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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments field 27 March 2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-16 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 are amended. Claims 2, 6, 7, 10 are canceled. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims objections discussed in the non-final rejection of 29 Dec 2025 are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 27 March 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "control unit" (claim 1, 3, 5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claim limitation "control unit" (claim 1, 3, 5) has no corresponding structure which raises rejections under U.S.C.112a and 112b as further discussed below. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “control unit” as comprising a general-purpose computer/controller capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e. via an operator/manual control) or alternatively a programmed computer/controller, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5 is/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.
All recitations of “control unit (claims 1, 3, 5)” in the Specification (paragraph [0008], [0010],[0012],[0032],[0042], [0049], [0059][0076]-[0079], [0082]) refers to “control unit” or “control unit 130” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “control the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations by alternating the gases supplied between the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station” and “controls the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied tl the first to fourth process stations through the plurality of first gas valves, the plurality of second gas valves, the plurality of first purge valves, and the plurality of second purge valves (claim 1), “controls the first gas supply part, the second gas supply part, the first purge supply part, and the second purge supply part so that the first process gas, the second process gas, the first purge gas, and the second purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station” (claim 3), “control the first gas supply part so that the first process gas is supplied in order of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; control the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; control the second gas supply part so that the second process gas is supplied in order of the third process station, the fourth process station, the first process station, and the second process station; and control the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station” (claim 5). Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
In light of the above, dependent claims 3-5, 8-9, 11 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claims 1, 3, 5.
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.
Claim 11 rejection under U.S.C. 112b discussed in the non-final rejection of 29 Dec 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 27 March 2026.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-5, 8-9, 11), 3 and 5 is/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, 3, 5 claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. All recitations of “control unit (claims 1, 3, 5)” in the Specification (paragraph [0008], [0010],[0012],[0032],[0042], [0049], [0059][0076]-[0079], [0082]) refers to “control unit” or “control unit 130” and the figures only show control 130 as a box without further specifying a specific structure to perform the claimed functions in claim 1, 3, 5.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets “control unit” as comprising a general-purpose computer capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e. via an operator/manual control) or alternatively a programmed controller, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the above, dependent claims 3-5, 8-9, 11 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claims 1, 3, 5.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation), Okura et al. (US 2018/0037991 A1 hereinafter “Okura”), and Yang et al. (US 2003/0190423 A1 hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sato teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising substrate processing system 100, Fig. 6, 7, 8, para. [0100]-[0159]) comprising:
a multi-station chamber comprising a first process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101a, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]),
a second process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101b, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]),
a third process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101c, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]), and
a fourth process station (comprising substrate processing apparatus 101d, Fig. 6 and 7, para. [0100]), each of which independently performs processes, and configured to perform processes for a plurality of substrates (comprising 200, Fig. 6)( multi-station chamber enables processing one substrate/wafer in each station thus, a plurality of substrate is processed in the substrate processing apparatus, see Fig. 8);
a gas supply unit (comprising processing gas source 113, reactive gas source 123, purge gas source 133, Fig. 7, para. [0101]-[0108]) and a gas line (comprising gas supply pipes 111a-111d, gas supply pipes 121a-121d, gas supply pipes 131a-131d, Fig. 7, para. [0101]-[0108]) configured to divide a plurality of gases (i.e. processing gas, reactive gas, purge/inert gas) to respectively supply the plurality of gases to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station (para. [0101]-[0108], [0121]);
Wherein the gas supply unit comprises:
a first gas supply part (comprising first gas supply system/processing gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) comprising a first gas supply source (comprising processing gas source 113, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) configured to supply a first process gas (i.e. processing gas) to the multi-station chamber (comprising 101a-101d, Fig. 6, 7);
a second gas supply part (comprising second gas supply system/reactive gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [00105]) comprising a second gas supply source (comprising reactive gas supply source 123, Fig. 7, para. [0105]) configured to supply a second process gas (i.e. reactive gas) different from the first process gas to the multi-station chamber (comprising 101a-101d, Fig. 6, 7);
a first purge supply part (comprising purge gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0107]) comprising a first purge gas supply source (comprising purge gas source 133, Fig. 7, para. [0107]) configured to supply a first purge gas to the multi-station chamber;
Wherein the first gas supply part (comprising processing/first gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0103]) comprises a first gas reservoir (comprising buffer tank 114, Fig. 7, para. [0103] [0122]) connected to each of the first process station(comprising 101a, Fig. 6 and 7), the second process station(comprising 101b, Fig. 6 and 7), the third process station(comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6 and 7) and configured to store the first process gas so as to selectively supply the first process gas to the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6 and 7), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6 and 7), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6 and 7); and
a plurality of first gas valves (comprising 116a-116d, Fig. 7) provided between each of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 7), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7) and the first gas reservoir (comprising buffer tank 114, Fig. 7)(para. [0103]);
wherein the second gas supply part comprises a plurality of second gas valves (comprising 126a-126d, Fig. 7)(para. [0105]);
wherein the first purge gas supply part comprises a plurality of first purge valves (comprising 136a-136d, Fig. 7)(para. [0108]); and
a control unit (comprising controller 260, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0052]-[0057]) configured to control the gas supply unit (see para. [0056]) so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations by alternating the gases supplied between the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the second process station(comprising 101b, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the third process station(comprising 101c, Fig. 6, 7, 8), and the fourth process station(comprising 101d, Fig. 6, 7, 8), (see Fig. 8, para. [0110]);
wherein the control unit controls the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations through the plurality of first gas valves, the plurality of second gas valves, the plurality of first purge valves (para. [0056]; see also Fig. 9 para. [0120]-[0129]).
Sato does not explicitly teach a second purge supply part configured to supply a second purge gas to the multi-station chamber; the second gas supply part comprises a second gas reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second process gas so as to selectively supply the second process gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; the first purge supply part comprises a first purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the first purge gas so as to selectively supply the first purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; and the second purge supply part comprises a second purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second purge gas so as to selectively supply the second purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; the plurality of second gas valves are provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second gas reservoir; the plurality of first purge valves are provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the first process station and the first purge reservoir; the second purge supply part comprises a plurality of second purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the first process station and the second purge reservoir; the control unit controls the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied through the first to fourth process stations through the plurality of second purge valves; wherein each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir.
However, Jeong teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising substrate processing device, Fig. 1, para. [0022]) comprising a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially (see Fig. 2b) supply each gas into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse of first purge gas and a pulse of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valve in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second purge gas supply part configured to supply a second purge gas to the multi-station chamber (i.e. by duplicating the first purge gas supply part of Sato including all the structural components such as gas lines, valves, and source) because Jeong teaches that such a configuration is a suitable alternative configuration of a substrate processing apparatus which enables providing a pulse of purge gas from a second purge gas supply part/source enabling supply of the process gases according to the desired process time for the desired substrate processing (para. [0018], [0028]).
Regarding limitation “the second gas supply part..comprising a plurality of second purge valves,” this limitation would obviously be met when duplicating the first purge gas supply part of Sato.
Regarding limitation “wherein the control unit controls the gas supply unit so that the plurality of gases are sequentially supplied to the first to fourth process stations…through the plurality of second purge valves”:
Sato teaches a sequential process that occurs in each chamber (see Fig. 5B showing a pulse supply of the first process gas, then pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part, then pulse supply of second process gas and followed by pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part; para. [0098]) and that the sequential process is performed in a sequential manner across the first through fourth stations shown in Fig. 8. (para.[0110]-[121]). See also the valve sequence in Fig. 9 and accompany description para. [0122]-[0127].
Additionally, Jeong teaches a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially supply the first process gas, then a first purge gas from the first purge gas source, followed supply of the second process gas and then supply of second purge gas from the second purge gas source (see sequence shown in Fig. 2B) through a plurality of second purge valves into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse supply of a first purge gas and a pulse supply of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valves in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control unit of Sato to also control the gas supply unit through the plurality of second purge valves to provide the second purge gas to be sequentially supplied to the first through fourth process stations because Sato already teaches sequential supply/pulsing of each gas into each process station and because Jeong teaches/suggests that pulsing of first and second purge gas is a known suitable gas supply configuration which enables supplying process gas at a desired process time for desired substrate processing.
Sato in view of Jeong as applied above does not explicitly teach the second gas supply part comprises a second gas reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second process gas so as to selectively supply the second process gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; the first purge supply part comprises a first purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the first purge gas so as to selectively supply the first purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, and the second purge supply part comprises a second purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second purge gas so as to selectively supply the second purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station; the plurality of second gas valves are provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second gas reservoir; the plurality of first purge valves are provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the first process station and the first purge reservoir; the second purge supply part comprises a plurality of second purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the first process station and the second purge reservoir; wherein each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir.
However, Okura teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a first gas supply part including a first gas source (comprising 44, Fig. 1) and a first gas reservoir (comprising 42, Fig. 1), a second gas supply part including a second gas source (comprising 64, Fig. 1) and a second gas reservoir (comprising 62, Fig. 1), a first purge supply part including a first purge gas source (comprising 68, Fig. 1) and a first purge gas reservoir (comprising 66, Fig. 1), a second purge gas supply part including a second purge gas source (comprising 48, Fig. 1) and a second purge gas reservoir (comprising 46, Fig. 1). Okura teaches that providing gas reservoirs enables temporarily storing respective gases supplied from gas supply sources at the upstream sides of gas flow passages, thereby stabilizing the flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1)(para. [0030]).
Note: Sato already teaches a first gas reservoir (114, Fig. 7) and the plurality of first gas valves positioned between each of the first through fourth process stations and the first gas reservoir (Fig. 7).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a second gas reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second process gas so as to selectively supply the second process gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, to add/provide a first purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the first purge gas so as to selectively supply the first purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, and to add/provide a second purge reservoir connected to each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and configured to store the second purge gas so as to selectively supply the second purge gas to the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station (i.e. duplicating the configuration of the reservoir 114 of Sato for the other gas supply parts) because Okura teaches a gas supply part including a reservoir enables stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber(s)/stations (Okura: para. [0030]), wherein connecting the respective reservoirs to each of the respective process stations would obviously enable stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to each of the respective process stations.
Regarding limitations “a plurality of second gas valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second gas reservoir,” “ a plurality of first purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the first purge reservoir,” and “a plurality of second purge valves provided between each of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station and the second purge reservoir,” these limitations describe the location/placement of the valves being between each process station and the respective reservoirs. Since the combination already teaches the plurality of valves for each gas supply part, as discussed in detail above, and since the reservoir 114 configuration of Sato was duplicated and applied to the other gas supply parts of the combination, these limitations would obviously be met by the combination of teachings of Jeong and Okura as applied above.
Sato in view of Jeong and Okura as applied above do not explicitly teach wherein each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above.
Sato further teaches the control unit (comprising 260, Fig. 1, para. [0053]-[0056]) is configured to control the first gas supply part (comprising processing gas supply system including , Fig. 7, para. [0103]), the second gas supply part (comprising reactive gas supply system Fig. 7, para. [0105]), the first purge supply part (comprising purge gas supply system, Fig. 7, para. [0107], so that the first process gas, the second process gas, the first purge gas are divided to be respectively supplied to different process stations of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6, 7, 8), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6 and 7), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6, 7, 8) (para. [0053]-[0056], [0121]).
Sato in view of Jeong, Okura and Yang as applied above does not explicitly teach the control unit controls the second purge gas part to respectively supply the second purge gas to the first through fourth stations.
However, Sato teaches a sequential process that occurs in each chamber (see Fig. 5B showing a pulse supply of the first process gas, then pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part, then pulse supply of second process gas and followed by pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part; para. [0098]) and that the sequential process is performed in a sequential manner across the first through fourth stations shown in Fig. 8. (para.[0110]-[121]). See also the valve sequence in Fig. 9 and accompany description para. [0122]-[0127].
Additionally, Jeong teaches a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially supply the first process gas, then a first purge gas from the first purge gas source, followed supply of the second process gas and then supply of second purge gas from the second purge gas source (see sequence shown in Fig. 2B)into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse supply of a first purge gas and a pulse supply of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valves in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control unit of Sato to also control the second purge gas supply part to provide the second purge gas to be supplied to different process stations of the first through fourth process stations because Sato already teaches sequential supply/pulsing of each gas into each process station and because Jeong teaches/suggests that pulsing of first and second purge gas is a known suitable gas supply configuration which enables supplying process gas at a desired process time for desired substrate processing.
Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 as applied above.
Sato further teaches wherein the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 6) is disposed in a first direction (i.e. upward in Fig. 6) of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6), the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 6) is disposed in a second direction (i.e. toward the right in Fig. 6) perpendicular to the first direction of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6), and the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 6) is disposed in a diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4 as applied above.
Sato further teaches wherein the control unit (comprising 260, Fig. 1 and 2) is configured to: control the first gas supply part (comprising processing/first gas supply system including processing gas source 113 and valves 111a-111d, Fig. 7) so that the first process gas is supplied in order of the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7 and 8), the second process station (comprising 101b, Fig. 7 and 8), the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7 and 8), and the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7 and 8); control the second gas supply part (comprising reactive/second gas supply system including reactive gas source 123 and valves 126a-126d, Fig. 7 and 8) so that the second process gas is supplied in order of the third process station (comprising 101c, Fig. 7 and 8), the fourth process station (comprising 101d, Fig. 7 and 8), the first process station (comprising 101a, Fig. 7 and 8), and the second process station (as understood from Fig. 8).
Examiner notes that that apparatus of Sato was modified in view of teachings of Jeong to include the second purge gas supply part in claim 1 rejection above.
Sato in view of Jeong as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach controlling the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; control the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station.
However, Sato teaches a sequential process that occurs in each chamber (see Fig. 5B) showing a pulse supply of the first process gas, then pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part, then pulse supply of second process gas and followed by pulse supply of purge gas from the first purge gas supply part; para. [0098]) and that the sequential process is performed in a sequential manner across the first through fourth stations shown in Fig. 8. (para.[0110]-[121]). See also the valve sequence in Fig. 9 and accompany description para. [0122]-[0127].
Additionally, Jeong teaches a gas supply unit (comprising 400, Fig. 1, para. [0026]), wherein the gas supply unit comprises a first gas supply source (comprising 411, Fig. 1), a second gas supply source (comprising 413, Fig. 1), a first purge gas source (comprising 412, Fig. 1), and a second purge gas source (comprising 414, Fig. 1) configured to sequentially supply the first process gas, then a first purge gas from the first purge gas source, followed supply of the second process gas and then supply of second purge gas from the second purge gas source (see sequence shown in Fig. 2B) into the processing chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1) (para. [0026]). Jeong teaches that such a configuration enables providing a pulse supply of a first purge gas and a pulse supply of a second purge gas (see Fig. 2b) improving the driving characteristics of the valves in a short time so that the process gas can be supplied according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the control unit/control to perform the steps of controlling the first purge supply part so that the first purge gas is supplied in order of the fourth process station, the first process station, the second process station, and the third process station; and controlling the second purge supply part so that the second purge gas is supplied in order of the second process station, the third process station, the fourth process station, and the first process station (i.e. controlling the first purge gas supply part to supply a first purge gas for the first purge step and controlling the second purge gas supply part to supply a second purge gas for the second purge step) because Sato already teaches sequentially supplying the first process gas, supplying a purge gas for a first purge gas step, the second process gas, and supplying a purge gas for a second purge gas supply step to respective first through fourth stations in a sequential manner and because Jeong teaches/suggests supplying a first purge gas from a first purge gas supply part in a first purge step and supplying a second purge gas from a second purge gas supply part in a second purge step as a known suitable alternative gas supplying configuration which would enable supplying process gases according to a desired process time for desired substrate processing (Jeong: para. [0018],[0026],[0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir has a size less than that of each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Regarding claim 9, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir have the same size.
However, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the size of the reservoirs to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0187611 A1) in view of Jeong (KR101248918B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine translation), Okura et al. (US 2018/0037991 A1 hereinafter “Okura”), and Yang et al. (US 2003/0190423 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 above and further in view of Provencher et al. (US 2008/0202416 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sato in view of Jeong, Okura, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a plurality of valve blocks, wherein each valve block of the plurality of valve blocks supports a respective first gas valve of the plurality of first gas valves, a respective second gas valve of the plurality of second gas valves, a respective first purge valve of the plurality of first purge valves, a respective second purge valve of the plurality of second purge valves, and the plurality of valve blocks are provided on upper portions of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, respectively.
However, Sato teaches that the valves (comprising 116a-116d, 126a-126d, 136a-136d, Fig. 7) are located above upper portions of the first through fourth process stations (comprising 101a-101d, Fig.7), wherein each process station has an associated respective first gas valve, second gas valve, and purge valve, but is silent regarding how the valves are supported.
Additionally, Provencher teaches a valve block (comprising manifold assembly 10 including body 27 and insulator plate 56, Fig. 4 and 5) supporting a first gas valve (comprising one of reactant gas valves 31(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), a second gas valve (comprising a different one of reactant gas valves 31(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), a first purge gas valve (comprising one of inert gas valves 30(a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), and a second purge gas valve (comprising a different one of inert gas valves 30 (a)-(d), Fig. 4 and 5), wherein the valve block (comprising 10, Fig. 1 and 4) is provided on an upper portion of a process station (comprising reaction chamber 1, Fig. 1, para. [0029]) (para. [0038],[0040],[0064]-[0074]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a plurality of valve blocks, wherein each valve block of the plurality of valve blocks supports a respective first gas valve of the plurality of first gas valves, a respective second gas valve of the plurality of second gas valves, a respective first purge valve of the plurality of first purge valves, a respective second purge valve of the plurality of second purge valves, and the plurality of valve blocks are provided on upper portions of the first process station, the second process station, the third process station, and the fourth process station, respectively because Sato already teaches that each of the first through fourth process stations have respective valves for each associated gas supply part above an upper portion of each respective process station and because Provencher teaches/suggests providing a valve block to support a plurality of valves on an upper portion of a process station as a known suitable configuration for supporting/mounting the valves needed for gas supply into a respective process station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 5) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1, amended claim 1 limitations are not taught by Horii or Sato nor obvious in view of Jeong, Okura, or Yang for at least the reason that "each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir" as required by amended claim 1.
Examiner responds that independent claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Horii is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments directed toward Horii are moot. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Jeong, Okura, and Yang as discussed in detail in claims rejection above. In the current rejections, Yang teaches that the size of a reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 6-7) regarding amended claim 1, Okura does not disclose "each of the first gas reservoir and the second gas reservoir has a size different from that of each of the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir" as required by amended claim 1 and Okura teaches only a single process space.
Examiner responds to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references (Okura) individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Sato already teaches a multi-chamber processing station as well as a first gas supply part comprising a first gas reservoir, as discussed in detail above. Okura is cited to teach additionally providing reservoirs for the gas reservoirs for the second gas supply part, first purge supply part, second purge supply part. Okura teaches that providing gas reservoirs enables temporarily storing respective gases supplied from gas supply sources at the upstream sides of gas flow passages, thereby stabilizing the flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1)(para. [0030]). Thus, it would be obvious to provide each gas supply part with a gas reservoir because Okura teaches a gas supply part including a reservoir enables stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to be supplied to the processing chamber(s)/stations (Okura: para. [0030]), wherein connecting the respective reservoirs to each of the respective process stations would obviously enable stabilizing flow rates of the respective gases to each of the respective process stations.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding amended claim 1, Yang merely discloses the presence of one or more gas reservoirs and does not teach a multi-station chamber.
Examiner responds to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references (Yang) individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Sato already teaches a multi-chamber processing station as well as a first gas supply part comprising a first gas reservoir, as discussed in detail above. Yang teaches that the size of a gas reservoir is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber which affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (para. [0028],[0033]). Thus, it would be obvious to optimize through routine optimization the size of each of the first gas reservoir, the second gas reservoir, the first purge reservoir and the second purge reservoir because Yang teaches the size of the reservoirs in a gas supply system is a result-effective variable which affects the volume of gas available for fluid delivery into the processing chamber and ultimately affects the time required for fluid delivery during processing (Yang: para. [0033]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the size of each of the reservoirs in order to optimize fluid delivery time for optimal substrate processing.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected. Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the dependent claims 3-5, 8-9, 11 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tzu et al. (US 2003/0010451 A1) teaches reservoirs are sized to ensure that an adequate gas volume is available proximate to the valves during each cycle of the valves to minimize time required for fluid delivery, thereby shortening sequential deposition cycles (para. [0027]).
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights