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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
New claims 21-31 depend from claims 1 and 3 and, therefore, also fall within the elected Group I.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 contains the abbreviation “ALD” in line 4. The abbreviation should be spelled out before being used in the claims, e.g. “atomic layer deposition (ALD)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the inert purge gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the inert purge gas” will be considered to mean “an inert purge gas”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the inert purge gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the inert purge gas” will be considered to mean “an inert purge gas”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 21-24, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenwick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0271076, hereafter Fenwick ‘076).
Claim 1: Fenwick ‘076 teaches a method for coating a part via atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0002]) comprising:
fastening a workpiece comprising a process chamber component to an interior volume facing portion of a coating reactor (100) (Fig. 1, [0018], [0019]); and
performing an ALD process on the fastened chamber component within the coating reactor (Fig. 2, [0018], [0027]).
Claim 2: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the workpiece can be a showerhead ([0018], [0028]).
Claim 3: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the showerhead can be fastened to the chamber body top, which corresponds to the claimed lid assembly ([0023]), and that performing the ALD process comprises alternately flowing deposition gases through the chamber body top into a central recess of the showerhead and through a plurality of gas conduit holes in the showerhead (Fig. 1, [0023], [0038], [0065]).
Claim 5: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the workpiece can be a substrate support assembly configured to support a planar substrate (Fig. 1, [0018], [0025], [0028]).
Claim 6: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the substrate support assembly can be fastened to a lower portion of the coating reactor (Fig. 1, [0025]), and that performing the ALD process can comprise alternately flowing deposition gases through a lid assembly coupled to the lower portion of the coating reactor across an upper surface of the substrate support assembly (Figs. 1-2, [0023], [0025], [0038]).
Claim 21: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that a spacer (104) can be disposed between the workpiece and the chamber body top (Fig. 1).
Claim 22: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the ALD process can form a coating of aluminum oxide on the fastened workpiece ([0006], [0039]).
Claim 23: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the ALD process can include providing a pulse of first precursor followed by a flow of an inert purge gas ([0033], [0038]), where the first precursor can be trimethylaluminum ([0039]).
Claim 24: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the ALD process can further include, after the flow of the inert purge gas, providing a pulse of second precursor followed by a subsequent flow of the inert purge gas ([0033], [0038]), where the second precursor can be water ([0039]).
Claim 29: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the inert purge gas can be nitrogen ([0033], [0038]).
Claim 30: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the inert purge gas can be Ar, which is a noble gas ([0025], [0033], [0038]).
Claim 31: Fenwick ‘076 teaches that the ALD process can be repeated until a coating having a desired thickness is formed (Fig. 2, [0030], [0032]).
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) 25-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenwick et al ‘076 as applied to claim 24 above.
Claims 25-26: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 24, as discussed above. Fenwick ‘076 further teaches that the period of time for each gas exposure affects the ability of the gases to react and the dispersal of the gas around the structures of the workpiece ([0029], [0035]).
With respect to claim 25, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the pulse of trimethylaluminum is for between 30 and 1000 milliseconds, or that the flow of the inert purge gas is for between 100 and 2000 milliseconds. With respect to claim 26, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the pulse of water is for between 30 and 1000 milliseconds, or that the subsequent flow of the inert purge gas is for between 100 and 5000 milliseconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the period of time for each gas exposure, including the trimethylaluminum, purge gas, water, and subsequent purge gas, in the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because the period of time for each gas exposure affects the ability of the gases to react and the dispersal of the gas around the structures of the workpiece, as taught by Fenwick ‘076. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim 28: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 24, as discussed above. Fenwick ‘076 further teaches that the ALD process can be performed at a temperature of about 20°C to about 400°C ([0034]).
With respect to claim 28, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the ALD process is performed at a temperature of about 300 degrees Celsius.
However, the claimed ALD temperature of about 300 degrees Celsius is obvious over the ALD temperature of about 20°C to about 400°C taught by Fenwick ‘076 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenwick et al ‘076 as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Umotoy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0072164, hereafter Umotoy ‘164).
Claim 4: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. With respect to claim 4, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the ALD process further comprises flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the showerhead while alternately flowing the deposition gases.
Umotoy ‘164 teaches an atomic layer deposition method (abstract, [0067]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that the method can include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated while flowing the deposition gases (Fig. 9, [0067], [0070]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that this prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces ([0070]). Both Umotoy ‘164 and Fenwick ‘076 teach atomic layer deposition methods (‘076, abstract, [0002]; ‘164, abstract, [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated while flowing the deposition gases taught by Umotoy ‘164 to the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because it prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces, as taught by Umotoy ‘164.
Claim 7: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. With respect to claim 7, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the ALD process further comprises flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the substrate support while alternately flowing the deposition gases.
Umotoy ‘164 teaches an atomic layer deposition method (abstract, [0067]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that the method can include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated while flowing the deposition gases (Fig. 9, [0067], [0070]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that this prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces ([0070]). Both Umotoy ‘164 and Fenwick ‘076 teach atomic layer deposition methods (‘076, abstract, [0002]; ‘164, abstract, [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated while flowing the deposition gases taught by Umotoy ‘164 to the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because it prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces, as taught by Umotoy ‘164.
Claim 8: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 8, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that performing the ALD process includes flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece via an outer plenum and flowing deposition gases through a plurality of inner plenums into an interior volume of the coating reactor.
Umotoy ‘164 teaches an atomic layer deposition method (abstract, [0067]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that the method can include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated via outer gas channels, corresponding to the claimed outer plenum, while flowing the deposition gases though a plurality of inner gas channels, corresponding to the claimed inner plenums, into an interior volume of the coating chamber (Fig. 9, [0067], [0070]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that this prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces ([0070]). Both Umotoy ‘164 and Fenwick ‘076 teach atomic layer deposition methods (‘076, abstract, [0002]; ‘164, abstract, [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated via outer gas channels while flowing the deposition gases though a plurality of inner gas channels into an interior volume of the coating chamber taught by Umotoy ‘164 to the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because it prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces, as taught by Umotoy ‘164.
Claim 9: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 9, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that performing the ALD process includes flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece via an outer plenum and flowing deposition gases through a central plenum into an interior volume of the coating reactor.
Umotoy ‘164 teaches an atomic layer deposition method (abstract, [0067]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that the method can include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated via outer gas channels, corresponding to the claimed outer plenum, while flowing the deposition gases though a central gas channel, corresponding to the claimed central plenum, into an interior volume of the coating chamber (Fig. 9, [0067], [0070]). Umotoy ‘164 teaches that this prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces ([0070]). Both Umotoy ‘164 and Fenwick ‘076 teach atomic layer deposition methods (‘076, abstract, [0002]; ‘164, abstract, [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include flowing an inert gas around a peripheral edge of the workpiece to be coated via outer gas channels while flowing the deposition gases though a central gas channel into an interior volume of the coating chamber taught by Umotoy ‘164 to the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because it prevents unwanted deposition on surfaces other than the desired deposition surfaces, as taught by Umotoy ‘164.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenwick et al ‘076 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Malik et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0368035, hereafter Malik ‘035).
Claim 27: Fenwick ‘076 teaches the limitations of claim 24, as discussed above. With respect to claim 27, Fenwick ‘076 does not explicitly teach that the ALD process is performed at a pressure of between 1 and 10 Torr.
Malik ‘035 teaches a method of coating a chamber component via ALD (abstract) where the coating can be aluminum oxide (abstract). Malik ‘035 teaches that the ALD can be performed at a pressure of 2 Torr to 30 Torr ([0021]). Both Malik ‘035 and Fenwick ‘076 teach methods of coating a chamber component via ALD (‘076, abstract, [0002]; ‘035, abstract) where the coating can be aluminum oxide (‘076, [0006], [0039]; ‘035, abstract).
Fenwick ‘076 is silent with respect to the ALD process pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ALD process pressure of 2 Torr to 30 Torr taught by Malik ‘035 as the ALD process pressure in the method taught by Fenwick ‘076 because it is a suitable ALD process pressure, as taught by Malik ‘035.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 27, the modified teachings of Fenwick ‘076 do not explicitly teach that the ALD process is performed at a pressure of between 1 and 10 Torr.
However, the claimed pressure range of between 1 and 10 Torr is obvious over the pressure range of 2 Torr to 30 Torr taught by the modified teachings of Fenwick ‘076 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights