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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 18-19 cancelled
Claims 1, 15 amended
Claims 20-22 new
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 pending
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (PG Pub 2021/0123128 A1) in view of AuBuchon (PG Pub 2021/0087688 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Zhu teaches deposition thin film using ALD process [0025]-[0026], having a reaction space/chamber (18) [0023]. Zhu teaches the process include providing a pulse flow showing Precursor gas amount (P) vs Time unit (ms), where a first pulsed sub-flow (36) have a pulse profile (60) (figure 3, [0026]), where the precursor gas is delivered to the system using carrier gas [0016]. The flow of an amount of a precursor within a time, is considered a flow rate. And the pulse profile (60) is provided as partial pressure of the precursor [0026]. Zhu teaches the first half of the pulse when compared to the latter half of the pulse (68), is higher in flow rate and higher in partial pressure (figure 3).
Zhu does not teach the claimed pulse profile.
However, AuBuchon is in the prior art of depositing films using ALD process on a substrate surface (abstract), teaches the supplying of precursor gas from gas source (110) [0023], as where the gas that is supplied to the chamber is supplied using various pulse shapes such as the profile (310) in figure 6, having an increased first section, steady continuous second section that is higher than the third section with another steady continuous flow, and decrease fourth section, where the first section and second section are the first half pulse, and the third section with the fourth section are the second half of the pulse (figure 6, 310, [0043]).
Although AuBuchon does not explicitly teach the pulse profile is formed using the flow rate of the precursor gas(es) as claimed, however, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art to calculate the “average flow rate” using known engineering principles and routine experimentation, to form the pulse profile (310) using controlled flow rate, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Zhu with AuBuchon using the pulse profile (310), to provide with an improved uniformity dosage for inner and outer regions of the substrate, for the ALD processing [0036].
Consider Claims 2-5, Zhu teaches the average flow rate of the from the start of the flow process to the end of the flow is in the constant decline, reaching the value of 0 (figure 3), and where the amount of the precursor is adjusted in a desired amount, such as 50% or less [0030]. Although Zhu does not explicitly teach the higher value of the 1st half in comparison to the 2nd half, it would have been obvious for skilled person in the art to adjust the supplied amount to leading to an average flow rate of the first half of the pulse to be 150% or higher than the second half, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success. Zhu teaches the average partial pressure of the precursor and the first half of the pulse is higher than the second half of the pulse (figure 3), where the partial pressure can be controlled to be less than 20%, encompassing within 5 % [0030].
Consider Claims 6-9, Zhu teaches the average flow rate of the from the start of the flow process to the end of the flow is in the constant decline, reaching the value of 0 (figure 3).
Consider Claim 10, Zhu teaches the average flow rate of the from the start of the flow process to the end of the flow is in the constant decline including most of the 1st half, including at least 60% of the pulse (figure 3). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 11, Zhu teaches the starting of the pulse is in the 1st half of the pulse, and the ending of the pulse is in the 2nd half of the pulse (figure 3). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 12-13, Zhu teaches the average partial pressure of the precursor and the first half of the pulse is higher than the second half of the pulse (figure 3). Therefore, the 2nd half pulse of the average pulser pressure that is used to calculate the flow rate is lower in the 2nd half than the 1st half.
Consider Claims 14-15, Zhu teaches the average partial pressure of the precursor and the first half of the pulse is higher than the second half of the pulse (figure 3). Where the precursor is constantly declining during at least 90% of the first half of the pulse, and constantly decreasing during the 2nd half of the pulse (figure 3).
Consider Claim 16, Zhu teaches the use of plurality of substrate [0002], where it be obvious for skilled person in the art to maintain a separating distance of the substrate, between 3 mm to 10 cm, to prevent the substrate from touching each other, affecting the coating on to an adjacent substrate, forming a coating line between the adjacent substrate, which would lead to sticking the adjacent substrates into each other, causing separation problems, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Consider Claim 17, Zhu teaches the first pulse profile (60) have a duration between 10 ms to 10,000 ms [0029]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 20, Zhu teaches deposition thin film using ALD process [0025]-[0026], having a reaction space/chamber (18) [0023]. Zhu teaches the process include providing a pulse flow showing Precursor gas amount (P) vs Time unit (ms), where a first pulsed sub-flow (36) have a pulse profile (60) (figure 3, [0026]), where the precursor gas is delivered to the system using carrier gas [0016]. The flow of an amount of a precursor within a time, is considered a flow rate. And the pulse profile (60) is provided as partial pressure of the precursor [0026]. Zhu teaches the first half of the pulse when compared to the latter half of the pulse (68), is higher in flow rate and higher in partial pressure (figure 3).
Zhu does not teach the claimed pulse profile.
However, AuBuchon is in the prior art of depositing films using ALD process on a substrate surface (abstract), teaches the supplying of precursor gas from gas source (110) [0023], as where the gas that is supplied to the chamber is supplied using various pulse shapes such as the profile (310) in figure 6, first duration having a steady continuous first pulse/peak that is higher than the second pulse/peak with another steady continuous flow within a second duration (figure 6, 310, [0043]).
Although AuBuchon does not explicitly teach the pulse profile is formed using the flow rate of the precursor gas(es) as claimed, however, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art to calculate the “average flow rate” and “average partial pressure” using known engineering principles and routine experimentation, to form the pulse profile (310) using controlled flow rate, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Zhu with AuBuchon using the pulse profile (310), to provide with an improved uniformity dosage for inner and outer regions of the substrate, for the ALD processing [0036].
Consider Claims 21-22, AuBuchon teaches the gas pressure (including partial gas pressure) is greater than 4% (including 5%) [0027], and include at less than 30 millisecond (0-30 ms) [0028] including 10% (3 ms/30 ms) of the first pulse duration than the second pulse duration. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 20-22 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 previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
In light of the newly amended claims, the applications arguments are moot in view of the new rejection using Zhu with AuBuchon. Where the pulse profile of AuBuchon (in figure 6) match the pulse prefile of instant application in figure 5, as seen below.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
276
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights