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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are: claims 1, 10 and 20: “area enlarging elements” have been interpreted as a protruding pattern as illustrated in Figs. 2a-h and the accompanying paras. 39-45 of the specification and equivalents thereto; claims 2 and 12: “heating element” which has been interpreted as an electrical heat source, a furnace, and infrared heat source, a heat tape and equivalents thereto as set forth at para. 34 of the specification; claim 3 precursor control unit which has been interpreted as at least one of a temperature sensor, a concentration sensor, a mass sensor, a temperature controller and/or a communication component and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in paras. 48-49 of the specification; claims 4 and 14: “computing system” which has been interpreted as inclusive of a processor, memory, machine learning module, a communication component, and a data storage device and equivalents thereto as set forth at para. 55 of the specification; claim 16 “machine learning module” has been interpreted as machine learning training algorithm and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification at para. 57.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 19 now includes the phrase “wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are built as one piece; a three-dimensional (3D) pattern detachably mounted to at least one of the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall”. Paragraph 41 discloses that the 3D pattern may detachably mounted to the bottom wall. There is no mention of detachably mounting to the top wall or the side wall; thus, the claimed feature appears to overstep the disclosure and represent new matter. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of how the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall are built as one piece in combination with a three-dimensional (3D) pattern detachably mounted to at least one of the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall. Nevertheless, the claims has been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability. However, further clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 14, 16 and 19-20 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 14 currently recites “the precursor control unit is configured to transmit the real-time temperature, the real-time precursor vapor concentration, and/or unconsumed quantity of the first precursor source”. However, the claim now requires the first two measurements to be transmitted. Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not the third measurement corresponds to the real-time unconsumed quantity of the first precursor source remaining in the first precursor source container of claim 13. Based on further features of claim 14, Examiner has assumed that all three measurements are required to be transmitted and that recitations of “unconsumed quantity of the first precursor source” is meant to refer to “the unconsumed quantity of the first precursor source” . Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 14 also refers to “a target temperature”. However, this feature is already set forth in claim 8. Thus, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to “the target temperature”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Similarly, claim 14, also refers to “a pre-established operation model”. However, this feature is already set forth in claim 8. Thus, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to “the pre-established operation model”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 19 now includes the phrases “wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are built as one piece; a three-dimensional (3D) pattern detachably mounted to at least one of the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall”. Paragraph 41 discloses that the 3D pattern may be detachably mounted to the bottom wall. There is no mention of detachable mounting to the top wall or the side wall; thus, it is unclear how to interpret the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it is unclear how to interpret “the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall are built as one piece” in combination with “a three-dimensional (3D) pattern detachably mounted to at least one of the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall”. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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) 1-2, 5-7 and 19-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0189558 to Liu.
Regarding claim 1, in Figs. 3 and 6, e.g., Liu discloses a thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and comprising first precursor gas supply system (e.g., Fig. 3, 100 and Fig. 6, “vapor delivery system”, not numbered) configured to generate and supply a first precursor vapor from a first precursor source, the first precursor supply system comprising a first precursor source container (multiple structures, including at least 402 and 410)), wherein the first precursor source container defines an interior space (422) and comprises an interior surface (i.e. surfaces of 402 and 410), at least a portion of the interior surface of the first precursor source container has a three-dimensional (3D) pattern, wherein the 3D pattern is located on the interior surface and comprises a plurality of area enlarging elements (Fig. 6, 404); and a deposition chamber (Fig. 6, “reactor”) in gas communication with the first precursor source container, the deposition chamber configured to receive the first precursor vapor (via 418) and deposit a layer of the first precursor source onto a substrate placed in the deposition chamber, wherein each of the plurality area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape that is substantially triangular and extending from the interior surface into the interior space to define an open central portion within the interior space to define an open central portion within the interior space to store the first precursor source and the first precursor vapor (see, e.g., para. 89). Regarding all features relating to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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).
Liu fails to explicitly disclose the area enlarging element increase a total area of the interior surface by at least 10%. Nevertheless, Liu does teach the area enlarging create a turbulence of a carrier gas and the first precursor vapor from the first precursor vapor source, making the carrier gas and the vapor efficiently mixed (again, see, e.g., para. 89).
Notably, the courts have also ruled 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the inherently area enlarging elements of Liu with an area optimizing the total area of the interior surface by at least 10% in order to optimize turbulence and mixing as taught by Li and in accordance with the aforementioned court findings.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Liu, although not illustrated, Liu discloses a heating element may be provided in heat communication with the first precursor container to provide heat towards at least a portion of the first precursor source container to evaporate the first precursor source place therein (see, e.g., para. 98) in proximity or contact with the precursor source container, the heating element configured to heat the precursor source container and evaporate a precursor source place therein.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Liu, Liu teaches that the thin film deposition system may be used to perform atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see, e.g., para. 1. Additionally, again, with respect to intended use limitations such as this one, the courts have ruled 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).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Liu, Liu fails to explicitly teach the system further comprising a second precursor supply system configured to supply a second precursor vapor, wherein the first precursor vapor and the second precursor vapor are capable of being supplied to the deposition chamber in a sequential and alternating matter. Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Liu, Liu discloses the first precursor source container comprises a top wall (402), a bottom wall (horizontal portion of 410) and a side wall (vertical portions of 410) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall. However, Liu fails to explicitly disclose an angle defined by the slope of each of the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall is 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, or 70 degrees.
Nevertheless, Liu does teach that the substantially triangular shape is not particularly limited as long as the turbulence is created for the carrier gas, wherein the courts have ruled: where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); and 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Liu an angle defined by the slope of each of the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall is 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, or 70 degrees in order to optimize turbulence and mixing as taught by Li and in accordance with the aforementioned court findings.
Regarding claim 19: in Figs. 3 and 6, e.g., Liu discloses a thin film deposition system (capable of atomic layer deposition (ALD)) substantially as claimed and comprising first precursor gas supply system (e.g., Fig. 3, 100 and Fig. 6, “vapor delivery system”, not numbered) comprising a first precursor source container (multiple structures, including at least 402 and 410); and a deposition chamber (Fig. 6, “reactor”) in gas communication with the first precursor source container, the deposition chamber configured to receive the first precursor vapor (via 418) and deposit (i.e. capable of receiving) the first precursor vapor and deposit (i.e. capable of depositing) a first layer of the first precursor source onto a substrate placed in the deposition chamber, wherein the first precursor source container comprises: a top wall (402), a bottom wall (horizontal portion of 410) and a side wall (vertical portions of 410) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, a three-dimensional (3D) pattern on the top wall; an inlet (412) configured to allow (i.e. capable of allowing) introduction of a carrier gas into the first precursor container; and an outlet (418) configured to allow (i.e. capable of allowing) exit of a first precursor vapor generated in the first precursor source container.
Regarding, claim limitations “the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall built as one piece” and “a three-dimensional (3D) pattern detachably mounted to at least one of the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall”, to the extent they are understood, according to BRI, “mounting” and “attachment” of these features as described by Liu (see, e.g., para. 89) are considered to be readable thereon. Alternatively, it appears that these limitations can be considered product-by-process limitations related to how the apparatus is constructed. Further still, the construction of the container and its constituent parts (including assembly and disassembly) are considered merely engineering design choices that one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find obvious absent any unexpecting findings or results. Also, see rejections regarding new matter and clarity of the features set forth above, which would likely affect an explanation of any claims to findings or results of unexpectedness.
Regarding all features relating to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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).
With respect to claim 20, the 3D pattern comprises a plurality of area enlarging configured to enlarge a total contact area of the interior surface of the first precursor source container with the first precursor source stored therein, and each of the plurality of area enlarging elements being characterized by a cross-sectional shape that is substantially triangular (see aforementioned figures).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7 and 19-20 above, and further in view U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0072875 to Sandhu.
Modified Liu discloses the thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Liu fails to disclose a precursor control unit (at least one of a temperature sensor, a concentration sensor, a mass sensor, a temperature controller and/or a communication component and equivalents thereto) in operable and controllable communication with the first precursor source container, the precursor control unit is configured to detect, monitor, and or control at least one real-time operation parameter or characteristic of the first precursor supply system; or a computing system (a processor, memory, machine learning module, a communication component, and a data storage device and equivalents thereto) in electrical communication with the first precursor supply system, the computing system configured to receive signals from the precursor control unit, process the signal, calculate a real-time adjustment value of the at least one real-time operational parameter, transform the real-time adjustment value to an adjustment signal, and transmit the adjustment signal to the precursor control unit.
Sandhu discloses a precursor supply system (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 100) having a heating element (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 108) configured to heat a precursor source container (e.g. 102), and a temperature controller/precursor control unit (110) operably connected to the heating element wherein the temperature controller is configured to control the heating element (thus, in operable and controllable communication with the first precursor source container and configured to detect, monitor, and/or control at least one real-time parameter or characteristic of the first precursor supply system) according to an intended use in order to control precursor vapor flow to a deposition chamber (124) (see, e.g., paras. 26-29, 35-38 and 43). Further, the temperature controller is in electrical communication (via 150) with a computing system/controller (146) for the purpose of adjusting the temperature of the heating element in such a manner to control the flow of vapor through the precursor supply system (see, e.g., paras. 26-29, 35-38 and 43) (thus, configured to receive signals from the precursor control unit, process the signals, calculate a real-time adjustment of the at least one real-time operational parameter, transform the real-time adjustment value to an adjustment signal, and transmit the adjustment signal to the precursor control unit) (see, e.g., paras. 26-29, 35-38 and 43).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Liu a precursor control unit in operable and controllable communication with the first precursor source container, the precursor control unit is configured to detect, monitor, and or control at least one real-time operation parameter or characteristic of the first precursor supply system; and a computing in electrical communication with the first precursor supply system, the computing system configured to receive signals from the precursor control unit, process the signal, calculate a real-time adjustment value of the at least one real-time operational parameter, transform the real-time adjustment value to an adjustment signal, and transmit the adjustment signal to the precursor control unit in order to adjust the temperature of the heating element in such a manner to control the flow of vapor through the precursor supply system as taught by Sandhu.
Claim(s) 8-12, 15 and 17-18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0189558 to Liu in view U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0072875 to Sandhu.
Regarding claim 8: in Figs. 3 and 6, e.g., Liu discloses a thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and comprising first precursor gas supply system (e.g., Fig. 3, 100 and Fig. 6, “vapor delivery system”, not numbered) comprising a first precursor source container (multiple structures, including at least 402 and 410); a heating element (not illustrated, see, e.g., para. 98) configured to heat (i.e. capable of heating) the first precursor container; and a deposition chamber (Fig. 6, “reactor”) in gas communication with the first precursor source container, the deposition chamber configured to receive the first precursor vapor (via 418) and deposit (i.e. capable of receiving and depositing) a layer of the first precursor source onto a substrate placed in the deposition chamber, wherein the first precursor source container comprises: a top wall (402), a bottom wall (horizontal portion of 410) and a side wall (vertical portions of 410) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall.
Regarding all features relating to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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).
However, Liu fails to disclose a temperature controller operably coupled to the heating element, wherein the temperature controller is configured to control (i.e. capable of controlling) the heating element based on a pre-established operation model comprising a temperature profile describing a target temperature of the first precursor source container as a function of consumption of the first precursor source progresses.
Sandhu discloses a heating element (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 108) configured to heat a precursor source container (e.g. 102), and a temperature controller (110) operably connected to the heating element wherein the temperature controller is configured to control (i.e. capable of controlling) the heating element according to an intended use in order to control precursor vapor flow to a deposition chamber (124). The temperature controller is in communication with a computing system (146) having a pre-established operation model (i.e. predetermined data/information) (see, e.g., paras. 26-29 and 43). Additionally, regarding intended use, as noted above, the courts have ruled that 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).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Liu a temperature controller operably coupled to the heating element, wherein the temperature controller is configured to control (i.e. capable of controlling) the heating element based on a pre-established operation model comprising a temperature profile describing a target temperature of the first precursor source container as a function of consumption of the first precursor source progresses (or other intended use) as taught by Sandu.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Liu, Liu disclose the 3D pattern is located on at least a portion of the bottom wall, or at least a portion of the top wall, or at least a portion of the side wall, or a combination thereof as detailed above. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Liu, Liu discloses the 3D pattern comprises a plurality of area enlarging elements (404) configured to enlarge a total contact area of the interior surface of the first precursor source container with the first precursor source stored therein.
With respect to claim 11, modified Liu fails to explicitly disclose the area enlarging element increase a total area of the interior surface by at least 10%, or at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 40%, or at least 50%, or at least 100%, or at least 150%, or at least 200%, or at least 500%, or at least 1,000%, relative to the interior surface without the area enlarging elements. Nevertheless, Liu does teach the area enlarging elements create a turbulence of a carrier gas and the first precursor vapor from the first precursor vapor source, making the carrier gas and the vapor efficiently mixed (again, see, e.g., para. 89).
Notably, the courts have also ruled 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the inherently area enlarging elements of Liu with an area optimizing the total area of the interior surface by at least 10%, or at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 40%, or at least 50%, or at least 100%, or at least 150%, or at least 200%, or at least 500%, or at least 1,000%, relative to the interior surface without the area enlarging elements in order to optimize turbulence and mixing as taught by Li and in accordance with the aforementioned court findings.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Liu, Liu discloses the heating element is in proximity or contact with the first precursor source container. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Liu, Liu discloses the first precursor supply system may further comprise a carrier gas source (Fig. 6, “input N2”) in gas communication with the inlet of the first precursor source container, and a mass flow controller (“MFC”) in gas communication with the carrier gas source and the inlet of the first precursor source container, wherein the carrier gas source is configured to supply (i.e. capable of suppling) the carrier gas into the first precursor source container, wherein the carrier gas is mixed with the evaporated first precursor source to generate the first precursor vapor in the first precursor source container.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Liu, Sandhu disclose the precursor gas supply system may further comprise a gas box (118) in gas communication with the outlet (120) of the precursor source container, the gas box configured to be capable of stabilizing, purifying and homogenizing the precursor vapor transferred therein (see, e.g., paras. 30-34).
With respect to claim 18, in modified Liu, Liu fails to explicitly teach the system further comprising a second precursor supply system configured to supply a second precursor vapor, wherein the first precursor vapor and the second precursor vapor are capable of being supplied to the deposition chamber in a sequential and alternating matter. Examiner notes that the courts have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 11 is/are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Liu as applied to claims 8-12, 15 and 17-18 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0111014 to Donatucci et al.
Modified Liu discloses the thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Liu fails to explicitly disclose optimization of the same such that the area enlarging elements increase a total area of the interior surface by at least 10%, or at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 40%, or at least 50%, or at least 100%, or at least 150%, or at least 200%, or at least 500%, or at least 1,000%, relative to the interior surface without the area enlarging elements.
Liu does teach the area enlarging create a turbulence of a carrier gas and the first precursor vapor from the first precursor vapor source, making the carrier gas and the vapor efficiently mixed (again, see, e.g., para. 89) and notably, the courts have also ruled 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Donatucci et al. teach (see, e.g., paras. 2, 19, 35, 47) increasing surface area for the purpose of effectively contacting source material (i.e., a precursor) and yielding increased amounts of vaporized source to a downstream system. Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the enlarging elements with optimized (and increased) surface area in Birtcher et al. in order to effectively contact source material (i.e., a precursor) and yield increased amounts of vaporized source to a downstream system as taught by Donatucci et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable modified Liu as applied to claims 8-12, 15 and 17-18 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0257878 to Chandrasekharan et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0171383 to Woelk et al.
Modified Liu disclose the thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and as described above.
Additionally, regarding claim 13, Sandhu discloses the thin film deposition system substantially as claimed and as described above, including, inter alia, a temperature sensor (see, e.g., paras. 45) configured to detect and monitor a real-time temperature of the precursor source container; and a temperature controller, as detailed above, wherein the temperature controller is configured to adjust the temperature of the first precursor source container in situ during operation.
However, modified Liu fails to explicitly disclose the precursor control unit operably connected to the first precursor source container, the precursor control unit further comprising: a concentration sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time precursor vapor concentration in the precursor container; and a mass sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time unconsumed quantity of the precursor source remaining in the precursor source container.
Chandrasekharan et al. disclose the provision of a concentration sensor (see, e.g., Fig. 4A-F, 432; paras. 54, 101) configured to detect and monitor a real-time precursor vapor concentration. Note: the concentration of the precursor vapor is considered to be reflective of the precursor vapor concentration in the precursor source.
Woelk et al. disclose a mass sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time unconsumed quantity of the precursor source remaining in the precursor source container for the purpose of continuously controlling the flux of precursor into the precursor source container to maintain a constant precursor level therein (see, e.g., para. 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the precursor control unit operably connected to the precursor source container, the precursor control unit further comprising: a concentration sensor, a temperature sensor, a mass sensor, and a temperature controller as part of the precursor control unit in order to effectively control operations thereof as taught and detailed above by Sandhu, Chandrasekharan et al. and Woelk et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Dependent claim 14 appears to define o the prior art of record and pending appropriate clarifications and corrections as well as rewriting in proper independent form would appear to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pubs. 20100255198; 20130089934; 20130084059; and 20210189558 disclose precursor supply systems. US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0003704 to Shah et al. discloses a precursor supply unit having a precursor control unit taking real-time measurements and a computing system, wherein the computing system includes, inter alia, a machine learning module, as well as its inputs and outputs, and controls processing conditions (e.g. temperature, concentration, pressure, mass flow rate) of the precursor supply unit based on the machine learning model and real-time measurements and other known principles of chemistry (properties of a specific chemical, ideal gas law, principles of flow, etc.). However, Shah et al. appears to fail to disclose the computing system structurally configured as it appears claim 14 intended and assumed to be specifically claimed.
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 (see whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights