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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "a first liquid precursor container and a second liquid precursor container" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 only recites a liquid precursor container and it is thus unclear if there are duplicates of the same container of Claim 1 or if there should be a first and a second liquid precursor container recited in claim 1 or if the structures of the liquid precursor containers are identical or different because of the use of the terms “first” and “second.” Thus, it is indefinite as to what the subject matter in Claim 17 should cover.
For the purposes of examining based on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as liquid precursor container as per claim 1 and another liquid precursor container, to address the issues herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al.
In regard to Claim 1, Koller teaches a liquid precursor container 32 Fig. 1, 3 comprising: an inner container 57 (see shading in green) having an inner base portion, an inner intermediate portion extending from the inner base portion, and an inner lid portion (bottom of 64, highlighted in yellow) coupled to the inner base portion by the inner intermediate portion; an outer container 61 (white and black) enveloping the inner container and having an outer base portion spaced apart from the inner base portion of the inner container, an outer intermediate portion extending from the outer base portion and about the inner intermediate portion of the inner container, and an outer lid portion (highlighted in red, outer portion of 64) coupled to the outer base portion by the outer intermediate portion (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 3 below); and a baffle member 58 arranged between the inner lid portion of the inner container and the outer lid portion of the outer container to circulate a liquid coolant about the inner container (highlighted in blue, between as it surrounds the inner lid member to an outer lid member) to cool a liquid precursor contained within the inner container during vaporization of the liquid precursor [0025-0051].
PNG
media_image1.png
1556
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to Claim 3, Koller teaches a probe member 76 extending through the outer lid portion of outer container and the inner lid portion of the inner container (as it is a blind hole) to provide a liquid precursor temperature measurement (as it can accommodate a temperature sensor [0046]) and a liquid precursor level measurement of the liquid precursor contained within the inner container (other measurement filling level [0035]).
In regard to Claim 4, Koller teaches a carrier gas conduit 15 extending through the outer lid portion of the outer container and the inner lid portion of the inner container to vaporize the liquid precursor using a carrier gas issued into the liquid precursor by the carrier gas conduit (as shown in the line of 15 going through red and yellow, [0040]).
In regard to Claim 9, Koller teaches an outlet conduit 19 extending through the outer lid portion of the outer container and seated in the inner lid portion of the inner container to fluidly couple a gas phase reactor 25 to a precursor ullage space (space near 20) defined between the liquid precursor and the inner lid portion of the inner container (as shown in the position of 19 in the inner container headspace above).
In regard to Claim 18, Koller teaches semiconductor processing system, comprising: a liquid precursor container as recited in claim 1; a precursor supply conduit 23 connected to the liquid precursor container; and a gas phase reactor 25 connected to the precursor supply conduit and therethrough to the liquid precursor container (as shown in Fig. 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0020764 to Woelk et al.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
Koller does not expressly teach the liquid precursor includes at least one of trisilane (Si3H6), tetrasilane (Si4H10), tertiarybutylarsine (C4H11As).
Woelk teaches the liquid precursor can be trisilane [0057] for a CVD process [0002-0003].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a liquid precursor analogous to that of Koller out of trisilane, as taught by Woelk, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0083512 to Chism et al and United States Patent Application No. 2005/0066893 to Soininen.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 5, Koller does not expressly teach a refill conduit extending through the outer lid portion of the outer container and the inner lid portion of the inner container to refill the inner container with the liquid precursor when level of the liquid precursor falls below a predetermined liquid precursor level.
Chism teaches a fluid delivery system 100 Fig. 1 for a semiconductor application [0001], wherein there is a process line 111, 115 which is used for refilling the ampoule/container, the process line going through the top middle portion of the ampoule [0039; 0011-0040], thus reducing the downtime for refilling the container/ampoule [0004].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koller by adding a refill line, as per the teachings of Chism. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing the downtime for refilling the container. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Koller in view of Chism does not expressly teach that this refill conduit refills when the level of the liquid precursor falls below a predetermined liquid precursor level.
Soininen teaches that a refill port 18 Fig. 2A, 2B can be used with a source container, wherein the refill port is used with an auto-refiller to maintain a minimal level of liquid source [0003; 0002-0068].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the apparatus of Koller in view of Chism, to have added an auto-refiller to the refill port/refill line, as per the teachings of Soininen. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of maintaining a minimal level of liquid source. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0024740 to Furuya et al.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 10, Koller does not expressly teach a vapor pressure concentration sensor connected to the outlet conduit to provide a precursor partial pressure measurement acquired from within a flow of vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit.
Furuya teaches a FTIR 502 Fig. 1/vapor pressure concentration sensor that measures the partial pressure in the outlet conduit 485/48 to provide a precursor partial pressure from the precursor container 42, 44 acquired from within a flow of vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit [0023; 0012-0038]. Furuya teaches that having the partial pressure measurement allows for a determination of the flow rate [0023].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koller, by adding the vapor pressure concentration sensor connected to the outlet conduit to provide a precursor partial pressure measurement acquired from within a flow of vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit, as per the teachings of Furuya. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of determining the flow rate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 12, Koller teaches a gas phase reactor 25 does not expressly teach a gas phase reactor having a single-wafer crossflow arrangement connected to the outlet conduit to deposit an epitaxial material layer onto a substrate seated within the gas phase reactor using the flow of the vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit.
Furuya teaches a gas phase reactor 10 Fig. 1 wherein the gas phase reactor has a single wafer cross flow arrangement (see W opposite to 20 in 10 Fig. 1) connected to the outlet conduit 48, 485 to deposit an epitaxial material layer onto a substrate seated within the gas phase reactor using the flow of the vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit (in the form of CVD) [0010-0046].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koller and its generic gas phase reactor, with the gas phase reactor of Furuya with its single wafer cross flow arrangement, as an art analogous gas phase reactor. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 19, Koller does not expressly teach the liquid precursor container is spaced apart from the gas phase reactor by less than about 3 meters.
Furuya teaches the precursor container is spaced apart from the gas phase reactor by a pipe 48 with a length of 0.3-1.0 meters [0022].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koller with specific pipe length of Fuyura. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the pipe would have a length of space apart of less than 3 meters.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0062789 to Nguyen et al.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 11, Koller does not expressly teach a vaporized liquid precursor mass flow controller arranged along the outlet conduit to throttle flow rate of the flow of the vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit.
Nguyen teaches in Fig. 4 the liquid precursor injector 42, with a precursor 60 that has a liquid mass flow controller 66 that is connected to the outlet conduit 67 that throttles the flow rate of the flow of the vaporized liquid precursor traversing the outlet conduit [0032; 0031-0047].
As it is known to provide a mass flow controller in a outlet conduit, as taught by Nguyen, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the outlet conduit as taught by Koller to include mass flow controller of Nguyen. One would be motivated to do so in order to have a control on the flow on the outlet conduit. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0276264 to Lind.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 13, Koller expressly teaches a controller 26, 27, 28 with data memory 74 [0028] but does not expressly teach a processor and a memory connected to the liquid precursor container, the processor responsive to instructions recorded on the memory to: receive a liquid precursor temperature measurement; compare the liquid precursor temperature to a predetermined liquid precursor temperature value; and throttle heat transfer between the liquid precursor and an external environment outside of the liquid precursor container based on a differential between the liquid precursor temperature measurement and the predetermined liquid precursor temperature value, whereby partial pressure of vaporized liquid precursor within a flow of vaporized liquid precursor issued from the liquid precursor container is within a range within which a vapor pressure concentration sensor fluidly coupled to the flow is linear.
Lind teaches a control system 300 Fig. 7 for controlling a bulk vaporization system which comprises a controller with a processor and a memory [0070] which executes methods for monitoring the level of liquid precursor and determines vaporized precursor delivery [0066; 0038-0072].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koller and its controller with the controller with a processor and memory that stores and executes methods.
Koller in view of Lind does not expressly teach that the controller receive a liquid precursor temperature measurement; compare the liquid precursor temperature to a predetermined liquid precursor temperature value; and throttle heat transfer between the liquid precursor and an external environment outside of the liquid precursor container based on a differential between the liquid precursor temperature measurement and the predetermined liquid precursor temperature value, whereby partial pressure of vaporized liquid precursor within a flow of vaporized liquid precursor issued from the liquid precursor container is within a range within which a vapor pressure concentration sensor fluidly coupled to the flow is linear.
However, these are method steps or functional limitations for the controller. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to perform the storage and execution of the claimed method steps, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind and that of the claim.
In regard to Claim 14, Koller in view of Lind do not expressly teach the instructions recorded on the memory further cause the controller to: receive a liquid precursor level measurement indicative of level of the liquid precursor contained within the inner container; and adjust the predetermined liquid precursor temperature value using the liquid precursor level measurement, whereby the partial pressure of the vaporized liquid precursor within the flow of the vaporized liquid precursor remains within the range during drawdown of the liquid precursor contained within the inner container.
However, these are method steps or functional limitations for the controller. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to perform the storage and execution of the claimed method steps, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind and that of the claim.
In regard to Claim 15, Koller in view of Lind do not expressly teach that the instructions recorded on the memory further cause the controller to: receive a liquid precursor level measurement indicative of level of the liquid precursor contained within the inner container; compare the liquid precursor level measurement to a predetermined liquid precursor value; and refill the inner container with the liquid precursor when the liquid precursor level measurement is less than the predetermined liquid precursor value.
However, these are method steps or functional limitations for the controller. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to perform the storage and execution of the claimed method steps, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Koller in view of Lind and that of the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0017489 to Koller et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2007/0163713 to Kasai.
The teachings of Koller et al are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 17, Koller teaches a liquid precursor system (Fig. 1-3) with a first liquid container 32 and a second liquid precursor 29, and a changeover arrangement 12 connecting the first liquid precursor container and the second liquid precursor container to a precursor supply conduit 23, 25; and a controller 28 operably connected to the changeover arrangement and responsive to instructions recorded on a memory to: receive a liquid precursor level measurement from the first liquid precursor container 35; fluidly couple the second liquid precursor container to the precursor supply conduit using the changeover arrangement when the liquid precursor level measurement is less than a predetermined liquid precursor level; and refill the first liquid precursor container when the liquid precursor level measurement is less than the predetermined liquid precursor level [0025-0051].
Koller teaches a liquid precursor container but does not expressly teach an enclosure body having an upper chamber and a lower chamber; a first liquid precursor container and a second liquid precursor container.
Kasai teaches a liquid precursor system with an enclosure body (overall system of Fig. 1) having an upper chamber 24 and a lower chamber 22, as an arrangement for the processing system, wherein the liquid precursor container is in the upper chamber and the lower chamber is for processing.
As it is known to provide a generic system in a liquid precursor system, as taught by Koller, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Koller as taught by Kasai to include and upper and lower chamber. One would be motivated to do so in order to system details for processing. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 6 recites a coolant supply conduit connected to the outer lid portion of the outer container, a coolant return conduit connected to the outer lid portion of the outer container and fluidly coupled to the coolant supply conduit by an exterior surface of the inner container. Although there are coolant supplies and return conduits coupled to a lid (see United States Patent Application No. 2015/0231595 to Kim et al), the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, does not expressly teach nor suggest that the supply and return conduits are fluidly coupled by an exterior surface of the inner container and as such, are also not obvious modifications. For these reasons, the dependent claims 7-8 are also objected to as having allowable subject matter.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or record, whether alone or in combination does not expressly teach that a turning plenum defined between the outer base portion of the outer container and the inner base portion of the inner container, the turning plenum fluidly coupling the coolant return plenum to the coolant supply plenum. Specifically, although there is a cooling channel shown in Koller, the location or arrangement of when the plenum turns into a return plenum from being a supply plenum is not expressly taught nor shown as the coolant inlet or outlet is also not expressly shown. As such, it is not obvious in the prior art or record, whether alone or combination for a liquid precursor supply to have the specific turning plenum connected to a coolant supply and return conduits as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2015/0231595 to Kim which has a cooling lid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights