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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the heated dilution gas in the prior art does not heat a reaction by-product of raw material gas and remove the reaction by-product from the surface of the substrate. However, as discussed below, the amended limitation of a byproduct is indefinite as it refers to reaction byproducts of a gas that may not even be claimed in claim 1, so it is unclear what these byproducts are or how they occur due to current claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, because no particular temperature is claimed, no particular gases are claimed (therefore there is no vaporization point claimed), no particular byproduct is claimed (no vaporization point) nor is claim 1 specific to the particular mechanism of removing these byproducts, Baumann et al., in combination with the other prior art, teaches the same mechanism of introducing a heated carrier gas. It follows that because the broad method steps are met, any result of these method steps would naturally flow. Therefore, as the prior art teach the claimed method, it is inherent that the result of also vaporizing and removing byproducts also occur.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-12 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 includes the dilution gas removes a reaction byproduct of the raw material gas. However, it is not established when the reaction by product occurs or how it occurs. The claim does not clarify if the by product is supplied or on a substrate surface. The claim further does not refer to any raw material gas, only one kind of gas. It is unclear where these byproducts and from what they are originating from. Claim 3 further confuses the reference to a raw material gas as it appears that it is a completely different gas altogether from those claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily (US 2017/0294339 A1) in view of Baumann et al. (US 2008/0274278 A1) and in further view of Treichel et al. (US 2008/0038486 A1) OR Hawkins et al. (US 5819684 A)
As to claim 1, Tapily teaches forming a film on a substrate by switching supplied gases (ALD in para 0026) where the substrate is at a low temperature (para 0047). Tapily teaches several different gas injectors in Fig. 7. Tapily teaches that the substrate is desired to be at less than 150 or less than 100 deg C (para 0047) during the exposing of the precursor/dilution gas. Tapily is silent regarding the temperature of the dilution gas.
Baumann teaches a dilution gas that is flowed throughout precursor deposition in ALD (Fig. 2, para 0018) where the carrier gas in injector 18 (Fig. 1) is at a high temperature (para 0001) and envelops a first gas from a first injector 16. Baumann uses the heat of the dilution gas to conduct contactless vaporization of the precursors (para 0003). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this vaporization temperature depends on the type of precursor and reaction conditions, and thus is result effective. It would be obvious to have the temperature of the dilution gas as over 100 or 150 deg. C based on routine experimentation depending on the type of precursor being deposited. Further, the temperature of the carrier gas should be higher than that given in Tapily as Bauman teaches that heating the carrier gas to the reaction temperature or optimal temperature is preferred over heating the substrate as the characteristics of the substrate (number of layers, etc.) change over time in para 0003.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tapily with a continually flowing heated diluted gas that is at a higher temperature as taught by Baumann in order to avoid disadvantages that come from heating the substrate for vaporization or reaction purposes.
Tapily and Baumann do not teach flowing the gas in a parallel direction to the substrate. Treichel et al. uses multiple flow injectors with separate ones for dilution gas that provide a parallel flow to the substrate in para 0015, 0021-0022 that are used to create a uniform flow over several substrates at once. Hawkins et al. discloses parallel flow (abstract) in order to provide a more uniform flow and deposition in col. 3 lines 36-57. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tapily and Bauman to have parallel flow injectors as taught by either Treichel or Hawkins in order to have more uniform flow and deposition.
As to the byproducts being removed by the heated carrier or dilution gas, Baumann et al., in combination with the other prior art, teaches the same mechanism of introducing a heated carrier gas. It follows that because the broad method steps are met, any result of these method steps would naturally flow. Therefore, as the prior art teach the claimed method, it is inherent that the result of also vaporizing and removing byproducts also occur.
As to claim 2, the gas is heated by the carrier gas in Baumann para 0003, also see Fig. 1 descriptions.
As to claim 3, Tapily teaches a variety of injectors. Bauman likewise teaches injectors 12, 18 and 16. It would be obvious to interchangeably designate these injectors as broadly claimed interchangeably as the injectors are not described in the claim.
As to claim 4, Tapily teaches TPSOL and TMA in para 0029, 0045 and 0052.
As to claim 5, the substrate temperature is taught by Tapily in para 0047. Baumann teaches that the gas temperature is a result effective variable to achieve the benefits in para 0003. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 6, the dilution or carrier gas is an inert gas in Baumann para 0015.
As to claim 7, the gas is heated by the carrier gas in Baumann para 0003, also see Fig. 1 descriptions.
As to claim 8, Bauman shows this reaction sequence in Fig. 2 or 3, Tapily teaches the sequence in para 0026.
As to claim 9, as Tapily teaches the same reactants (para 0026-0052 et seq) as in the instant specification, thus it follows that water would inherently be a by-product.
As to claim 10, Tapily teaches this reaction sequence in para 0029 and 0043.
As to claim 11, the substrate temperature is taught by Tapily in para 0047. Baumann teaches that the gas temperature is a result effective variable to achieve the benefits in para 0003. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights