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 .
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.
Claims 15, 16, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarigiannis et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0214779; hereafter ‘779).
Claim 15: ‘799 discloses a method (¶s 86-94, 304), comprising:
providing, from a first ampoule of a dual ampoule system, a first precursor gas at a first temperature to a mixer (¶s 24-29, 86-94, 129-130, 310 and Fig. 5);
providing, from a second ampoule of the dual ampoule system, a second precursor gas at a second temperature to the mixer (¶s 24-29, 86-94, 129-130, 310 and Fig. 5),
wherein a separator plate between the first ampoule and the second ampoule thermally isolate the first ampoule and the second ampoule while the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas are provided to the mixer (the ampoules are each surrounded by a heating mantel which reads on a separator plate that thermally isolates the two ampoules from each other, Fig. 8);
forming a mixed precursor gas in the mixer from the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas (the precursors are used as a mixture which flows together at the mixer, Fig. 5 & ¶ 302); and
providing the mixed precursor gas into a processing chamber to form a layer on a semiconductor device in the chamber (the substrate can be a patterned semiconductor wafer, abstract & ¶s 6-7, 190, & 310).
Claim 16: The separator plate resists transfer of heat from the first ampoule to the second ampoule while the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas are provided to the mixer (the mantels are present and thus resist transfer of heat by having a physical mass).
Claim 20: The separator plate is positioned closer to the first ampoule than the second ampoule (the heat mantel around the first ampoule is closer to the first ampoule than the second ampoule by the physical fact that the second ampoule has a heat mantel around it which is between the heat mantel around the first ampoule and the second ampoule).
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, & 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘779.
Claim 1: ‘779 is directed towards a method (¶ 21), comprising:
operating, by a controller (¶ 24), a first ampoule at a first temperature in a dual ampoule system (¶s 21-26 and Fig. 5, ¶s 129-130),
wherein the dual ampoule system includes:
the first ampoule (Fig. 5, ¶s 129-130),
a second ampoule adjacent to the first ampoule (Fig. 5, ¶s 129-130),
a separator plate between the first ampoule and the second ampoule (each ampoule is surrounded by a heating mantle, Fig. 8),
wherein the first ampoule emits convection heat as a result of operating at the first temperature (there is gas inside the system and the ampoule is heated and thus there is convection heat emitted);
receiving, by the controller, sensor data that is based on a second temperature associated with the second ampoule (the second ampoule is heated independently and controlled, thus it is apparent that there is sensor data, see ¶s 140, 177, 178, 180, & 212),
wherein the second temperature is controlled by the controller based on the sensor data (see ¶s 180 & 212),
wherein the separator plate preventing at least the portion of the convection heat from transferring from the first ampoule to the second ampoule promotes stabilization of an output of the controller for controlling the second ampoule (the heating mantle reads on the separator plate and given it provides the heating of the ampoule it is apparent that it promotes stabilization as claimed).
‘779 does not teach that the first temperature and the second temperature are different.
However, ‘779 does teach that each ampoule is independently heated to a temperature sufficient to vaporize the source chemical (see ¶s 26, 44 & 73 and claims 1-20) wherein the source material in each of the ampoules can be different (¶s 303-310).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use different first and second temperatures for the first and second ampoules because the first and second temperatures are a result effective variable based on the temperature need to cause the first and second source material to vaporize, it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of possible options (either the same or different – two options), and differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 4: The first ampoule generates a first precursor gas at the first temperature, the second ampoule generates a second precursor gas at the second temperature, and the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas are used in a same barrier layer deposition operation in a processing chamber of a deposition system in which the dual ampoule system is included (see ¶s 310).
Claim 5: Wherein operating the first ampoule at the first temperature in the dual ampoule system comprises operating the first ampoule and the second ampoule to concurrently and respectively form the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas (see ¶s 304-312).
Claim 6: The process of ‘779 further comprises:
transmitting a first signal to cause a mixer, included in the deposition system, to form a mixed precursor gas from the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas and transmitting a second signal to cause a valve to provide the mixed precursor gas to the processing chamber (¶s 130-150).
Claim 7: ‘779 discloses a method (¶ 86-94, 304), comprising:
positioning a semiconductor device in a processing chamber (the substrate can be a semiconductor wafer, abstract & ¶s 6-7, 190, & 310);
providing a mixed precursor gas into a recess in the semiconductor device, while the semiconductor device is in the process chamber, to form a barrier layer from the mixed precursor gas in the recess (the substrate can be patterned and the mixed material deposited can be barrier layer, ¶s 302 & 310),
wherein a first precursor gas of the mixed precursor gas is provided from a first ampoule of a dual ampoule system (¶s 86-94 & 129-130),
wherein a second precursor gas of the mixed precursor gas is provided from a second ampoule of a dual ampoule system (¶s 86-94 & 129-130),
wherein a heat shield positioned between the first ampoule and the second ampoule resists thermal transfer between the first ampoule and the second ampoule while the mixed precursor gas is provided in the recess in the semiconductor device (the ampoules are surrounded by a heating mantel which inherently resist thermal transfer between the two ampoules by physical presence, see Fig. 8).
‘779 does not teach that the heat shield is planar.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a planar heat mantel on the sides of the ampoules between each ampoule because changes in shape are prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 10: The first precursor gas is provided from the first ampoule to a mixer while the heat shield positioned between the first ampoule and the second ampoule resists thermal transfer between the first ampoule and the second ampoule (the heat shield and thus resists some level of thermal transfer);
wherein the second precursor gas is provided from the second ampoule to the mixer while the heat shield is positioned between the first ampoule and the second ampoule resists thermal transfer between the first ampoule and the second ampoule (the heat shield is present and thus inherently resist thermal transfer); and
wherein the mixed precursor gas is formed from the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas in the mixer (‘799 teaches forming mixed layers with different precursor gases from the first and second ampoule, ¶ 310).
Claim 11: The heat shield is positioned closer to the first ampoule than the second ampoule while the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas are provided into the mixer (the mantel around the first ampoule is closer to the first ampoule than the second ampoule given the second ampoule has a separate mantel around it).
Claim 12: The second precursor is different from the first precursor (¶ 310).
Claim 13: ‘779 does not teach that the first temperature and the second temperature are different.
However, ‘779 does teach that each ampoule is independently heated to a temperature sufficient to vaporize the source chemical (see ¶s 26, 44 & 73 and claims 1-20) wherein the source material in each of the ampoules can be different (¶s 303-310).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use different first and second temperatures for the first and second ampoules because the first and second temperatures are a result effective variable based on the temperature need to cause the first and second source material to vaporize, it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of possible options (either the same or different – two options), and differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 14: ‘799 does not teach a specific size of the heat shield.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a planar heat mantel of the claimed size because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) & (B).
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘779 as applied above, and further in view of Motoyoshi et al. (US Patent 5,883,363; hereafter ‘363). As evidenced by Wang et. al (US PG Pub 2011/0217462; hereafter ‘462).
Claims 8 & 9: ‘779 does not disclose details regarding the heating mantle.
However, ‘363, which is directed towards a heating mantle (title) discloses that heating mantles can comprise heat insulating cloths/mats made of glass fiber (col. 1, line 60 – col. 2, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a heating mantle as disclosed as the specific heating mantle in ‘779 because it is an art recognized heating mantle and would have predictably provided the desired heating.
As evidenced by ‘462, glass fiber has a thermal conductivity of about 0.36 W/mK (see ¶ 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, & 17-19 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 prior art does not teach moving a separator plate as claimed nor is there a teaching or suggestion in the prior art to modify ‘779 to move the heating mantle as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights