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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 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 6-7 and 14 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.
The term “high-speed” in claim 6 line 1, claim 7 line 1, and claim 14 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, any speed will be considered to be “high-speed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cimino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0398823, hereafter Cimino ‘823).
Claim 1: Cimino ‘823 teaches a method of controlling a precursor pressure in a reactor system (title, abstract) comprising:
in a data storage storing a predetermined pressure value, which corresponds to the claimed pressure set point, for a reservoir (120), which corresponds to the claimed accumulator, adapted for storing precursor and discharging the precursor to a reaction chamber (101) during substrate processing (Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]);
with a pressure sensor (150), sensing a pressure within the reservoir and sending a signal indicative of the pressure to a controller (190) ([0008], [0021], [0037]);
with the controller, processing the signal from the pressure sensor and the predetermined pressure ([0037], [0039]); and
based on the processing, generating a control signal for a fill valve (164) to charge the reservoir with the precursor from a volume of the precursor stored in a storage vessel (102) (Fig. 1, [0024], [0037], [0039]),
wherein the control signal causes the fill valve to pulse between a closed position and an open position (abstract, [0001], [0037], [0039]).
Claim 4: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the method can comprise determining when the reservoir is discharging precursor to the reaction chamber and closing the fill valve ([0059]), which corresponds to the claimed pausing the generating of the control signal for the fill valve.
Claim 8: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the fill valve can have a pulse time interval of 50 milliseconds ([0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimino et al. ‘823 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 5: Cimino ‘823 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 5, Cimino ‘823 does not explicitly teach that the precursor passing through the fill valve is at temperature over 100°C.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Cimino ‘823 only in the temperature of the precursor, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 6: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the fill valve can be a fast valve that pulses between open and closed positions ([0023]).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimino et al. ‘823 as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Winkler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0087679, hereafter Winkler ‘679).
Claim 2: Cimino ‘823 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cimino ‘823 further teaches that the processing comprises taking the predetermined pressure and signal from the pressure sensor as inputs and producing an output ([0037], [0039]).
With respect to claim 2, Cimino ‘823 does not explicitly teach that the processing comprises a proportional-integral-derivative control loop with a user-defined PID parameter as an input.
Winkler ‘679 teaches a method of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (10) (Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that the controlling can use a proportional-integral-derivative control loop with a desired parameter as an input ([0026]). Both Winkler ‘679 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (‘823, Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]; ‘679, Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the proportional-integral-derivative control loop with a desired parameter as an input taught by Winkler ‘679 as the type of control loop used in the method taught by Cimino ‘823 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 7: Cimino ‘823 teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. With respect to claim 7, Cimino ‘823 does not explicitly teach that the valve is a diaphragm valve.
Winkler ‘679 teaches a method of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (10) (Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that the valves can be diaphragm valves ([0018], [0025]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that diaphragm valve allow for high temperatures and fast response ([0025]).. Both Winkler ‘679 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (‘823, Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]; ‘679, Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diaphragm valve taught by Winkler ‘679 as the valve in the method taught by Cimino ‘823 because diaphragm valves allow for high temperatures and fast response, as taught by Winkler ‘679.
Claim 9: Cimino ‘823 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cimino ‘823 further teaches that the control signal causes the fill valve to pulse repeatedly between a closed position and an open position in a pattern matching that of the fill valve in response to the control signal (abstract, [0001], [0037], [0039]).
With respect to claim 9, Cimino ‘823 does not explicitly teach that the method includes, concurrently with generating the control signal for the fill valve, generating a second control signal for a valve operable to control flow of a carrier gas source through the precursor source vessel.
Winkler ‘679 teaches a method of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (10) (Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]) comprising generating a control signal to control a fill valve (9) between the reservoir and a source vessel (2) (Fig. 1, [0021]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that the method can further comprise concurrently generating a second control signal for a valve (6) operable to control flow of a carrier gas from a carrier gas source (3) through the source vessel (Fig. 1, [0015], [0021]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that this allows supply of a carrier gas that can help deliver precursor gas to the reactor ([0015], [0029]). Both Winkler ‘679 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (‘823, Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]; ‘679, Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of concurrently generating a second control signal for a valve operable to control flow of a carrier gas from a carrier gas source through the source vessel taught by Winkler ‘679 to the method taught by Cimino ‘823 because this allows supply of a carrier gas that can help deliver precursor gas to the reactor, as taught by Winkler ‘679.
Claim 10: Cimino ‘823 teaches a method of controlling a precursor pressure in a reactor system (title, abstract) comprising:
in a data storage storing a predetermined pressure value, which corresponds to the claimed pressure set point, for a reservoir (120), which corresponds to the claimed accumulator, adapted for storing precursor and discharging the precursor to a reaction chamber (101) during substrate processing (Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]);
with a pressure sensor (150), sensing a pressure within the reservoir ([0008], [0021], [0037]);
with a controller (190), processing the signal from the pressure sensor and the predetermined pressure ([0037], [0039]); and
based on the processing, generating a control signal for a fill valve (164) to charge the reservoir, the fill valve being between a storage vessel (102) for the precursor and the reservoir (Fig. 1, [0024], [0037], [0039]),
wherein the control signal causes the fill valve to pulse between a closed position and an open position (abstract, [0001], [0037], [0039]).
With respect to claim 10, Cimino ‘823 does not explicitly teach that the processing comprises a proportional-integral-derivative control loop.
Winkler ‘679 teaches a method of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (10) (Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that the controlling can use a proportional-integral-derivative control loop ([0026]). Both Winkler ‘679 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (‘823, Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]; ‘679, Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the proportional-integral-derivative control loop taught by Winkler ‘679 as the type of control loop used in the method taught by Cimino ‘823 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 11: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the charging time can coincide with a time period when valves to the reaction chamber are closed, and, therefore, precursor is not being dosed to the reaction chamber, and when the reservoir is discharging precursor to the reaction chamber and the fill valve is closed ([0059]).
Claim 14: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the fill valve can be a fast valve that pulses between open and closed positions ([0023]).
With respect to claim 14, the modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 do not explicitly teach that the valve is for fluid temperatures over 100°C or that the valve is a diaphragm valve.
Winkler ‘679 teaches a method of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (10) (Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that the valves can be diaphragm valves ([0018], [0025]). Winkler ‘679 teaches that diaphragm valve allow for high temperatures and fast response ([0025]).. Both Winkler ‘679 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure in a reactor system with a reservoir (‘823, Fig. 1, [0007], [0019], [0020], [0047]; ‘679, Fig. 1, abstract, [0004], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diaphragm valve taught by Winkler ‘679 as the valve in the method taught by Cimino ‘823 because diaphragm valves allow for high temperatures and fast response, as taught by Winkler ‘679.
With respect to claim 14, the modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 do not explicitly teach that the valve is for fluid temperatures over 100°C. However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 only in the fluid temperature, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim(s) 3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimino et al. ‘823 in view of Winkler et al ‘679 as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Jurczyszak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0215602, hereafter Jurczyszak ‘602).
Claims 3 and 12: The modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 teach the limitations of claims 2 and 10, as discussed above. Cimino ‘823 further teaches that the method can comprise performing pulse width modulation on the control system output ([0048]).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, the modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 do not explicitly teach that the method includes performing pulse-density modulation on the output of the PID control loop.
Jurczyszak ‘602 teaches a method of controlling pressure of a chamber (abstract) including performing pulse modulation on the control system ([0049]). Jurczyszak ‘602 teaches that pulse density modulation and pulse width modulation are functional equivalents for the purposes of performing the pulse modulation ([0049]). Both Jurczyszak ‘602 and Cimino ‘823 teach methods of controlling pressure of a chamber (‘823, abstract; ‘602, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pulse density modulation taught by Jurczyszak ‘602 for the pulse width modulation in the method taught by the modified teachings of Cimino ‘823 because pulse density modulation and pulse width modulation are functional equivalents for the purposes of performing the pulse modulation, as taught by Jurczyszak ‘602.
Claim 13: Cimino ‘823 teaches that the fill valve can have a pulse time interval of 50 milliseconds ([0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights