DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s reply filed on June 5, 2026 did not have an election of species, as required in the requirement for restriction mailed April 21, 2026. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will examine species directed to “one of the plurality of mixing bowl sensors is disposed proximal to the cavity wall opening to detect gaseous material flowing out of the mixing bowl”. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-11 will be examined.
Claims 9 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the distribution system includes at least one conduit for delivering a flow of the gaseous mixture directly to the process chamber (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the cross reference to related applications needs to be updated to reflect the this application is a 371 of a PCT.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: material distribution system in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7-line 2 has a typo of “planform”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the term is interpreted as platform.
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 1-8 and 10-11 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.
In regards to claim 1-line 5, the phrase of “the sensor” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a plurality of mixing bowl sensors. It is unclear if the reference is one or some or all of the plurality of mixing bowl sensors. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the plurality of mixing bowl sensors.
In regards to claim 1-line 6, the phrase of “the detected gas” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is at least one gas. It is unclear if the reference is one or some or all of the at least one gas. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the at least one gas.
In regards to claim 1-line 7, the phrase of “gaseous material” is unclear if it is intended to different from the previously recited gaseous mixture of material. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the gaseous mixture or the gaseous mixture of material.
In regards to claim 1-line 8, the phrase of “the process chamber” lacks clear antecedent basis. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as a process chamber and the recitation in claim 9 is interpreted as the process chamber.
In regards to claim 1-line 14, the phrase of “the process chamber sensor” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a at least one process chamber sensor. It is unclear if the reference is one or some or all of the at least process chamber sensor. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the at least process chamber sensor.
Claim 1-line 16 recites the limitation "the anticipated material on the surface of the substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as an anticipated material on the surface of the substrate.
In regards to claim 2-lines 1-2, the phrase of “the distribution system” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a material distribution system. It is unclear if the reference is to the material distribution system or a different distribution system. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the material distribution system.
In regards to claim 2-line 3, the phrase of “a process chamber” is unclear if it is intended to different from the previously recited process chamber. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the process chamber.
In regards to claim 3-lines 1-2 and claim 4-lines 1-2, the phrase of “the distribution system” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a material distribution system. It is unclear if the reference is to the material distribution system or a different distribution system. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the material distribution system.
In regards to claim 5-line 1, the phrase of “the mixing sensors” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a plurality of mixing bowl sensors. It is unclear if the reference is some or all of the plurality of mixing bowl sensors. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the plurality of mixing bowl sensors.
In regards to claim 6-line 1, the phrase of “the material process chamber sensors” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a at least one process chamber sensor. It is unclear if the reference is one or some or all of the at least process chamber sensor. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the at least process chamber sensor.
In regards to claim 7-lines 2-3, the phrase of “a mixing bowl sensor” lacks clarity, as previously the recitation is a plurality of mixing bowl sensors. It is unclear if there should be a reference to the plurality of mixing bowl sensors or is this sensor distinct. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the plurality of mixing bowl sensors.
In regards to claim 7-line 4, the phrase of “the sprinkler heads” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is a plurality of sprinkler heads. It is unclear if the reference is one or some or all of the at least process chamber sensor. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the plurality of sprinkler heads.
Claim 8-line 2 recites the limitation "the cavity wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as a cavity wall.
Claim 8-line 5 recites the limitation "the sprinkler heads ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 11-line 1-2, the phrase of “a plurality of process chamber sensors” is unclear. It is unclear if there should be a reference to the previous the recitation is the plurality of process chamber sensors. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the at least process chamber sensor.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregor (US 2020/0270748) in view of Tedeschi (US 2018/0374764).
In regards claim 1, Gregor teaches substrate processing system (50) comprising:
a manifold-68 and manifold-72 (mixing bowl) provide cavities which receive gases to form a gaseous mixture of material used for performing semiconductor processes on a substrate (fig. 1, 5-6, 8; para. 82-83);
a pressure sensor-90 and a pressure sensor-91 are provided within the manifold-68 and the manifold-72, the pressure sensors provide a signal representative to the pressure of the gases within the manifolds (fig. 1, 8; para. 83);
a multi-injector showerhead (74, material distribution system) receives gases from the manifold-72 and distributes the gases to within a processing chamber (52) (fig. 1, 5-6, 8; para. 81-82, 89);
the processing chamber (52) provides a housing for a substrate (56), the multi-injector showerhead which is proximal to the substrate, comprise pressure sensors-152/162 and temperature sensors-156/166, the processing chamber receives gases (fluid communication with) from the multi-injector showerhead and performs a semiconductor process on a surface of the substrate in the presence of the temperature and pressure sensors (fig. 1, 5-6, 8; para. 81, 89-91);
a controller (96) receives the signals from the sensors and controls the flow of gases (fig. 1, 5-6, 8; para. 84).
Gregor does not explicitly teach the process chamber sensor having a resonance property which changes upon exposure to the semiconductor processes, the process chamber sensor issuing a material process signal indicative of the anticipated material on the surface of the substrate.
However, Tedeschi teaches a particle monitoring device (200) comprising wafer substrate 202 which has a plurality of micro sensors (210/212/214) within locations of a chamber volume (406) of a process chamber (114) the micro sensors are proximate to the wafer/substrate (402). Tedeschi teaches the sensors detects when a material is deposited during a wafer fabrication process (fig. 2, 4; para. 45-50, 56, 59-63).
Tedeschi teaches the sensors provides signal to a processor (508) to provide monitoring or control of the process (fig. 5; para. 75, 89-91, 103-104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the micro sensors and processor of Tedeschi onto the process chamber and controller of Gregor because Tedeschi teaches it will provide for uniformity of the process over time (para. 109, 112).
In regards to claim 2, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed, where Gregor teaches the multi-injector showerhead (74) comprises a plurality of injector assemblies (150/160, sprinkler heads), which provide outlets to distribute the gases within the process chamber (fig. 5-6; para. 89-91).
In regards to claim 3, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed, where Gregor teaches a conduit connects the manifold-68 to the manifold-72 to deliver the gases to the processing chamber (fig. 1, 8).
In regards to claim 4, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed, where Gregor teaches the manifold-72 provides a plurality of conduits which connects to the shower head (74), where the showerhead provide distribution of gas flow within the processing chamber (fig. 1, 5-6, 8; para. 82, 89-91).
In regards to claim 6, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed, where Tedeschi teaches the micro sensor-210 are capacitive micro sensor which measures changes in the amount of material on the surface of the micro sensor-210 (para. 46-47, 50, 61, 63-64) which is equivalent to a Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) or a MicroElectroMechanical (MEM) sensors.
In regards to claim 11, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed, where Tedeschi teaches the plurality of micro sensors within the chamber volume (406) of the process chamber (114) and the micro sensors are proximate to the wafer/substrate (402). The temporary signals from the micro sensors to the processor are capable of the claimed correlated in accordance with the distance and orientation of the process chamber sensors relative to the substrate to enhance the correlation data between the substrate and the process chamber sensor (fig. 2, 4-5; para. 45-50, 56, 59-63, 75, 89-91, 103-104).
Claims 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregor and Tedeschi as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Satake (US 2002/0022087).
In regards to claim 5, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed but do not explicitly teach one of the plurality of mixing bowl sensors include sensors from the group of: Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM), Optical and Mass Spectrometer sensors.
However, Satake teaches a gas analyzer (20) which does infrared spectrometry to monitor the concentration of gases within a mixing chamber (15) which allows for mass flow rate control of the materials which will be delivered to the reaction chamber (22) (fig. 1; para. 35-36, 43-45, 50-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gas analyzer at the mixing chamber of Satake onto the manifold-68 and/or manifold-72 of Gregor and Tedeschi because Satake teaches it will provide adjustments so as to provide proper film depositions (para. 37).
In regards to claim 8, Gregor, Tedeschi and Satake as discussed, where Satake teaches the mixing chamber comprises an opening to enable the flow of materials to a conduit and the gas analyzer is close to wall of the mixing chamber (fig. 1; para. 35-36, 43-45).
In regards to claim 10, Gregor, Tedeschi and Satake as discussed to teach the gas analyzer along the wall of the mixing chamber , but do not explicitly teach the plurality of mixing bowl sensors is a Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) disposed along an internal peripheral surface of the cavity.
However, Tedeschi teaches the use of Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) within the processing tool to monitor particles during the wafer fabrication process (para. 95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the QCM of Tedeschi onto the mixing chamber of Gregor, Tedeschi and Satake because Tedeschi teaches it will aid in process control or indicate when repair is needed (para. 9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregor and Tedeschi as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Lind (US 2022/0213599).
In regards to claim 7, Gregor and Tedeschi as discussed but do not explicitly teach the mixing bowl defines a circular platform having several cavity wall openings and wherein a mixing bowl sensor is disposed proximal to each cavity wall opening to detect gaseous material flowing out of the mixing bowl and toward a select one of the sprinkler heads.
However, Lind teaches a vapor accumulator reservoir (100) which is circular and provides opening such as sensor port (149) and a port which is connected to vapor concentration sensor (154) (fig. 1-2, 4; para. 39, 42, 45-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the vapor accumulator reservoir of Lind onto the manifold of Gregor and Tedeschi because Lind teaches it will provide accurate flow of materials (para. 33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights