DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there would not be serious search burden to examiner the cancelled group. This is not found persuasive because further search would be needed for programming as claimed in the cancelled claim set. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 requires flowing a second reactive gas into the second set of flow levels. Claim 1 already requires a second gas flow into the second set of flow levels – it is not clear if the second reactive gas is part of the second gas flow or distinct, both flows are required in the second set of flow levels. The first reactive gas is described in terms of the first gas flow.
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, 21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (2013/0019803) in view of Cook (2003/0049372).
Samir teaches a method of substrate processing, comprising:
- flowing gases onto a substrate in a chamber, such as per Figs. 3A-C wherein:
- a first gas flow is in a first flow level of a process chamber, see 304, Fig. 3C,
- flowing a second gas flow into the second flow level of the chamber simultaneously with the first level, see particularly [0037-38] wherein two gases are flowed at the same time in the different “levels” (based on the injector configuration),
- the first gas flow is one composition, such as in 304 and the second gas flow is a second composition at a second level such as 306 [0037-38].
The teachings include heating the substrate [0042], but Samir does not teach a plurality of the first and second flow levels, exemplifying a single level.
Cook, however, teaches, that is useful to treat multiple substrates at one time in order to increase production, see Fig. 3 vs Figs. 5 and 6, and [0007, 73]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to modify the system and method of Samir to treat multiple wafers at one time as per Cook such would increase production. In modifying the process, one would apply the first and second gases to multiple flow levels as taught per the Fig. 3C embodiment of Samir, thereby flowing the first and second gases respectively into the first and second sets of flow levels, wherein, once duplicated, the flow levels are alternating with respect to each other. It is further noted that the modification is also a routine duplication of parts – see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. In this case, the duplication of the parts serves the purpose as noted by Cook in increasing throughput within one system.
It is further noted that in combination – wherein Samir’s gas supply is applied in duplicity in a vertical manner, the first and second sets of flow levels are alternated.
Regarding claim 21, the teachings of Samir including heating system [0033]. In regard to the valves, as per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference. In this case, while the teachings do not explicitly include valves to control the flow of gases, such use of valves is understood.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, in the same manner of claim 21, such valves are commonly understood. To open valves to generally flow gases is generally known, and wherein there are no particular required gases, is obvious over the teachings. Further, in regard to the order opening of valves, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. selection/change of the sequence of adding ingredients (flows) is obvious without a showing of criticality. As there are no specific gases, there is no demonstrated criticality. Further to claim 25, Samir teaches the first and second reactive gases and to apply the same in the first or second flow level is an obvious manipulation (additionally, the claims do not limit both the first and second gases from flowing in both levels).
Claims 2, 3, 10, 12-15, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir and Cook in view of Kato (2010/0068383).
The teachings of Samir and Cook include multiple levels of substrates with first and second flows going to the different levels, see Samir, but the combined teachings do not teach moving the substrates at least one flow level as claimed in claim 2.
Kato teaches a system that includes up and down movement (i.e. to different flow layers) to deposit different layers on substrates, see particularly Figs. 6A and B and [0050-56], wherein different layers are applied at different levels (see wherein 6A moves into the position of 6B to deposit a different layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to shift the substrates of Samir and Cook to different flow levels as taught by Kato in order to put different layers on different substrates.
In regard to the gases – even applying the same gases as Samir – a first and a second gas is applied. Per Samir, the first gas and the second gas are defined as a first and second process gas [0037]. The teachings include that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051], therefore the use of the claimed gases in the first and/or second positions and flow levels is obvious.
Further, per the combined art, Kato guides one to apply different gases as needed based on the desired process of each level. The claims are not limited to any particular gas or gases (beyond the requirement for inert gases already taught above).
Regarding claim 3, per the movement of the substrate and the formation of different layers as per Kato, the limitations are met. The teachings include forming a first layer and then other layers on the first layer – though the combination is noted as not limited by Kato’s particular embodiment of a BTBAS layer and N2 / O3 layers but rather any layers when the substrate is moved to accommodate different deposition materials.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings as described above include the moving to a second position, flowing an inert gas (at least with a reactive gas) [0051]. As per the combined art, the teachings generally include moving the substrates to different positions and applying different layers at different levels.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Cook as noted include multiple substrates. The teachings of Samir as described include the repetition of any steps of applying the gases and the gases are repeated simultaneously as described. The movement to a second position is addressed above per claim 2 (per Samir [0059]).
The use of reactive and inert gases is described [0051] as above.
Regarding claim 13, all elements are met as addressed per claim 12 above – the subset of the second set of flow levels is met by the art including the flowing to all of the entire set (i.e. the claim does not require that not of the set are utilized).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of above include flowing the first gases, but then further as noted Samir makes changing the gases and therefore the combinations obvious, see [0029], thereby encompassing the third and fourth gas flow. In regard to the additional flow levels, the teachings include two flow levels, the modification would require two additional flow levels. As per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. Wherein Samir teaches multiple flow levels, to include more flow levels would have been obvious. Without further definition of the gases, the use for the same purpose is further obvious based on Samir’s teachings.
Regarding claim 15, further to claim 14, the teachings of Cook above include multiple substrates; the teachings of Samir as noted above include the reactive and inert gases [0051] and the rotation to a second position [0059].
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Kato teaches a lifting mechanism (see Fig. 2 including 34, 31, etc.) see [0043-47]. In regard to opening and closing the valves, as per claim 21, the valves are understood. Kato teaches that different (or the same, as needed) gases are flowed at different levels in order to deposit different layers. The gases applied are not limited and the teachings of Kato generally include that such application of gases is useful and is not limited to the gases applied.
Claims 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (2013/0019803) and Cook (2003/0049372) in view of Dietze (2001/0015168).
Regarding claim 4, as per Cook, a plurality of substrates are taught. In regard to the different sets of flow levels, the teachings do not include that different flow levels correspond to first and second sides of the substates. Dietze, however, teaches that it is useful to form layers on the front and back side of a substrate at the same time by simultaneously flowing gases in both regions [0039]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to provide gases to both sides of the substrate as taught by Dietze as it would allow films to be deposited on each as per Dietze.
Regarding claim 5, per the combined art, there is a different film formed on the front and the back, Dietze [0039].
Regarding claim 6, as taught per Samir per claim 2, the teachings include that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051], therefore the use of the claimed gases in the first and/or second positions and flow levels is obvious. In regard to the moving of moving the substrate from a first position to a second position, the teachings include rotating the substrate [0059].
Regarding claim 7, per the combined art, there is a first gas flow including a reactive gas and a second gas flow that includes an inert gas, as per above the second reactive gas is flowed to the second sides of the substrates. All gases as per Samir are flowed with an inert gas as above [0051].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, in regard to the moving of moving the substrate from a first position to a second position, the teachings include rotating the substrate [0059] and Samir further teaches changing the gases, see [0029]. Further to claim 9, Samir teaches that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051].
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Cook as noted include multiple substrates.
The first and second flow levels are drawn to different sides of the substrate as further per Dietze to claim 4 (while claim 11 does not depend from 4, teachings of Dietze are applied in the manner as above and will not be repeated to teach the flow of gases to both the front and back sides). The first and second positions are described per Samir and Cook and the use of reactive and inert gases is described [0051] as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state that Samir and Cook fail to teach the flowing a first gas into a first set of flow levels and flowing a second gas into a second set of flow levels. Applicants argue that Samir teaches the same composition from ports 304 and 306, but per [0037-38], the composition supplied by these ports is distinct.
In duplicating the gas inlet of Samir, i.e. repeating the dual-channeled injector port, a first gas (i.e. through 304) is flowed to a first level and the gas from 306 is flowed to the second flow level and is a distinct gas.
It is also noted that in combination – if both gases of Samir are applied to a substrate through 304 and 306 respectively, the claims do not limit both the first and second reactive gases from being applied at both positions.
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. 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