DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims require that the system is configured to perform a plurality of deposition processes one after another. While broadly “one after another” is understood, there is no language in the specification that would guide one to what is required to meet “one after another”. There is particularly no guidance on the amount of time – the claimed system is a batch process. The substrates would have to be unloaded and at least a new batch would have to be included, so, it is not clear what time frame is required or what steps can be included or not included to meet the requirements of “one after another”. Furthermore, the different modes of batch, semi-batch and single substrate processing are described, it is not clear how or if this relates to such embodiments.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (2011/0197812) in view of Scholz (2005/0183771) and Noguchi(2011/0091650).
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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al in view of Bailey (2005/0142010).
The teachings of Im et al are applied above, 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.
In regard to 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There is a 112(b) rejection with the amended claims. It is noted that applicants have not pointed out any portions of the specification that teach the newly added material if that would help to understand the scope.
Applicants argue over that the refill system of Scholz operates differently than that the claimed. The Office notes that the claimed apparatus is now being modified by functionality. All of the words of the claim are being interpreted. But the intended use of an apparatus does not drive patentability. In this case, the combined elements of Noguchi (pump negative pressure) combined with the automatic refill system of Scholz, meet the intended use requirements – i.e. the system is capable of the same use.
It is further noted that claims that include “controller” steps are held to require the actual processing steps such as claimed – in this case, there does not appear to be a generic “controller” (or computer) present in the application to force such an interpretation with amendment. The structure of the claimed apparatus must be differentiated from that of the prior art.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712