DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (2011/0197812) in view of Scholz (2005/0183771), Noguchi(2011/0091650), Bailey (2005/0142010).
Im teaches a deposition system comprising (Figs. 1 and 4 and related text):
- a reaction chamber, 180; in regard to being configured to perform a plurality of deposition processes one after another – this is an intended use of the system.
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). There is no further claimed structure related to the “configured” clause as noted, nor is there any specific teaching in the specification of any structure that is required to perform such processes, therefore the prior art is considered capable of the same use in that it has the same structure;
- a first gas supply unit configured to supply a liquid precursor to the chamber in a gaseous state – see first gas supply unit, that includes (150)
- a second gas supply unit – see 140 or 310, the second tank different than the first,
- an exhaust unit – while Im does not specifically teach an exhaust unit, it is understood that such a system has an exhaust unit as previously argued per MPEP 2144.01,
In regard to the first gas supply unit – Im teaches a first sub tank, 150, but does not teach a main tank or first automatic refill system, and teaches an LMFC between the sub tank and vaporizer – the sub tank is configured to receive a carrier gas above a level of precursor – see Fig. 4, and
The second supply unit comprises a second sub tank, see 140 or 310, but also does not teach a second main tank or second automatic refill system, and teaches a carrier gas provided below a level of precursor, as depicted, the second system comprising a bubbler as depicted and described [0063-65].
Noguchi teaches that it is useful to supply a sub tank (36b) using a main tank (44) to provide liquid to an evaporator, see Fig. 1 and related text, particularly [0061-62]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to add the main (refill) tank of Noguchi to the system of Im as it would allow for more precursor to be stored in the system for further use. The combined art therefore teaches the claimed first and second main tanks (per Noguchi) and the other elements, including the first and second sub tanks which receive the carrier gas, of the first and second supply units but does not teach the automatic refill systems.
The automatic refill system is described per the specification as a system that can operate to fill the sub tank. Scholz teaches that it is useful to have an automatic refill system to refill a bubbler, see Fig. 1 and related text, particularly [0042] and claim 1. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the auto-matic refill system of Scholz for the bubbler of Im as Im is silent on a refill mechanism and Scholz teaches the benefits of the additional structure in order to refill bubblers.
In regard to the functions of the automatic refill system, this is again intended use. The refill system of Scholz is driven by pressure measurement [0009] the system of Noguchi further teaches that it is useful to include a pump to cause suction to effect the flow of liquid [0124, 0088], therefore, the structure of the system includes all elements of the intended use as claimed and the combined prior art system is capable of the same use. The intended use language is applied above – the structure of the prior art includes all elements and wherein the claim is drawn to an apparatus and the apparatus is capable of the same use, the intended use limitations are met.
Specific precursors are not claimed and the claims are comprising so, per the claims and per the teachings of Im, any number of precursors can be applied. The Office takes the position that the prior art is capable of the same use of such precursors as claimed wherein the second precursor vapor pressure is 1 Torr or more and the second vapor pressure is higher than the first. The broader teachings of Im include that the bubbler or vaporizer is usable for a range of precursors – and the specific teachings are in regard to different Te precursors – see particularly [0063], but wherein the first precursor, for example, is the Sb (or another) precursor, the limitations are met (particularly wherein Im is not limited to specific Sb and/or Te precursors, see particularly [0015] and [0047]. The further selection of precursors meeting the claim requirements would have been obvious wherein the structure to evaporate such compounds is taught and Im is not limited.
In regard to a batch system, Im does not teach a batch process but Noguchi teaches that such batch operations are well known in the art for treating multiple substrates at once [0007] with the known and understood benefits.
The teachings do not include a plasma pretreatment chamber a pump and scrubber as claimed. Bailey teaches that a scrubber and plasma process to remove unwanted gases is useful in the exhaust system including a pump in a semiconductor processing system, see [0003-18] particularly [0016]. Dickinson further teaches in a process wherein it is useful to include a plasma process to treat the exhaust, it is useful to include a reactant line that feeds a reactant gas (exemplified as oxygen), see Fig. 2 and related text, particularly [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the (pump), scrubber and plasma treatment system of Bailey along with the oxygen plasma treatment of Dickinson to the deposition system of Noguchi since Im is silent on a gas abatement/exhaust system (though as above, at least a pump is understood) and Bailey and Dickinson teach that those elements are useful in such a system for treating exhaust gases.
In regard to the sequential arrangement of the parts, the combination would be understood as the same but in any case the rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 2, the control of the amount of the precursors is again intended use of the apparatus and the apparatus of the combined prior art would be capable of the same use as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Im teaches a reactant supply (110).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, all elements are taught and/or capable by the prior art, the use of plasma and recombination is a matter of controlling the process in the exhaust and as per above the combined art teaches the required reactive gas.
Regarding claim 8, the bubbler as described injects the carrier gas directly in the second precursor in the second tank with the outlet at a first height. In regard to the second height, this is an intended use of the apparatus, per the combined art, one would reasonably control the height of the liquid as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Im depicts the height of the inlet pipe as higher than the liquid, but, again, this is in any case an intended use.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (2011/0197812) in view of Scholz (2005/0183771), Noguchi(2011/0091650), Bailey (2005/0142010) and L’Heureux (2019/0338419).
The teachings of Im and the combined art as above are applied and not repeated. Wherein the combination does not explicitly teach that the treatment system is before the pump, the teachings of L’Heureux are further applied. L’Heureux teaches that in a processing system it is beneficial to treat certain gases before they reach the pump and scrubber [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include a treatment chamber (i.e. equivalent to the claimed plasma treatment chamber) prior to the pump as L’Heureux further teaches that such a sequential arrangement is advantage to treat certain gases before reaching parts such as pump, abatement systems and scrubbers.
The other claims are addressed as above and won’t be repeated.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al in view of Liu (2005/0147749).
The teachings of Im et al are applied above, teaching supplying vaporized material but not teaching a filter as claimed. Liu teaches that in a system used for vaporizing a liquid and feeding to a process chamber, it is useful to include a gas filter (the understood benefit is to filter undesired materials from reaching the chamber) [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the filter of Liu in the apparatus of the combined art as it would be beneficial for maintaining purity which is a well-known desire in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the claimed arrangement is supported in the specification as having the benefits of extending the lifespan of the pump per [0041]. The Office notes, however, that [0042] provides a vague example of how the lifetime may be extended – and includes that “the replacement cycle of the pump may differ depending on the process environment”. This makes it clear that it depends on the usage of the system. The claim does not include any process conditions.
Per MPEP 716.02(d): Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
In this case, the rejection is maintained for two reasons:
- there is no objective evidence provided, the specification provides a very general statement of benefit, but no actual evidence,
- the general statement is not commensurate in scope to the claims, which are drawn to an apparatus and may be used for inert processes. Allowing the claim based on the benefit would require an actual process related to pump issues.
It is noted that in 716.02(d) that nonobvious of a claimed range may be supported by data showing unexpected results of a narrower range. In other words, if the applicants have some evidence of benefit, such a showing may be sufficient to generally support allowability of the claims in spite of the claims covering any process (because they are drawn to the apparatus).
Applicants further point to statements in [0070-76] regarding the use of zirconia. This is not so limited in the claims, and there is no actual objective evidence provided to support the criticality. There is no evidence that the particular sequence of the exhaust apparatus provides a direct benefit over another sequence of the claimed parts and there is no actual data showing the actual benefit (i.e. actual numbers, just generic statements that things are improved). Because the process is not actually claimed, the Office requires at least some actual data to support applicants arguments.
The arguments further include the use of a reactive gas, such as oxygen, to decompose exhaust material – again, oxygen and/or a reactive gas is not required by the claims, the claims are only drawn to an apparatus.
In regard to the use of the vacuum pump before the sub atmospheric chamber in Bailey, this is not persuasive because the elements of the prior art are being combined and not expected to meet all limitations. Bailey is applied in the manner above.
It is also further noted that the teachings of L’Heureux are not applied and any arguments/evidence of criticality would also have to overcome those teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights