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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and rejected. Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/5/2025.
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, 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, 7-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 2016/0083843 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a substrate processing method (process of forming a film on a wafer or substrate using a substrate processing apparatus, 0096). They teach that the apparatus includes a shower head heating part as a shower head temperature control part for controlling a temperature of the shower head (0032 and Fig. 1). They teach that the shower head heating part controls a temperature of the shower head such that a gas supplied to the buffer space is not reliquefied, where the shower head may be heated to about 100°C (0032 and Fig. 1). They teach that the buffer space is heated to a temperature at which a gas is not reliquefied, where the gas may be solidified or liquefied in the guide pipe having a temperature lower than that of the buffer space, depending on conductance or pressure condition (0088). Therefore, they teach controlling the temperature in a buffer space to a specific temperature to prevent the gas to from being reliquefied.
They teach positioning the substrate or wafer in the process chamber (0100-0101). They teach in the film forming step the first gas (TiCl4) is supplied to the process chamber through the buffer chamber 232 (0105), such that the substrate is processed by supplying a gas via the buffer chamber to a process chamber in which the substrate is processed.
While they do not specifically teach that the temperature in the buffer chamber is adjusted when it is outside of a pre-set temperature range, since they teach controlling the temperature of the showerhead so that a gas supplied to the buffer space is not reliquefied, where they teach controlling it to be about 100°C, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted/controlled the temperature so that the temperature in the buffer space remains within the desired temperature range to prevent it from reliquefying so that if it becomes lower than a desired preset temperature, the temperature is adjusted or controlled to be within the desired range. Specifically, since they teach controlling the temperature, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature can change to an undesirable range, specifically to be too low which would cause reliquification of the gas, because a controller is needed, because if the temperature always stayed at a desirable range a controller for controlling the temperature would not be needed. Therefore, Yamamoto suggests adjusting a temperature of a buffer space in a buffer chamber when the temperature of the buffer space is out of a pre-set temperature range.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1. Since they suggest controlling the temperature of the buffer space to prevent reliquefication of the precursor, where the precursor is provided to the chamber by passing through the buffer space, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least first performed step (a) before step (b) to ensure that the precursor is maintained in the gaseous phase while passing through the buffer space and to the substrate. Specifically, if step (b) is performed before step (a), the gas may be condensed in the buffer space so as to not be supplied as a vapor to the substrate.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach supplying a first gas to the buffer space and to the chamber (0105 and Fig. 5). They teach that after purging step S204, a second gas is supplied to the process chamber (0113 and Fig. 5). They teach supplying ammonia gas through remote plasma part 244e and the shower head 230 (0113 and Fig. 1), such that the ammonia gas will also pass through the buffer space in the showerhead to the processing chamber holding the substrate. Therefore, the provide steps (b-1) and (b-2). They teach that the cycle is performed a predetermined number of times (0120 and Fig. 5). As noted above, they teach maintaining the buffer space at a temperature at which the gas supplied is not reliquefied (0032). They teach that the first gas may be in a liquid state under normal temperature and pressure such that a vaporizer may be installed (0045). They teach that the second gas is ammonia, indicating it is a gas (0054). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously performed step (a) during the process of (b-1) and (b-2) because it will keep the buffer space in the desired temperature range to prevent the source gas from reliquefying during the repeating of the cycle so as to maintain a desired temperature to provide gases to the substrate for deposition.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the showerhead heating part controls the shower head to be heated to about 100°C (0032). They teach that the temperature of the substrate ranges from room temperature to 500°C (0103). Therefore, the temperature of the buffer space overlaps a range where it is set to be lower than the process temperature of the substrate. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Alternatively, according to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the appropriate temperature for the buffer space and the substrate by routine experimentation in the absence of a showing that the temperature is critical.
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1, where they also teach a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (0011). Therefore, the method of claim 1 will be performed in a process of manufacturing a semiconductor device.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg, US 2003/0056720 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Dauelsberg teaches a method for depositing one or more layers onto a substrate placed inside a reaction chamber (abstract). They teach that the layers are deposited while using a liquid or solid starting material for one of the reaction gases, which are fed via a gas admission unit to the reaction chamber, where they condense or epitaxially grow on the substrate (abstract). They teach that the gas admission unit comprises a multitude of buffer volumes in which the reaction gasses enter separate of one another, and exit through closely arranged outlet openings while also being spatially separate of one another (abstract). They teach that the temperature of reaction gases is moderated while passing through the gas admission unit (abstract). They teach that the reaction gas(es) before entering the reaction chamber, are admitted to a gas inlet unit, which has a plurality of separate gas paths and a multiplicity of outlet openings, which are disposed in such a way that the various reaction gases enter the reaction chamber homogeneously over the substrate in a manner that they substantially do not react with one another before reaching the surface of the substrate (0010). They teach that the temperature of the reaction gas(es) over their respective gas path is controlled, i.e., the gases are heated or cooled by the gas inlet unit, in particular, the temperature can be regulated or held at a constant temperature (0010). They teach that simple setting and regulation of the temperature of the gases which are to be admitted is achieved if the temperature of the individual gases is controlled or regulated by controlling or regulating the horizontal and/or vertical temperature gradient in the gas inlet unit to different temperatures (0012). They teach that the reactor includes the gas inlet unit having a plate, in or at which the gas outlet openings are provided, where the temperature of the plate is controlled directly or indirectly by the substrate or susceptor heating or cooling, and/or the temperature of the heated or cooled substrates or susceptors is controlled directly or indirectly (0016-0018). They teach that adjustable thermal resistances, which are formed by gas volumes, are disposed between the plate and the base body of the gas inlet unit and/or the base body of the gas inlet unit and a heat sink or heat source (0019). They teach that the buffer volumes are thermally coupled both to the plate and to a heat sink or heat source (0024). They teach that the construction has the advantage that the gases located in the buffer volumes remain in the gas inlet unit for a sufficiently long time for their temperature to be controlled in the desired way (0025). They teach that the coupling via a variable thermal resistance may be affected by means of an intermediate volume in which there is at least one medium under and adjustable pressure (0025). They teach that a mixture of gases which have thermal conduction properties which deviate from one another, so that the thermally conductive transfer from the reactor cover 19 to the gas inlet unit 8 can be set my means of the composition of the mixture of the two gases (0047 and Fig. 1). They teach that to ensure that the heat transfer takes place by means of thermal conduction, a corresponding pressure has to be set in the gap 20 (0047 and Fig. 1). They teach that feedlines 21, 22, through which reaction gases 4, 5, 6, are passed from a gas supply member into the gas inlet unit 8, project through the gap 20 (0048 and Fig. 1). They teach that the gases 3, 4 may be liquid starting materials 4’, 3’ which have been brought into vapor form (0048 and Fig. 1). They teach that heat transfer from the intermediate plate 18 to the plate 15 is effected by thermal conduction, where thermal conduction may also take place via the gas which is located in the buffer volume 10 and via the outer edge of the gas inlet unit 8 (0055 and Fig. 2). They teach that the action of the gap 20 is in as an adjustable thermal resistance (0057 and Fig. 2). They teach that temperatures T2, T3 are the temperature of the cover plate 17 or of the plate 15, which may be set by changing the geometries or the composition or the pressure of the gases 23 in the gap 20 or gases 3, 4, 5, and 13 in the buffer volumes 9, 10 (0057 and Fig. 2). They teach that the temperatures T2 and T3 can be set by regulation by suitable choice of the gas and its pressure in the gap 20 and by setting the flow parameters or geometry in the gas inlet unit (0059). They teach that if the reaction gases are gases which decompose above a reaction temperature, the parameters are set in such a way that the temperature in the buffer chamber assigned to this gas is lower than the decomposition temperature (0059). They teach that in the case of reaction gases in which condensation of the reaction gases is expected below a condensation temperature, the corresponding temperature in the buffer chamber are kept correspondingly high (0059). They teach that the temperature is controlled by means of media, for example gases, which flow through passages 34, 35, or 36 (0061). Therefore, they teach controlling the temperature of gases in a buffer space by controlling the temperature of heating plates and by controlling the pressure in the buffer space so as to provide heat transfer by thermal conduction.
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (a) adjusted the temperature of the buffer space when the temperature is outside of a pre-set range (i.e. at a temperature below a condensation temperature or above a decomposition temperature) by adjusting the pressure of the buffer space because Dauelsberg teaches maintaining a desired temperature in the buffer space to prevent condensation and decomposition of precursors where the temperature is controlled by the pressure in the buffer space such that it will be expected to provide a desirable temperature control for the process.
Further, Dauelsberg teaches that the reaction gases pass through the buffer region to a processing chamber in which a film is deposited (0010, 0014-0015, 0047, 0051, and Fig. 1). Therefore, they provide step (b) of processing the substrate by supplying a gas via the buffer chamber to a process chamber in which the substrate is processes, i.e., coated.
Regarding claim 7, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1. Since they suggest controlling the temperature of the buffer space to prevent condensation or thermal decomposition of the reaction gases, where the gases are provided to the chamber by passing through the buffer space, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least first performed step (a) before step (b) to ensure that the gas is maintained in the non-decomposed gaseous phase while passing through the buffer space and to the substrate. Specifically, if step (b) is performed before step (a), the gas may be condensed or decompose in the buffer space so as to not be supplied as a vapor to the substrate.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 8, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the gas inlet unit can also be used to admit at least one carrier gas and/or a purge gas in addition to process gases (0013 and 0034). Therefore, they provide step (b-1) of supplying a first gas to the process chamber, i.e., the reactant or process gases and step (b-2) of supplying a second gas to the process chamber, i.e., a carrier or purge gas.
As noted above, they teach maintaining the buffer space at a temperature at which the gas supplied is not condensed and is not decomposed (0059). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously performed step (a) during the process of (b-1) and (b-2) because it will keep the buffer space in the desired temperature range to prevent the source gas from condensing or decomposing during process so as to maintain a desired temperature to provide gases to the substrate for deposition.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 11, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1. As discussed above, Dauelsberg teaches that if the reaction gases are gases which decompose above a reaction temperature, the parameters are set in such a way that the temperature in the buffer chamber assigned to this gas is lower than the decomposition temperature (0059). They teach that in the case of reaction gases in which condensation of the reaction gases is expected below a condensation temperature, the corresponding temperature in the buffer chamber are kept correspondingly high (0059). Therefore, they suggest controlling the temperature to prevent the gas from thermally decomposing and liquefying in the buffer chamber such that it will also be expected to suppress liquefaction and decomposition on the substrate by ensuring that the materials are in gas phase when being supplied to the substrate.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dauelsberg, US 2003/0056720 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach controlling the temperature of the buffer space by adjusting the pressure.
As discussed above, Dauelsberg teaches controlling the temperature of gases in a buffer space by controlling the temperature of heating plates and by controlling the pressure in the buffer space so as to provide heat transfer by thermal conduction.
From the teachings of Dauelsberg, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Yamamoto to have adjusted the temperature of the buffer space when it is out of the pre-set range by adjusting the pressure in the buffer space because Dauelsberg teaches that the temperature of a buffer space can be controlled by adjusting the pressure such that it will be expected to provide temperature control of the space.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1, where they teach that the temperature of the buffer space is controlled so that the gas supplied to the buffer space is not reliquefied (0032).
They do not teach controlling the temperature of the buffer space to prevent thermal decomposition.
As discussed above Dauelsberg teaches that if the reaction gases are gases which decompose above a reaction temperature, the parameters are set in such a way that the temperature in the buffer chamber assigned to this gas is lower than the decomposition temperature (0059). They teach that in the case of reaction gases in which condensation of the reaction gases is expected below a condensation temperature, the corresponding temperature in the buffer chamber are kept correspondingly high (0059).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the temperature of the buffer space to a temperature to suppress liquefication of the gas and a thermal decomposition of the gas because Dauelsberg teaches that such a temperature setting is desirable such that it will be expected to provide the gas to the substrate as a non-decomposed gas such that it is also expected to suppress liquefication and thermal decomposition of the gas on the substrate by ensuring that the material is supplied to the substrate as a non-decomposed gas.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Dauelsberg as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1 and Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 2.
They do not teach controlling the pressure of the buffer space.
Yanagisawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a processing chamber (abstract). They teach that the apparatus includes a buffer chamber 232 above a showerhead 234 (0084, Fig. 5, and Fig. 10). They teach that a valve 237, a pressure regulator 238, such as an APC or the like, is used for controlling the internal pressure of the buffer space 232 at a predetermined pressure (0084). They teach controlling the pressure in the buffer space during purging using a pressure regulator (0153).
From the teachings of Yanagisawa, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also controlled the pressure in the buffer space to a desired pre-set or predetermined pressure because Yanagisawa teaches that it is desirable to control the pressure in such a region.
They do not teach adjusting the pressure of the buffer space by adjusting the temperature.
Manna teaches a method for cleaning one or more interior surfaces of a processing chamber (abstract). They teach using lamps and/or other heating elements to increase the temperature of the processing chamber and/or to assist in generating the desired internal pressure (0024). They teach that a controller may turn off or adjust the speed of a vacuum pump to further facilitate pressure control within the processing chamber (0024). They teach that the internal pressure of the processing chamber may be increased by increasing the temperature of the processing chamber with lamps and/or other heating elements (0033).
From the teachings of Manna, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further controlled the pressure of the buffer space by adjusting the temperature of the buffer space because Manna indicates that the pressure of a chamber can be adjusted by changing the temperature such that it will be expected to also facilitate pressure control in the buffer space. Therefore, both the pressure and the temperature will be adjusted as needed to provide the desired conditions for preventing the gases from liquefying.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1 and Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach controlling the pressure in the buffer space.
As discussed above for claim 3, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure in the buffer space, where Manna provides the suggestion of controlling the pressure of the buffer space by adjusting the temperature such that when the pressure of the buffer space is out of the pre-set pressure range, the temperature is adjusted.
Manna further teaches that the internal pressure of the processing chamber may be increased by increasing the temperature of the processing chamber with lamps and/or other heating elements (0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pressure of the buffer space when it is outside of the pre-set pressure range by adjusting the temperature of the buffer space and specifically to have increased the pressure of the buffer space when it is below the pre-set range by increasing the temperature because Yanagisawa teaches controlling the pressure to a desired predetermined range and Manna teaches that the pressure can be adjusted by changing the temperature and specifically that the pressure can be increased by increasing temperature such that it will be expected to provide a desirable adjustment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dauelsberg, US 2003/0056720 A1 and Rayner, US 2022/0270865 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach adjusting the temperature of the buffer space by adjusting the pressure.
As discussed above for claim 2, Dauelsberg suggests adjusting the temperature of the buffer space by adjusting the pressure.
They do not teach increasing the temperature by increasing the pressure.
Rayner teaches an apparatus for atomic scale processing that includes at least one reactor pressure control device and a controller in communication with the at least one reactor pressure control device (abstract). They teach that the controller is configured to activate and deactivate the pressure control device, where the controller is configured to activate and deactivate the at least one reactor pressure control device to increase and decrease the pressure within the internal volume of the reactor, where the increase in the pressure within the internal volume of the reactor increases the temperature of the substrate from an initial temperature (abstract). They teach that traditional heating methods, such as the application of typical reactor wall and/or substrate heaters, cannot increase and then subsequently decrease the substrate temperature rapidly enough to avoid thermal decomposition (0006). They teach that there is a need for rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure within an internal volume of a reactor, thereby invoking a corresponding rapid increase and decrease in the temperature of a substrate (0007). They teach that increasing the pressure within the internal volume of the reactor increases the temperature of the substrate (0010).
From the teachings of Rayner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the pressure of the buffer space when the temperature is below the pre-set temperature range because Rayner teaches that increasing pressure increases temperature such that it will be expected to provide the desired adjustment in temperature.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, and Chang, US 2015/0176153 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1, where they teach controlling the temperature to prevent the gas from being reliquefied (0032).
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach adjusting the temperature of the buffer space to maintain the pressure in a range in which the gas is not liquefied.
Chang teaches a gas-supply system (abstract). They teach that a low-pressure liquefied gas may be liquefied if the gas pressure exceeds a saturation vapor pressure at gas room temperature (0026). They teach that the low-pressure liquefied gas may be liquefied in a range from about 30 PSIG to about 100 PSIG such that the pressure in the tube is in a range of about -5 PSIB to about 15 PSIG at the gas room temperature to prevent the low-pressure liquefied gas from being liquefied (0026). Therefore, Chang teaches that when the pressure is higher than the vapor pressure of a gas at a specific temperature, the gas liquefies, such that the pressure needs to be below the vapor pressure at the given temperature.
From the teachings of Yamamoto, Manna, and Chang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature to achieve both a pressure and temperature at which the gas does not liquefy because Yamamoto teaches maintaining a temperature at which the gas does not liquefy, Manna teaches adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature, and Chang teaches that a gas will liquefy if above the vapor pressure at a given temperature such that it will be expected to provide both a temperature and pressure to maintain a gaseous state.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, and Suzuki, US 2007/0215048 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1, where they teach controlling the temperature to prevent the gas from being reliquefied (0032).
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach that the pressure difference between an inside and an outside of the buffer chamber is detected and the temperature of the buffer space is adjusted when the pressure difference is out of a pre-set range.
Suzuki teaches a method for reducing particle contamination of a substrate in a deposition system (abstract). They teach that the deposition system comprises one or more particle diffusers disposed therein and configured to prevent or partially prevent the passage of film precursor particles, or break-up or partially break-up film precursor particles (abstract). They teach that a metal precursor evaporation system 50 is configured to store a metal-carbonyl precursor and heat the precursor to a temperature sufficient for evaporating the precursor and introducing the precursor vapor to the vapor precursor delivery system (0032 and Fig. 1). They teach that the precursor can be solid or liquid under the selected heating conditions (0032). They teach that downstream from the film precursor evaporation system 50, the metal precursor vapor flows with a carrier gas through the vapor delivery system 40 until it enters a vapor distribution system 30 coupled to the process chamber 10 (0035 and Fig. 1). They teach that the vapor delivery system 40 can be coupled to a vapor line temperature control system 42 in order to control the vapor line temperature and prevent decomposition of the precursor vapor as well as condensation of the vapor (0035). They teach that the vapor distribution system 30 comprises a plenum 32 within which the vapor disperses prior to passing through a vapor distribution plate 34 and entering a processing zone 33 above substrate 25 (0036 and Fig. 1). They teach that the vapor distribution plate 34 can be coupled to a distribution plate temperature control system 35 configured to control the temperature of the vapor distribution plate 34 (0036). They teach that the temperature of the vapor distribution plate can be set to a value approximately equal to the vapor line temperature (0036). They teach that once the precursor enters the processing zone 33, the precursor vapor thermally decomposes upon adsorption at the substrate surface due to the elevated temperature of the substrate 215, and the thin film is formed on the substrate (0039). They teach that particles may evolve due to sudden changes in temperature that cause particle formation through condensation and re-crystallization (0053). They teach that the vapor distribution system 230 is configured to receive a process gas 220, containing the film precursor vapor, in a plenum 232 from vapor delivery system 240 through opening 235, and distribute the process gas 220 within a process space 233 proximate a substrate upon which a thin film is to be formed (0053 and Fig. 3). Therefore, the apparatus includes a plenum/buffer space 232. They teach that the plenum pressure P1 is established within plenum 232 and a process pressure P2 is established within process space 233 (0054 and Fig. 3). They teach that the difference in pressure ΔP (ΔP=P1-P2) is related to the flow rate Q and the net flow conductance C through the plurality of openings 234 in the vapor distribution plate 231 (0054 and Fig. 3). They teach that when the background pressure is sufficiently high, the expansion of the process gas from the plenum 232 to the process space 233 exhibits some continuum fluid behavior through the continuum regime, whereby the gas expands due to the difference in pressure, causing the gas temperature to decrease due to the transfer of thermal energy to kinetic energy (0055). They teach that the cooling of the gas is one proponent for the condensation of the film precursor vapor and formation of particles within the process space 233 above the substrate (0056). They teach that the extent to which the gas temperature decreases is related to the pressure difference (ΔP=P1-P2), or pressure ratio P1/P2 (0056). They teach that the particle formation and contamination is reduced by designing the vapor distribution plate 231, or changing the process conditions (e.g., Q, P1, P2, etc. ), or both, in order to decrease the pressure difference or pressure ratio (0056). Therefore, they teach that it is desirable to reduce the pressure difference between a buffer space and the processing chamber to prevent condensation of the precursor vapor and particle formation, where the pressure difference is controlled by changing P1 and/or P2.
From the teachings of Suzuki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected the pressure difference between an inside and an outside of the buffer chamber and to have controlled the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the buffer chamber to be within a pre-set range by controlling the temperature of the buffer chamber to as to prevent condensation of the vapor because Suzuki teaches that it is desirable to reduce the pressure difference between a buffer space and the processing chamber to prevent condensation of the precursor vapor and particle formation, where the pressure difference is controlled by changing P1 and/or P2 and Manna teaches controlling the pressure of a reaction space by adjusting the temperature such that it will be expected to optimize the pressure to reduce the probability of condensation and particle formation.
Claims 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, Sandhu, US 2003/0072875 A1, and Iizuka, US 2007/0266944 A1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Yamamoto suggests the process of claim 1. They teach that that gases are supplied using a common gas supply pipe that is connected to the first dispersion mechanism (0039 and Fig. 1). They teach that a gas is supplied from a gas supply part to the buffer space through the front-end portion 241 connected to the first dispersion mechanism 241 (0029 and Fig. 1). They teach that the gas supply pipe is connected to the gas supply system (0039-0042 and Fig. 1). Therefore, they provide a gas supplier that is provided with a gas supply pipe in communication with the buffer space such that the gas supplier is in communication with the buffer chamber and the gas is supplied into the buffer chamber through the gas supplier.
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach that the temperature of the buffer space is adjusted when a difference between the pressure of the buffer space and inner pressure of a gas supplier is out of a pre-set range.
Sandhu teaches including a pressure sensor in a gas delivery line (0046 and Fig. 5). They teach supplying a solid precursor that is vaporized for deposition (abstract). They teach that increases in pressure can result in condensation of the vaporized solid precursor and cause clogs in the process (0034). They teach using a controller to adjust heating to account for detected or unexpected changes in pressure (0035). They teach that based upon given temperature conditions, a guard band, or range of acceptable pressures is determined (0043).
Iizuka teaches a film forming apparatus including a raw material supplying section for supplying a raw material of a liquid or a gas-liquid mixture, a raw material vaporizing section for vaporizing the raw material to form a raw material gas, and a film forming section for conducting a film forming treatment using the formed raw material gas (abstract). They teach that the inside of the film forming vessel of the film forming unit is depressurized to a preset pressure level by the gas exhaust unit 140, wherein the pressure level is controlled by a pressure control vale 140B (0111 and Fig. 1). They teach that in the depressurized state, the source gas and the reactant gas introduced from the gas inlet unit 132 react with each other, whereby a thin film is formed on the substrate (0111). They teach that pressure fluctuation of the source gas increases the possibility that the source gas is solidified in the line (0157). They teach that it is preferable that a pressure variation of the source gas in the flow path ranging from an inlet path to an outlet path is within a range of ±10% (0220). They teach that in order to prevent condensation or solidification of a depressurized liquid source material of a source gas obtained by vaporizing a solid or liquid source material, they need to be supplied through a supply path in which no pressure difference is caused (0222).
From the teachings of Sandhu and Iizuka, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured the pressure difference between the gas inlet (inner pressure of the gas supply pipe being the inner pressure of the gas supplier) and the buffer chamber and to have maintained the difference between a pre-set level because Iizuka teaches that is it desirable to have no pressure difference in a gas supply path of a vaporized liquid source material to prevent condensation, Sandhu teaches providing a pressure sensor in a gas supply path, and Yamamoto teaches that it is desirable to maintain the buffer chamber at a temperature at which the precursor does not reliquefy such that it will be expected to provide minimum pressure difference in the gas supply path to further prevent liquefaction of the gas. Further, since Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature of the buffer space to have provided the desired pressure as indicated by Manna.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1 and Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 6, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claims 1 and 2.
They do not teach controlling the pressure of the buffer space.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Yanagisawa, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also controlled the pressure in the buffer space to a desired pre-set or predetermined pressure because Yanagisawa teaches that it is desirable to control the pressure in such a region.
They do not teach adjusting the pressure of the buffer space by adjusting the temperature.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Manna, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further controlled the pressure of the buffer space by adjusting the temperature of the buffer space because Manna indicates that the pressure of a chamber can be adjusted by changing the temperature such that it will be expected to also facilitate pressure control in the buffer space. Therefore, in the process of Dauelsberg in view of Yanagisawa and Manna, the pressure and temperature will be controlled to provide a desirable balance of pressure and temperature in the buffer space so as to prevent liquefaction and decomposition of the gases.
Further, Manna teaches that the internal pressure of the processing chamber may be increased by increasing the temperature of the processing chamber with lamps and/or other heating elements (0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pressure of the buffer space when it is outside of the pre-set pressure range by adjusting the temperature of the buffer space and specifically to have increased the pressure of the buffer space when it is below the pre-set range by increasing the temperature because Yanagisawa teaches controlling the pressure to a desired predetermined range and Manna teaches that the pressure can be adjusted by changing the temperature and specifically that the pressure can be increased by increasing temperature such that it will be expected to provide a desirable adjustment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rayner, US 2022/0270865 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach increasing the temperature by increasing the pressure.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Rayner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the pressure of the buffer space when the temperature is below the pre-set temperature range because Rayner teaches that increasing pressure increases temperature such that it will be expected to provide the desired adjustment in temperature.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, and Chang, US 2015/0176153 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1, where they teach controlling the temperature to prevent the gas from being condensed (0059).
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach adjusting the temperature of the buffer space to maintain the pressure in a range in which the gas is not liquefied.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Dauelsberg, Manna, and Chang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature to achieve both a pressure and temperature at which the gas does not liquefy or condense because Dauelsberg teaches maintaining a temperature at which the gas does not liquefy or condense and does not decompose, Manna teaches adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature, and Chang teaches that a gas will liquefy if above the vapor pressure at a given temperature such that it will be expected to provide both a temperature and pressure to maintain a gaseous state.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, and Suzuki, US 2007/0215048 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1, where they teach controlling the temperature to prevent the gas from being condensed (0059).
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach that the pressure difference between an inside and an outside of the buffer chamber is detected and the temperature of the buffer space is adjusted when the pressure difference is out of a pre-set range.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Suzuki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected the pressure difference between an inside and an outside of the buffer chamber and to have controlled the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the buffer chamber to be within a pre-set range by controlling the temperature of the buffer chamber to as to prevent condensation of the vapor because Suzuki teaches that it is desirable to reduce the pressure difference between a buffer space and the processing chamber to prevent condensation of the precursor vapor and particle formation, where the pressure difference is controlled by changing P1 and/or P2 and Manna teaches controlling the pressure of a reaction space by adjusting the temperature such that it will be expected to optimize the pressure to reduce the probability of condensation and particle formation.
Claims 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauelsberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa, US 2017/0186634 A1, Manna, US 2020/0115795 A1, Sandhu, US 2003/0072875 A1, and Iizuka, US 2007/0266944 A1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Dauelsberg suggests the process of claim 1. They teach that feedlines 21, 22, through which reaction gases 4, 5, 6, are passed from a gas supply member into the gas inlet unit 8, project through the gap 20 (0048 and Fig. 1). They teach that gases 3, 4 may be liquid starting materials 4’, 3’ which have been brought into vapor form (0048, 0051, Fig. 1, and Fig. 2). Therefore, they provide a gas supplier that is provided with a gas supply pipe 21 in communication with the buffer space (0051 and Fig. 1-2) such that the gas supplier is in communication with the buffer chamber and the gas is supplied into the buffer chamber through the gas supplier.
As noted above, Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature.
They do not teach that the temperature of the buffer space is adjusted when a difference between the pressure of the buffer space and inner pressure of a gas supplier is out of a pre-set range.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Sandhu and Iizuka, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured the pressure difference between the gas inlet (inner pressure of the gas supply pipe being the inner pressure of the gas supplier) and the buffer chamber and to have maintained the difference between a pre-set level because Iizuka teaches that is it desirable to have no pressure difference in a gas supply path of a vaporized liquid source material to prevent condensation, Sandhu teaches providing a pressure sensor in a gas supply path, and Dauelsberg teaches that it is desirable to maintain the buffer chamber at a temperature at which the precursor does not condense such that it will be expected to provide minimum pressure difference in the gas supply path. Further, since Yanagisawa suggests controlling the pressure of the buffer space and Manna suggests adjusting the pressure by adjusting the temperature, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature of the buffer space to have provided the desired pressure as indicated by Manna.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1718