DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims in the reply dated 14 Jul 2026 in response to the examiner’s requirement for restriction/election (mailed 14 May 2026):
Claim 17 has been cancelled.
Claims 18–21 are new.
Independent method claim 7 has been amended “to include various features and limitations that are present in independent apparatus claim 1” (from Applicant’s remarks submitted with the amendments).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, drawn to an apparatus for semiconductor processing, in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that:
“Based on the amendments to independent method claim 7, Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction. Applicant respectfully submits that independent method claim 7 has been amended to include various features and limitations that are present in independent apparatus claim 1. These amendments to independent method claim 7 thereby make apparatus claims 1–6 and 18, and method claims 7–16 and 19–21 related to the same single general inventive concept. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the withdrawal of the restriction and requests that all pending claims 1-16 and 18-21 be examiner [examined].”
This argument has been found to be persuasive. The restriction requirement of 14 May 2026 has been withdrawn because the examiner’s previous argument that the apparatus claims and method claims “do not relate to a single general inventive concept” no longer applies, given that independent method claim 7 has now been amended to include special technical features that are shared in common with independent apparatus claim 1.
Information Disclosure Statements
The second information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 Jul 2026—containing 22 US patent documents, 18 foreign patent documents, and 44 non-patent literature documents—has been fully considered by the examiner.
The first IDS submitted on 16 Jan 2025 contains 1,512 references (562 US patent documents, 264 foreign patent documents, and 686 non-patent literature documents). The examiner has considered the references from the first IDS to the extent reasonably expected during normal examination time. For instance, the examiner has searched for all the US and foreign patent documents from the first IDS (see queries L10, L11, and L12 in the attached PE2E-Search history) and from the second IDS (see queries L6, L8, and L9 in the attached PE2E-Search history); formed a combined reference list of all 859 US and foreign patent documents from the first IDS and second IDS (see query L13 in the attached PE2E-Search history); and then used an AI-based “Similarity Search” (in query L15 in the attached PE2E-Search history) to filter the combined reference list down to 50 references most similar to the present application based on the examiner’s selection of text from the present application and selection of relevant classifications (CPC symbols). If applicant considers there is a particular reference or teaching particularly relevant to the claimed invention, it is requested from the applicant to provide a statement indicating such relevance and a clear identification of such reference.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of an informality, as may be understood from the following proposed amendment:
“16. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 7 further comprising depositing a nucleation layer within the 3-D structure such that the nucleation layer lines the plurality of features of the 3-D structure.”
Claim 21 is objected to because of an informality, as may be understood from the following proposed amendment:
“21. (Proposed Amendment) The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first process gas charge volumes, [etc.]”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–16 and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first divert process gas valve” in lines 12–13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim has not previously introduced “a first divert process gas valve”. Rather, line 10 introduced “a first divert valve”. It appears that both “a first divert valve” (line 10) and “the first divert process gas valve” (lines 12–13) may refer to the same feature from FIG. 6, labeled as 620A. To avoid confusion, a single name for this feature should be used consistently in claim 1 (and in any future mentions in dependent claims).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second divert process gas valve” in lines 22–23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim has not previously introduced “a second divert process gas valve”. Rather, line 20 introduced “a second divert valve”. It appears that both “a second divert valve” (line 20) and “the second divert process gas valve” (lines 22–23) may refer to the same feature from FIG. 6, labeled as 620E. To avoid confusion, a single name for this feature should be used consistently in claim 1 (and in any future mentions in dependent claims).
(Claims 2–6 and 18–21 depend on independent claim 1 and therefore include by reference all the limitations of independent claim 1, including the limitations described above as lacking antecedent basis.)
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the divert manifold is fluidically connected to the first process gas manifold via the first divert process gas valve and the second process gas manifold via the second divert process gas valve” in lines 3–5. There is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 2 for “the first divert process gas valve” (line 4) and “the second divert process gas valve” (lines 4–5) because neither claim 2 nor claim 1 has previously introduced “a first divert process gas valve” and “a second divert process gas valve”. Rather, claim 1 previously introduced “a first divert valve” (line 10) and “a second divert valve” (line 20).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein at least one station of the multi-station chamber is fluidically connected to no more than one gas zone” in lines 22–23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “gas zone” in the claim because it is not made explicit that “gas zone” is referring to one of “a first gas zone” (claim 1, line 7) or “a second gas zone” (claim 1, line 17). The examiner suggests the following amendment to make the claim definite:
4. (Proposed Amendment) The apparatus of claim 3, wherein at least one station of the multi-station chamber is fluidically connected to no more than one of the first gas zone and the second gas zone.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the second inlet is at the side of the annulus”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim has not previously introduced “a side of the annulus”. This rejection will be overcome by simply changing “the side” to “a side”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of openings in the sidewalls leading to a plurality of features having a plurality of interior regions fluidically accessible through the openings to a chamber” in lines 4–5. As written, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the openings to a chamber” because it is not entirely clear that “the openings” are referring to the same features that were previously introduced as “a plurality of openings”. The examiner suggests that this portion of claim 7 could be made definite with the following amendment: “a plurality of openings in the sidewalls leading to a plurality of features having a plurality of interior regions fluidically accessible to a chamber through the plurality of openings ”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “treating the first layer non-conformally such that that the treatment is preferentially applied at portions of the first layer” in lines 8–9. As written, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the treatment”. This rejection will be overcome by simply changing “the treatment” to “a treatment”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the first gas zone is separate from the second gas zone upstream of the dual inlet chamber” in the last 2 lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the dual inlet chamber” because independent claim 7 has not yet introduced “a dual inlet chamber”.
(Claims 8–16 depend on independent claim 7 and therefore include by reference all the limitations of independent claim 7, including the limitations described above as either being indefinite or lacking antecedent basis.)
Each of claims 9, 10, and 11 recites a limitation of the form “wherein depositing a layer of tungsten comprises …”. As written, it is unclear to the examiner whether “depositing a layer of tungsten” is in reference to (A) “depositing a first layer of tungsten” (claim 7, line 6); (B) “depositing a second layer of tungsten” (claim 7, line 11); at least one of A and B; or both of A and B.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the tungsten precursor and hydrogen gas are supplied through a first gas manifold and the NF3 is supplied through a second gas manifold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “hydrogen gas” because claim 11 previously introduced “a tungsten precursor and hydrogen”. This rejection will be overcome by either amending claim 11 to refer to “a tungsten precursor and hydrogen gas”, or amending claim 15 to state “wherein the tungsten precursor and hydrogen are supplied through a first gas manifold and the NF3 is supplied through a second gas manifold”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein first process gas charge volumes, the first divert process gas valve, and the first injection process gas valve are fluidically connected in series”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 21 for “the first divert process gas valve” (lines 1–2) because neither claim 21 nor claim 1 has previously introduced “a first divert process gas valve”. Rather, claim 1 previously introduced “a first divert valve” (line 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of patent application publication US 2019/0019725 A1 by Chandrashekar et al. (from the first IDS, “Chandrashekar” hereafter) fails to anticipate or render obvious at least the following limitations from claim 1 (emphasis added):
“a dual inlet chamber having
a first inlet,
a second inlet, and a
an outlet fluidly connected to the first showerhead”
and
“the first process gas manifold, via the first injection process gas valve, is fluidically connected to the first inlet of the dual inlet chamber”
and
“the second process gas manifold, via the second injection process gas valve, is fluidically connected to the second inlet of the dual inlet chamber,
wherein the first gas zone is separate from the second gas zone upstream of the dual inlet chamber”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of Chandrashekar fails to anticipate or render obvious at least the following limitations from claim 7 (emphasis added):
“wherein depositing the first layer of tungsten and the second layer of tungsten comprise flowing one or more process gases from a first gas zone comprising a first process gas manifold, the first process gas manifold fluidically connected to a showerhead and comprising one or more first process gas charge volumes, a first divert process gas valve fluidically connected to the one or more first process gas charge volumes, and a first injection process gas valve fluidically connected to the first divert process gas valve,
wherein charging the gas comprising NF3 to the first charge pressure further comprises flowing the gas comprising NF3 from a second gas zone comprising a second process gas manifold, the second process gas manifold fluidically connected to the showerhead and comprising one or more second process gas charge volumes, a second divert process gas valve fluidically connected to the one or more second process gas charge volumes, and a second injection process gas valve fluidically connected to the second divert process gas valve, and
wherein the first gas zone is separate from the second gas zone upstream of the dual inlet chamber”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
All claims depending on independent claims 1 and 7 would also be allowable if the various objections and rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) set forth in this office action are overcome via amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,381,266 B2
US 10,211,099 B2
US 2019/0080914 A1
US 2016/0177443 A1
US 9,082,826 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Mott whose telephone number is (571)272-2367. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/A.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights