DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 16-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim (2017/0314129) in view of Fiedler (2020/0063257) and Satoh (2004/0076767).
Karim teaches a method of:
- forming a film with a predetermined element with first and second films:
- forming a first film by performing a number of steps comprising forming and modifying a first layer, see wherein an ALD process is performed, particularly [0039],
- and forming the second film by again performing the same cycles (any number of the cycles comprise the second film),
wherein the first condition and second condition are set so that the thickness of the fourth layer is smaller than that of the second layer – see particularly per [0002] wherein a deposition in a first station produces a certain thickness but then is altered to further produce a thinner layer in a subsequent cycle. The subsequent cycles meet the requirement of the forming of the second film, thinner than the first film.
Karim teaches changing a concentration [0051-52] but does not explicitly teach the further requirements of controlling the concentration except by adjusting height of the substrate (i.e. concentration at the surface) and not concentration within the source gas, and while the Office holds that it is understood from the teachings, Fiedler is further applied. Fiedler teaches that control of the thickness of a vapor deposited layer by controlling the concentration of precursor in the source gas [0037]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to modify the concentration of the precursor in the source material as taught by Fiedler in the method of Karim as a manner of controlling thickness (which is desired by Karim as per above). The control of the precursor within the source gas is understood to include a non-precursor gas and therefore meets the requirements of claims in regard also to the ratio of the inert gas to the precursor gas. The combined teachings therefore include changing the concentration, but do not expressly include adjusting the flow rate of the inert gas as claimed, but Satoh further teaches in changing concentration of a supplied gas the flow rate of the inert gas is operably increased or decreased as a means of controlling the concentration [0043-45]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to change the inert gas flow rate as taught by Satoh in the process of Karim and Fiedler as the combined art teaches adjusting a flow rate and Satoh further teaches that the inert gas flow is one tool that allows for control of the same. Combining the teachings includes conditions that results in the claimed conditions wherein the supply flow rate of the inert gas in b-1 is greater than in a-1 and the corresponding ratio requirements is therefore met.
The claims are broadly written such that ANY number of times (cycles) of the process meet the first number of times and any other number of times (cycles) of the process meets the requirements of the second number of times (i.e. if the prior art process is carried using seven cycles, 4 cycles are carried out and considered the first numbers of times and 3 cycles is the second number of times – there are no further limitations in regard to the process as claimed).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the deposition conditions do not change as described other than the speed/amount of deposited material, so the composition is the same.
Regarding claim 4, the “conditions” are broadly claimed – in any case the first conditions is carried out during the forming the first layer which includes step (a-1) and the second condition during the second layer which includes step (b-1). Wherein the process is described as an ALD process wherein a monolayer is adsorbed in step b-1 and reacted in step b-2 – the second condition necessarily requires that the thickness of the third layer to be less than a thickness of the first layer in order for the thickness of the fourth layer to be less than that of the second layer.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Karim teaches reducing or stopping (i.e. reduced flow time) the flow of the precursor [0004].
Regarding claim 7 Karim teaches changing a concentration [0051-52].
Regarding claim 10, Satoh teaches multiple inlets for reaction gases, see Fig. 1 and [0053], as the reactive and source gas are supplied, an inert gas is operably supplied through the same and different gas supply ports as the source gas.
Regarding claim 11, as per Fig. 1, the carrier gas is mixed and then delivered.
Regarding claim 14, as per above, the thickness of the second film is smaller than the first film.
Regarding claim 16, as per the teachings, (b) is after (a), thereby forming the second film on the first.
Regarding claim 17, further to claim 15, since any number of cycles constitutes a first and second film the requirement is automatically met as the layers are selected randomly to meet the claim requirement.
Regarding claim 18, the process forms a device [0001].
Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as thickness of a produced film. Absent evidence showing such criticality use of the claimed thickness would have been prima facie obvious.
It is further noted that that thickness is a result of how long and/or how many cycles are performed – and that Karim teaches, as per above, that different layers are different thicknesses as a result of the different stations – therefore the thickness is not restricted to a multiple of any one station or on-film deposition.
Regarding claim 22, as a matter of controlling the concentration – it is within the teachings of the combined art to maintain a constant total flow rate. As per above, there is no criticality demonstrated in the selection of this process variable. It is further known also to maintain a steady process pressure. See also Satoh [0045].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim et al in view of Lee (2008/0132069).
The teachings of Karim are described above – the teachings include a source and valve but not a tank as claimed. Lee teaches that it is useful to control a flow of gas into a system for an ALD process [0005-08] using a buffer tank to hold a certain amount of precursor and carrier gas [0058]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the buffer tank of Lee in the method and apparatus of Karim as it would help control the amount of precursor supplied to the process.
Regarding claim 13, the arguments over the flow rate ratio (i.e. concentration) are addressed above in regard to claims 7-9 and not repeated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Office agrees that the teachings as previously presented do not teach the newly amended claims, but the inclusion of Satoh addresses the limitations related to the inert gas in adjusting a concentration – in combination with Fiedler that was previously applied to teach the control of the concentration. In regard to the requires for prior art in regard to claim 10, that element is also addressed by Satoh.
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 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/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
Prosecution Insights