DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 23, 25-26, and 31-33, in the reply filed on November 11, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 38, 42, 44-45, 47-49, 52-54, 56-57, 59-63, and 77-84 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “assembly,” in this case – 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 limitations are:
The “gas supply assembly” of claims 1 and 25-26;
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The gas supply assembly (2) will be interpreted as a porous plate (21) in accordance with paragraph [0117] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to for syntactical reasons, as this claim invokes the notation of “RF source” whereas, in all other instances of use, this feature is scripted as “radio frequency source.” For purposes of continuity, the examiner suggests the consistent use of “radio frequency source” throughout the claim set.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 refers to “the rotation shaft of the rotating mechanism,” but this feature lacks antecedent basis because a rotation shaft has yet to be invoked. Correction is required.
Separately, the final paragraph of claim 1 reads, “during the rotating mechanism rotating the substrate, or the heating tray, or the gas supply assembly.” The examiner understands this excerpt to establish the rotating mechanism’s capacity to directly rotate either the substrate, the heating tray, or the gas supply assembly. However, this contradicts the limitation of the previous paragraph, which stipulates that the rotating mechanism changes the position of the substrate relative to either the gas supply assembly or the heating tray. In other words, the rotating mechanism rotates either the heating tray, upon which the substrate rests, or the gas supply assembly. Resolution of this contradiction is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a device capable of generating relative movement between the gas supply assembly and the heating tray as satisfying the contested limitation.
Separately, the antepenultimate paragraph invokes a “rotation shaft” that is “perpendicular to the substrate and passing through the substrate.” Clearly, the rotation shaft does not physically “pass through the substrate,” and correction of this error is required. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as denoting a rotational axis of the shaft which passes through the substrate.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Similar to the rejection of claim 1 directly above, both of claims 25 and 26 refer to the independent rotation of either the substrate, the heating tray, or the gas assembly system. Such a recitation is indeterminate, however, because the rotation of the substrate and heating tray are not, in fact, independent, because the latter bears the former. Resolution of this contradiction is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a device capable of generating relative movement between the gas supply assembly and the heating tray as satisfying the contested limitation.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The claim reads, “(the substrate rotation times+1)*the setting angle of each time of substrate rotation=360°”. The examiner finds this syntax entirely incomprehensible. Further, “of each time of substrate rotation” is ungrammatical, and the concepts of “setting angle” and “(substrate rotation times+1)” are uncontemplated by the specification. As best can be ascertained, the contested limitation refers to the act of rotating the substrate a full 360°, and the claim will be provisionally examined under this presumption in the service of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 25-26, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paul et al., US 2022/0076919.
Claims 1, 31: A thin film deposition device, comprising:
A processing chamber (100) (Fig. 1);
A gas supply assembly, constituted by a porous plate (112), arranged on the top wall of the processing chamber for supplying process gas [0029];
A heating tray (104) arranged below the gas supply assembly for bearing and heating a substrate (103) [0031];
A radio frequency source (142) for providing RF power to activate the process gas into plasma [0028];
A rotating mechanism, constituted by a rotation shaft (144), for controlling the rotation to change the relative position of the substrate to the gas supply assembly [0026];
Wherein the rotational axis of the rotation shaft is perpendicular to and extends through the substrate.
Lastly, regarding the final paragraph of claim 1, the operator can simply keep the RF source in an “on state” while rotating the substrate, whereby this demonstration of capacity is sufficient to satisfy the threshold for rejection in an apparatus claim. It has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Claim 25: The operator can simultaneously induce rotation of the heating tray while adjusting the RF source to a smaller power output than during thin film deposition – it has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
Claim 26: The operator can adjust the RF source to an “off” status at any point, including during a “purification” process.
Claims 33: Paul contemplates an RF frequency of 400 kHz [0003].
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul in view of Chua et al., US 2019/0088521.
Although Paul describes the provision of a backside gas to the substrate, the reference does not explicitly assert that said gas is delivered via a “through hole,” as claim 23 requires. In supplementation, Chua, too, endorses the technique of supplying gas “to the region between the substrate 115 and the substrate support surface 128” within the context of a thini film deposition chamber ([0026]; Fig. 1A). To achieve this objective, Chua forms a through hole (179) within the substrate support to deliver the gas to the substrate (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to form a through hole within Paul’s heating tray for backside gas delivery, since selecting an identified, predictable solution is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul in view of Nakagawasai, US 2018/0294176.
Paul does not specify that the frequence of the RF source is a multiple of 13.56 MHz. Nakagawasai, however, attests that a high frequency such as 13.56 MHz is common and effective for the purpose of plasma generation [0023]. It would have been obvious to avail this frequency within Paul’s apparatus, since the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Huang et al., US 2021/0130960. Huang provides a processing chamber (100) comprising a gas supply assembly (112) and an opposing heating tray (104) for bearing a substrate (103) (Fig. 1). In addition, Chua avails an RF source (142) to generate a plasma gas [0023].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights