a number of cycles, and wherein the operating parameter includes the number of cycles”, “wherein the system is configured such that a rotational speed of the rotating platen causes enhanced deposition of a first precursor of the first precursor gas on the upper surfaces as compared to the lower surfaces”, “wherein the rotational speed of the rotating platen is adjustable during one or more of the forming or the removing of the modified layer”, “wherein chamber is configured to generate a plasma to at least partially remove the modified layer”, “wherein chamber is configured to accommodate more than one substrate”, and “wherein the system is configured to planarize multiple patterned substrates at a time” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding claims 13-14:
O’Meara teaches the system includes a precursor adsorption section (78) and a plasma treatment section (82) [fig 1 & 0029-0030, 0038]; and wherein the precursor adsorption section (78) and plasma treatment section (82) are separated from each other by inert gas areas (76/80) [fig 1 & 0029-0030, 0038].
Regarding claims 15-17:
O’Meara teaches the system includes a processing section (additional processing space may be provided) between the precursor adsorption section (78) and the plasma treatment section (82) [fig 1 & 0029-0030, 0038]; wherein the precursor adsorption section (78), the processing section (additional processing space may be provided) and the plasma treatment section (82) are separated from each other by inert gas areas (inert processing spaces provided between each of the processing spaces that introduce processing gasses to provide a gaseous curtain to limit transfer of process materials therebetween) [fig 1 & 0029-0030, 0038]; and purge sources (84/30) extending radially relative to the rotating platen in the inert gas area (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0029-0030, 0038].
10. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meara et al (US 2017/0236719) in view of LaVoie et al (US 2018/0308695) and Kato et al (US 2015/0126044) as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of Miura (US 2017/0335453).
The limitations of claims 1-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 18-19:
Modified O’Meara does not specifically teach one or more gas outlet pumping ports at the periphery of the rotating platen; and wherein the one or more gas outlet pumping ports are provided adjacent at least one of the precursor adsorption section or the plasma treatment section.
Miura teaches one or more gas outlet pumping ports (610/620) at the periphery of the rotating platen (rotary table, 2) [fig 3 & 0053]; and wherein the one or more gas outlet pumping ports (610/620) are provided adjacent at least one of the precursor adsorption section or the plasma treatment section (P1) [fig 3 & 0053].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Miura to further comprise one or more gas outlet pumping ports to evacuate the process gases separately such that they are not mixed [fig 3 & 0053].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified O’Meara does not specifically teach the precursor adsorption section includes a showerhead and a precursor gas injector.
Miura teaches a precursor adsorption section includes a showerhead (41h) and a precursor gas injector (41a) [fig 4 & 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the precursor adsorption section of modified O’Meara to include a showerhead and a precursor gas injector, as in Miura, to allow for the flow rate of adsorption gas to be controlled separately [Miura – 0037-0038].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Kato et al (US 2015/0126044) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Orito et al (US 2011/0100489) and O’Meara et al (US 2016/0247680) teach utilizing data to adjust at least one operating parameter [fig 13 - s26 and fig 1A - step 13, respectively].
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights