DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 & 8-21 in the application remain pending. Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12 & 14 were amended. Claim 7 was cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections
4. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 5 & 10-12 are withdrawn per amendments of claims 5, 10 & 12.
5. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hatono et al. (JP 2010133019 A) and Lee et al. (US 2007/0071892 A1) of claim 7 are withdrawn per cancellation of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 1-6, 8, 13-14 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono et al. (JP 2010133019 A – translation provided by examiner) hereinafter Hatono in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0071892 A1) hereinafter Lee (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Hatono & Lee are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni)”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono since Hatono meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni), if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, the recitation itself “one or more of” indicates the particular the metal atom or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
As regards to claim 1, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising:
a chamber body (201) having a top wall (see fig 1-2), a bottom wall (see fig 1-2), and two opposed sidewalls (see fig 1-2) containing an interior volume (see fig 1-2) ([0051]; [0057]; fig 1-2);
a metal source (204) within the interior volume (see fig 1-2) configured to provide metal atoms to a precursor formation region within the interior volume (see fig 1-2), wherein the metal atoms are capable of including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose a ligand source configured to provide vaporized ligands to the precursor formation region, wherein the metal atoms and the vaporized ligands are configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor.
Lee discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising: a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) are configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor ([0025]-[0031]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) are configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor in the processing chamber of Hatono, because Lee teaches the use of a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) are configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor as it can be a useful source material for manufacturing thin (i.e., 1 to 100 nanometers, nm) metallic films, also referred to herein as "metal thin films" using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0026]).
As regards to claim 2, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein a gas inlet (202c) is perpendicular to a conduction port (203) ([0051]; [0057]-[0059]; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose the vaporized ligands.
Lee discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising vaporized ligands (NH3) ([0025]-[0031]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include vaporized ligands (NH3) in the processing chamber of Hatono, because Lee teaches the use of a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) react to form a metal-containing precursor as it can be a useful source material for manufacturing thin (i.e., 1 to 100 nanometers, nm) metallic films, also referred to herein as "metal thin films" using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0026]).
As regards to claim 3, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the metal source (204) is a physical vapor deposition (PVD) source ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 4, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the PVD source comprises a thermal evaporator (207) ([0011]; [0051]; [0053]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 5, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the PVD source configured to provide the metal atoms to a sacrificial target at a pressure that can be measured on torr and wherein the type and flow rate of the gas can be selected according to the necessity of the reaction product from the target material and the requirement of the injection speed from the supersonic nozzle in the subsequent stage ([0051]-[0052]; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose in a range of from about 0.1 mtorr to 1 Torr.
Although modified Hatono does not explicitly disclose the claimed pressure range, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating apparatus of modified Hatono to have the pressure range recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as Hatono discloses wherein the type and flow rate of the gas can be selected according to the necessity of the reaction product from the target material and the requirement of the injection speed from the supersonic nozzle in the subsequent stage ([0052]). Thus, it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure range, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
As regards to claim 6, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the metal atoms are carried in an inert gas including helium (He), neon (Ne) ([0042]; [0052]; [0068]; fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co) or copper (Cu)”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono since Hatono meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co) or copper (Cu) if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co) or copper (Cu) are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co) or copper (Cu) does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, the recitation itself “one or more of” indicates the particular the metal atom or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
As regards to claim 8, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the metal atoms are capable of including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co) or copper (Cu) ([0011]; [0040]; [0047]; [0051]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, the recitation “comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono & Lee since the combination of Hatono & Lee meet all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, the recitation itself of a laundry list of ligands and “combinations thereof” indicates the particular the ligand or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
As regards to claim 13, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose wherein the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof.
Lee discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof ([0025]-[0031]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof in the processing chamber of Hatono, because Lee teaches the use of wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands react to form a metal-containing precursor as it can be a useful source material for manufacturing thin (i.e., 1 to 100 nanometers, nm) metallic films, also referred to herein as "metal thin films" using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0026]).
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni)”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono since Hatono meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni), if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, the recitation itself “one or more of” indicates the particular the metal atom or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
As regards to claim 14, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising:
a chamber body (201) having a top wall (see fig 1-2), a bottom wall (see fig 1-2), and two opposed sidewalls (see fig 1-2) containing an interior volume (see fig 1-2) ([0051]; [0057]; fig 1-2);
a metal source (204) within the interior volume (see fig 1-2) configured to provide metal atoms to a precursor formation region within the interior volume (see fig 1-2) wherein the metal atoms are capable of including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose a ligand source configured to provide vaporized ligands to the precursor formation region, wherein the metal atoms and the vaporized ligands configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor and a substrate positioned on a substrate support within the interior volume, wherein the metal-containing precursor forms a metal film on the substrate.
Lee discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising: a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) configured to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor and a substrate (20) positioned on a substrate support (see fig 2, implicit, something supporting substrate 20) within the interior volume (10), wherein the metal-containing precursor forms a metal film (30) on the substrate (20) ([0025]-[0031]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) configured to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor and a substrate (20) positioned on a substrate support (see fig 2, implicit, something supporting substrate 20) within the interior volume (10), wherein the metal-containing precursor forms a metal film (30) on the substrate (20) in the processing chamber of Hatono, because Lee teaches the use of a ligand source (see fig 2, source arrow of NH3) configured to provide vaporized ligands (NH3) to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands (NH3) configured to react to form a metal-containing precursor and a substrate (20) positioned on a substrate support (see fig 2, implicit, something supporting substrate 20) within the interior volume (10), wherein the metal-containing precursor forms a metal film (30) on the substrate (20) as it can be a useful source material for manufacturing thin (i.e., 1 to 100 nanometers, nm) metallic films, also referred to herein as "metal thin films" using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) and forming a metal film on the substrate ([0026]; [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 21, the recitation “comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono & Lee since the combination of Hatono & Lee meet all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary amines, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, the recitation itself of a laundry list of ligands and “combinations thereof” indicates the particular the ligand or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
As regards to claim 21, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), however Hatono does not disclose wherein the vaporized ligands comprise substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof.
Lee discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof ([0025]-[0031]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof in the processing chamber of Hatono, because Lee teaches the use of wherein the vaporized ligands comprise a reductive reaction gas (H2 or NH3) and capable of comprising substituted or unsubstituted alkenes and alkynes, imines, heterocyclic compounds, chelating ligands, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, tertiary phosphines, ethers, dienes, or combinations thereof to the precursor formation region (see fig 2), wherein the metal atoms (Ru) and the vaporized ligands react to form a metal-containing precursor as it can be a useful source material for manufacturing thin (i.e., 1 to 100 nanometers, nm) metallic films, also referred to herein as "metal thin films" using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0026]).
7. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20110033619 A1) hereinafter Lee II (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Lee II are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 9, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), a distance from the metal source (204) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however modified Hatono does not disclose a sacrificial target spaced a distance from the metal source (204) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region.
Lee II discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), comprising a sacrificial target (570) spaced a distance (see fig 5-6) from the metal source (510) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region ([0082]-[0088]; fig 5-6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a sacrificial target (570) spaced a distance (see fig 5-6) from the metal source (510) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region in the processing chamber of modified Hatono, because Lee II teaches the use of a sacrificial target (570) spaced a distance (see fig 5-6) from the metal source (510) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region in order to prevent the deposition of the deposition material (512) on the second nozzle unit (550) during the stand-by mode ([0082]).
As regards to claim 10, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), the metal source (204) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however modified Hatono does not disclose wherein the sacrificial target comprises a front face extending between peripheral edges of the sacrificial target.
Lee II discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the sacrificial target (570) comprises a front face extending between peripheral edges (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) ([0082]-[0088]; fig 5-6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the sacrificial target (570) comprises a front face extending between peripheral edges (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) in the processing chamber of modified Hatono, because Lee II teaches the use of wherein the sacrificial target (570) comprises a front face extending between peripheral edges (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) in order to prevent the deposition of the deposition material (512) on the second nozzle unit (550) during the stand-by mode ([0082]).
As regards to claim 11, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), the metal source (204) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however modified Hatono does not disclose wherein some of the metal atoms are deposited on the front face of the sacrificial target.
Lee II discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein some of the metal atoms are deposited on the front face (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) ([0082]-[0088]; fig 5-6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein some of the metal atoms are deposited on the front face (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) in the processing chamber of modified Hatono, because Lee II teaches the use of wherein some of the metal atoms are deposited on the front face (see fig 5-6) of the sacrificial target (570) in order to prevent the deposition of the deposition material (512) on the second nozzle unit (550) during the stand-by mode ([0082]).
As regards to claim 12, Hatono discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), the metal source (204) on a side opposite of the precursor formation region ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2), however modified Hatono does not disclose wherein the metal atoms and the sacrificial target comprise a same material.
Lee II discloses a processing chamber (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the metal atoms and the sacrificial target (570) comprise a same material (the deposition blade 570 can be of the same material as the first barrier wall assemblies 530) ([0082]-[0088]; fig 5-6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the metal atoms and the sacrificial target (570) comprise a same material (the deposition blade 570 can be of the same material as the first barrier wall assemblies 530) in the processing chamber of modified Hatono, because Lee II teaches the use of wherein the metal atoms and the sacrificial target (570) comprise a same material (the deposition blade 570 can be of the same material as the first barrier wall assemblies 530) in order to prevent the deposition of the deposition material (512) on the second nozzle unit (550) during the stand-by mode ([0082]).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) The combination of Hatono and Lee fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "a processing chamber comprising ... a metal source within the interior volume configured to provide metal atoms to a precursor formation region within the interior volume, the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni)," as recited in independent claims 1 and 14.
(b) Accordingly, the combination of Hatono and Lee fails to disclose, teach, or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 or 14 or their respective dependent claims.
9. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) In view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 & 14 and various claims depending therefrom, Examiner has reevaluated the teachings of Hatono and Lee as a whole for what they disclose or fairly suggest.
As already discussed above in detail in regards to claims 1 & 14, the recitation “the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni)”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hatono since Hatono meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni), if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) are not part of the chamber and thus the recitation referring to the metal atoms including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed chamber as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art combination discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art combination would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Hatono discloses a metal source (204) within the interior volume (see fig 1-2) configured to provide metal atoms to a precursor formation region within the interior volume (see fig 1-2) wherein the metal atoms are capable of including one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), or nickel (Ni) ([0051]; [0053]; [0059]; [0068]; fig 1-2).
Even further, the recitation itself “one or more of” indicates the particular the metal atom or combination thereof is chosen by an operator at the beginning of the intended coating process and can differ or vary depending on the intended coating process intended to be used with the coating chamber and not a structural part of the coating chamber.
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claims 1 & 14 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2-6, 8-14 & 21 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claims 1 & 14, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights