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 .
Claim Status
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending. In the amendment filed 07/22/2026, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 were amended and no claims were newly added or canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim was amended to recite “a first injector, directly and vertically connected to the chamber” in line 6-7 and to recite “a second injector, directly and horizontally connected to the chamber” in line 9-10. Both of these limitations represent new matter because the instant specification does not teach the first injection device (140) or the second injection device (150) are “directly” connected to the chamber. The drawings Fig 1A-1H are disclosed as “schematic” and do not show the first injection device (140) or the second injection device (150) “directly” connected to the chamber 110 because the drawings show an arrow between each injection device and the chamber. Therefore, when whatever structure is intended by the arrows is not considered part of the injection device, the first and second injectors are not directly connected to the chamber because there is intervening structure. It also noted that it is not clear that the upper surface is part of the “chamber” because there is a shower head (25 Fig 1A-1H) present that may also be connected to an air pumping structure (170 Fig 1E) to allow some holes to function as gas supply alternating with other holes that function as pumping. This indicates that the structure above the shower head is not an open space (note that indication of “schematic” for the drawings allows for omission of structures) and therefore it is not clear if the upper surface above the shower head is also part of the chamber. Therefore, even when the arrow is assumed to be part of the injector structure, there is not clear support for the first injector directly and vertically connected to the chamber. Additionally, an interpretation in which the arrows are part of the “injector” structure, such that there may be considered to be a “direct connection”, still represents new matter because the specification and drawings as originally filed do not indicate that the connecting structure is considered part of the injector (or injection device). The connecting structure was not given the same label and the specification does not provide any indication that a connecting pipe/line is considered part of the injector. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art. This is not an indication that support for the new matter is present.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim was amended to recite “a first injector, directly and vertically connected to the chamber” in line 6-7 and to recite “a second injector, directly and horizontally connected to the chamber” in line 9-10. Both of these limitations are unclear because it is unclear which structure is considered the “injector”. The specification refers to a “first injection device” (140) and a “second injection device” (150). In the interview June 17, 2026 (see summary mailed 06/23/2026), after consultation with SPE Parviz Hassanzadeh, Examiner agreed that “first injector” and “second injector” may be used to claim first injection device” (140) and a “second injection device” (150), respectively. It is unclear if applicant intends to claim the structure represented by the arrows in Fig 1A-1H as part of the “first injector” or “second injector”. It is noted that this is beyond the structure represented by box 140 or 150 and the specification provides no clarity. As indicated in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, an interpretation in which the arrows are not part of the “first injector” or “second injector” represents new matter because the injectors are not directly connected to the chamber due to the intervening structure represented by the arrow. However, any interpretation in which the arrows are part of the “injector” (140 or 150) requires adding structures not previously identified as part of the injector to the injector and raises clarity issues about what, if any other structures are part of the injector. It is further noted that the drawings are described as “schematic” which renders including the arrows as part of the injector unclear because it is unclear if there may be valves, connectors, etc. included and how or if these alter what is considered “directly connected”. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claims will be examined inclusive of the interpretation that the arrows are part of the injectors and represent any structure allowing flow. Examiner notes that this interpretation is provided merely to allow for an examination over the prior art and that Examiner does not believe the specification adequately support this interpretation either as explained in the new matter rejection above.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (prev. presented US 2007/0065594) in view of Sowa (prev. presented US 2016/0281223).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches an atomic layer deposition apparatus (abstract, Fig 1) comprising: a chamber (190 which includes 170 and 180 Fig 1 [0041]); a platform (182 Fig 1 [0054]), disposed in the chamber (Fig 1) and configured to carry a substrate (substrate is 181 Fig 1, [0058]); a shower head (171 Fig 1 [0038]), disposed in the chamber (Fig 1); a bias power supply (185 Fig 1 [0054]), coupled to the platform (Fig 1 and [0054]); a first injector (source 110 with valve and unnumbered flow line connected to 170 Fig 1 [0040]), directly connected to the chamber (the unnumbered flow line connecting precursor source B, D, and feed gas to chamber 170, provided direct connection to the chamber) and configured to inject a first precursor or a first inert gas into the chamber through the shower head along a vertical direction ([0040] see vertical arrows through the showerhead 171); and a second injector (source 100 with valve 105 and manifold 199 Fig 1), directly and horizontally connected to the chamber (Fig 1, note manifold 199 is directly and horizontally connected to the chamber) and configured to inject a second precursor or a second inert gas into the chamber along a horizontal direction, wherein the first injector and the second injector sequentially inject the first precursor and the second precursor into the chamber [0042]. Regarding the limitations “when the first precursor or the second precursor is injected into the chamber, the bias power supply is turned on, after the first precursor or the second precursor is injected into the chamber, the first injector injects the first inert gas into the chamber, or the second injector injects the second inert gas into the chamber, and the bias power supply is turned off”, these limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is operated. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). It is noted that Chiang teaches a computer controller (195 Fig 1) which is capable of modifying the application of the bias [0055] such that the apparatus is capable of being operated to turn on or off the power coordinated to gas introduction. Chiang fails to teach the first injector vertically connected to the chamber because Chiang demonstrates a horizontal connection. Initially it is noted that this represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of an atomic layer deposition apparatus (abstract and Fig 1), Sowa teaches direct and vertical connection (see gas line 135 having valve 211 Fig 1 [0029] and connected to the plasma generator 140) to the plasma generation portion of the chamber (140 Fig 1) [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the first injector directly and vertically connected to portion 170 of the chamber of Chiang because this portion 170 is the plasma generation portion [0038] and Sowa teaches vertical gas supply to the plasma generator (Fig 1) and because Sowa demonstrates this is a functional alternative arrangement for providing vertical gas flow of gas that has been made into a plasma.
Regarding claim 2, Chiang teaches a radio frequency power supply (160 Fig 1, [0040]) coupled to the first injector [0040] or the shower head (note it may be considered indirectly coupled to the shower head).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang teaches an air pump (pump 184 Fig 1 [0045]), connected to the chamber and generating a pumping airflow in the horizontal direction ([0045], see Fig 1, the connections how results in horizontal airflow).
Regarding claim 4, Chiang teaches an air pump (pump 184 Fig 1 [0045]) and a pumping airflow is generated in the horizontal direction ([0045], see Fig 1, the connections how results in horizontal airflow). Chiang fails to teach a low-pressure chamber, connected to the chamber; the air pump connected to the low-pressure chamber, wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of an atomic layer deposition apparatus (abstract and Fig 1), Sowa teaches a low-pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1 [0035]), connected to the chamber(Fig 1, chamber is 105, [0035]); the air pump (155 Fig 1 [0035]) connected to the low-pressure chamber (Fig 1, [0035]), wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber ([0045], note the pressure is lower than the chamber pressure because it is closer to the pump and a lower pressure is required for the correct flow from chamber to trap). Also note that the specific chamber pressure of the low-pressure chamber is directed to the intended use and the apparatus as taught by Sowa is capable of being operated with a lower pressure in chamber 175 than in the processing chamber 105 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the low pressure chamber of Sowa and the position of such in the exhaust line because Sowa teaches that the low pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1) helps trap precursors that exit the chamber and prevent them from flowing into the pump [0035], unreacted precursors could damage the pump if not trapped in the low pressure chamber (trap 175).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Sowa as applied in the combination further teaches a valve (170 Fig 1) disposed between the low-pressure chamber (175 Fig 1) and the chamber (105 Fig 1) [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the valve of Sowa positioned between the low-pressure chamber and the chamber because Sowa teaches this allows for opening and closing vacuum from the chamber during ALD processing [0035].
Regarding claim 9, Chiang fails to teach a first heater, thermally coupled to the first injector to heat the first precursor; and a second heater, thermally coupled to the second injector to heat the second precursor. Sowa teaches including heaters at the precursor or supply structure [0028] to provide temperature control of the precursor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include heaters thermally coupled to the injection device because Sowa teaches this allows for thermal control of precursors [0028]. Regarding specifically a first and second, Chiang has taught the separate precursors, as cited above, and Sowa has taught including this for precursors and delivery structure [0028]. Therefore the combination renders obvious a heater for each precursor injection device.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Sowa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerr (prev. presented US 2011/0097487).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang teaches the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump (184 Fig 1), but fails to teach a plurality of air feeding channels and a plurality of air pumping channels are alternately arranged within the chamber, and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform, wherein the first injector is connected to the air feeding channels, and the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump connected to the air pumping channels, so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer deposition [0006], Kerr teaches the gas inlet includes a plurality of air feeding channels (12 Fig 3 [0088]) and a plurality of air pumping channels (22 Fig 3 [0088]) are alternately arranged within the chamber (Fig 3), and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform (located above substrate 20 Fig 3), wherein the first injector (18 Fig 3 [0088]) is connected to the air feeding channels [0088], and the air pump connected to the air pumping channels (via exhaust conduit 24 Fig 3 [0088]), so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction (vertical direction Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the inlet structure of Kerr including the structures as recited because Kerr teaches this allows for gas inlet for ALD [0088]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (injector shower head of Kerr) for another (shower head of Chiang) to achieve predictable results (injection of gas to perform ALD).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang teaches the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump (184 Fig 1), but fails to teach a plurality of air feeding channels and a plurality of air pumping channels are alternately arranged within the chamber, and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform, wherein the first injector is connected to the air feeding channels, and the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump connected to the air pumping channels, so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction. Chiang fails to teach a low-pressure chamber, connected to the chamber; the air pump connected to the low-pressure chamber, wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer deposition [0006], Kerr teaches the gas inlet includes a plurality of air feeding channels (12 Fig 3 [0088]) and a plurality of air pumping channels (22 Fig 3 [0088]) are alternately arranged within the chamber (Fig 3), and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform (located above substrate 20 Fig 3), wherein the first injector (18 Fig 3 [0088]) is connected to the air feeding channels [0088], and the air pump connected to the air pumping channels (via exhaust conduit 24 Fig 3 [0088]), so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction (vertical direction Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the inlet structure of Kerr including the structures as recited because Kerr teaches this allows for gas inlet for ALD [0088]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (injector shower head of Kerr) for another (shower head of Chiang) to achieve predictable results (injection of gas to perform ALD). Regarding the low-pressure chamber, Sowa teaches a low-pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1 [0035]), connected to the chamber(Fig 1, chamber is 105, [0035]); the air pump (155 Fig 1 [0035]) connected to the low-pressure chamber (Fig 1, [0035]), wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber ([0045], note the pressure is lower than the chamber pressure because it is closer to the pump and a lower pressure is required for the correct flow from chamber to trap). Also note that the specific chamber pressure of the low-pressure chamber is directed to the intended use and the apparatus as taught by Sowa is capable of being operated with a lower pressure in chamber 175 than in the processing chamber 105 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the low pressure chamber of Sowa and the position of such in the exhaust line because Sowa teaches that the low pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1) helps trap precursors that exit the chamber and prevent them from flowing into the pump [0035], unreacted precursors could damage the pump if not trapped in the low pressure chamber (trap 175).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. Sowa as applied in the combination further teaches a valve (170 Fig 1) disposed between the low-pressure chamber (175 Fig 1) and the chamber (105 Fig 1) [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the valve of Sowa positioned between the low-pressure chamber and the chamber because Sowa teaches this allows for opening and closing vacuum from the chamber during ALD processing [0035].
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0147890 of Lin et al., hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches an atomic layer deposition apparatus (abstract, Fig 1) comprising: a chamber (190 which includes 170 and 180 Fig 1 [0041]); a platform (182 Fig 1 [0054]), disposed in the chamber (Fig 1) and configured to carry a substrate (substrate is 181 Fig 1, [0058]); a shower head (171 Fig 1 [0038]), disposed in the chamber (Fig 1); a bias power supply (185 Fig 1 [0054]), coupled to the platform (Fig 1 and [0054]); a first injector (source 110 with valve and unnumbered flow line connected to 170 Fig 1 [0040]), directly connected to the chamber (the unnumbered flow line connecting precursor source B, D, and feed gas to chamber 170, provided direct connection to the chamber) and configured to inject a first precursor or a first inert gas into the chamber through the shower head along a vertical direction ([0040] see vertical arrows through the showerhead 171); and a second injector (source 100 with valve 105 and manifold 199 Fig 1), directly and horizontally connected to the chamber (Fig 1, note manifold 199 is directly and horizontally connected to the chamber) and configured to inject a second precursor or a second inert gas into the chamber along a horizontal direction, wherein the first injector and the second injector sequentially inject the first precursor and the second precursor into the chamber [0042]. Regarding the limitations “when the first precursor or the second precursor is injected into the chamber, the bias power supply is turned on, after the first precursor or the second precursor is injected into the chamber, the first injector injects the first inert gas into the chamber, or the second injector injects the second inert gas into the chamber, and the bias power supply is turned off”, these limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is operated. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). It is noted that Chiang teaches a computer controller (195 Fig 1) which is capable of modifying the application of the bias [0055] such that the apparatus is capable of being operated to turn on or off the power coordinated to gas introduction. Chiang fails to teach the first injector vertically connected to the chamber because Chiang demonstrates a horizontal connection. Initially it is noted that this represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of an atomic layer deposition apparatus ([0003] and Fig 1), Lin teaches direct and vertical connection (see gas inflow system 60, 50 Fig 1 and line connecting 50 and 60 to 40) to portion of the chamber above the showerhead plate having holes (44 Fig 1 [0015]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the first injector directly and vertically connected to portion 170 of the chamber of Chiang because this portion 170 is the above the showerhead (Fig 1) and Lin teaches vertical gas supply to the portion above the showerhead plate (Fig 1) and because Lin demonstrates this is a functional alternative arrangement for providing vertical gas flow of gas to the chamber (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang teaches a radio frequency power supply (160 Fig 1, [0040]) coupled to the first injector [0040] or the shower head (note it may be considered indirectly coupled to the shower head).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang teaches an air pump (pump 184 Fig 1 [0045]), connected to the chamber and generating a pumping airflow in the horizontal direction ([0045], see Fig 1, the connections how results in horizontal airflow).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sowa.
Regarding claim 4, Chiang teaches an air pump (pump 184 Fig 1 [0045]) and a pumping airflow is generated in the horizontal direction ([0045], see Fig 1, the connections how results in horizontal airflow). Chiang fails to teach a low-pressure chamber, connected to the chamber; the air pump connected to the low-pressure chamber, wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of an atomic layer deposition apparatus (abstract and Fig 1), Sowa teaches a low-pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1 [0035]), connected to the chamber(Fig 1, chamber is 105, [0035]); the air pump (155 Fig 1 [0035]) connected to the low-pressure chamber (Fig 1, [0035]), wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber ([0045], note the pressure is lower than the chamber pressure because it is closer to the pump and a lower pressure is required for the correct flow from chamber to trap). Also note that the specific chamber pressure of the low-pressure chamber is directed to the intended use and the apparatus as taught by Sowa is capable of being operated with a lower pressure in chamber 175 than in the processing chamber 105 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the low pressure chamber of Sowa and the position of such in the exhaust line because Sowa teaches that the low pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1) helps trap precursors that exit the chamber and prevent them from flowing into the pump [0035], unreacted precursors could damage the pump if not trapped in the low pressure chamber (trap 175).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Sowa as applied in the combination further teaches a valve (170 Fig 1) disposed between the low-pressure chamber (175 Fig 1) and the chamber (105 Fig 1) [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the valve of Sowa positioned between the low-pressure chamber and the chamber because Sowa teaches this allows for opening and closing vacuum from the chamber during ALD processing [0035].
Regarding claim 9, Chiang fails to teach a first heater, thermally coupled to the first injector to heat the first precursor; and a second heater, thermally coupled to the second injector to heat the second precursor. Sowa teaches including heaters at the precursor or supply structure [0028] to provide temperature control of the precursor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include heaters thermally coupled to the injection device because Sowa teaches this allows for thermal control of precursors [0028]. Regarding specifically a first and second, Chiang has taught the separate precursors, as cited above, and Sowa has taught including this for precursors and delivery structure [0028]. Therefore the combination renders obvious a heater for each precursor injection device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerr.
Regarding claim 6, Chiang teaches the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump (184 Fig 1), but fails to teach a plurality of air feeding channels and a plurality of air pumping channels are alternately arranged within the chamber, and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform, wherein the first injector is connected to the air feeding channels, and the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump connected to the air pumping channels, so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer deposition [0006], Kerr teaches the gas inlet includes a plurality of air feeding channels (12 Fig 3 [0088]) and a plurality of air pumping channels (22 Fig 3 [0088]) are alternately arranged within the chamber (Fig 3), and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform (located above substrate 20 Fig 3), wherein the first injector (18 Fig 3 [0088]) is connected to the air feeding channels [0088], and the air pump connected to the air pumping channels (via exhaust conduit 24 Fig 3 [0088]), so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction (vertical direction Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the inlet structure of Kerr including the structures as recited because Kerr teaches this allows for gas inlet for ALD [0088]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (injector shower head of Kerr) for another (shower head of Chiang) to achieve predictable results (injection of gas to perform ALD).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerr and Sowa.
Regarding claim 7, Chiang teaches the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump (184 Fig 1), but fails to teach a plurality of air feeding channels and a plurality of air pumping channels are alternately arranged within the chamber, and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform, wherein the first injector is connected to the air feeding channels, and the deposition apparatus further comprises an air pump connected to the air pumping channels, so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction. Chiang fails to teach a low-pressure chamber, connected to the chamber; the air pump connected to the low-pressure chamber, wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer deposition [0006], Kerr teaches the gas inlet includes a plurality of air feeding channels (12 Fig 3 [0088]) and a plurality of air pumping channels (22 Fig 3 [0088]) are alternately arranged within the chamber (Fig 3), and the air feeding channels and the air pumping channels are located above the platform (located above substrate 20 Fig 3), wherein the first injector (18 Fig 3 [0088]) is connected to the air feeding channels [0088], and the air pump connected to the air pumping channels (via exhaust conduit 24 Fig 3 [0088]), so as to generate a pumping airflow in the vertical direction (vertical direction Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the inlet structure of Kerr including the structures as recited because Kerr teaches this allows for gas inlet for ALD [0088]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (injector shower head of Kerr) for another (shower head of Chiang) to achieve predictable results (injection of gas to perform ALD). Regarding the low-pressure chamber, Sowa teaches a low-pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1 [0035]), connected to the chamber(Fig 1, chamber is 105, [0035]); the air pump (155 Fig 1 [0035]) connected to the low-pressure chamber (Fig 1, [0035]), wherein a pressure of the low-pressure chamber is lower than a pressure of the chamber ([0045], note the pressure is lower than the chamber pressure because it is closer to the pump and a lower pressure is required for the correct flow from chamber to trap). Also note that the specific chamber pressure of the low-pressure chamber is directed to the intended use and the apparatus as taught by Sowa is capable of being operated with a lower pressure in chamber 175 than in the processing chamber 105 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the low pressure chamber of Sowa and the position of such in the exhaust line because Sowa teaches that the low pressure chamber (trap 175 Fig 1) helps trap precursors that exit the chamber and prevent them from flowing into the pump [0035], unreacted precursors could damage the pump if not trapped in the low pressure chamber (trap 175).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. Sowa as applied in the combination further teaches a valve (170 Fig 1) disposed between the low-pressure chamber (175 Fig 1) and the chamber (105 Fig 1) [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include the valve of Sowa positioned between the low-pressure chamber and the chamber because Sowa teaches this allows for opening and closing vacuum from the chamber during ALD processing [0035].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112(b) (see reply p7-8), applicant’s amendments to use injector or pump overcame the previously applied rejections related to invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without sufficient corresponding structure. However, the amendment to recite “directly” connected raises new issues as explained above.
Regarding the arguments regarding Chiang (reply p9). Examiner respectfully disagrees that Chiang does note teach direct horizontal connection with the injector because manifold 199 is part of the second injector structure. Regarding the vertically and directly connected first injector, Examiner notes this is an obvious mere rearrangement of parts. Further, Sowa or Lin have been applied to demonstrate the obviousness of the vertical direct connection. Applicant argues (reply p10) that Sowa is vertically injected into a plasma formation chamber. It is noted that portion 170 of Chiang, which is identified as part of chamber 190 as cited above, is for plasma generation and therefore further demonstrates the obviousness of providing vertical gas injection into the space. Further, assuming arguendo that the plasma generator of Sowa is not part of the chamber, then it is part of the gas injector structure. Further, Lin as additionally been provided to demonstrate direct vertical connection also. For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0024227 demonstrates side gas injection (9 and 11 Fig 1) with top gas injection (36-38 Fig 1) and side exhaust (10 Fig 1) for a vapor phase apparatus. US 2008/00241387 demonstrates side gas injection (172 Fig 7B) with top gas injection (184 Fig 7B) and side exhaust (174 Fig 7B) for an ALD apparatus. US 2009/0283038 demonstrates side gas injection (18 and 17 Fig 1) with top gas injection (13 and 12 Fig 1) and side exhaust (6 and 7 Fig 1) for a film forming apparatus.
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 at 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights