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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application, which is a CON of Serial Number 18/355136, now US Patent 12,281,386; which is a CON of Serial Number 16/224256, now US Patent 11,746416.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed to an apparatus. The examiner suggests amending the abstract to reflect same.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to an apparatus. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities listed below.
Appropriate correction is required.
In paragraph 0001, the lineage should be updated to reflect maturation into a US Patent.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
It should be noted that claims 2-11, 18-19 require the controller to be “configured to be capable of controlling”. The prior art only has to provide a structure that is capable of performing in the manner claimed and not necessarily have ever been intended to be used in this manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horii et al. (2011/0008955).
Horii teaches a substrate processing apparatus (title) including a processing chamber configured to accommodate a substrate; a heater configured to heat the substrate in the processing chamber; a first precursor supply system configured to supply a first precursor; a second precursor supply system configured to supply a second precursor; an exhaust system configured to exhaust an inside of the processing chamber; and a controller, wherein the controller controls the first precursor supply system and the second precursor supply system (0012). Specifically, the controller is configured to control each part of the apparatus including supplying a first precursor and a second precursor in an alternating fashion in an ALD process (0088-0089). It is specifically noted that there is no mention of a precursor being held and cut and thus meets the limitation of holding a precursor without being cut.
With respect to the precursor containing Si-N bonds and the Si-C bonds, this is merely intended use of the claimed apparatus. It is the examiner’s position that the apparatus of Horii has the same structural features as that of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Horii teaches an oxidant supply system (0012).
Regarding claims 11-19, the apparatus claims presents no additional structural limitations to the claimed processing apparatus. Since the only structural limitations to the claimed apparatus is recited in independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that the reference also anticipates the dependent claims. To that end, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. For example, claim 11 requires a supplying order but not a distinguishable apparatus feature. It is the examiner’s contention that he substrate processing apparatus of Horii can do the claimed order of supplying.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (2011/0008955) in view of Takeda (2015/0303051)
Horii teaches a substrate processing apparatus (title) including a processing chamber configured to accommodate a substrate; a heater configured to heat the substrate in the processing chamber; a first precursor supply system configured to supply a first precursor; a second precursor supply system configured to supply a second precursor; an exhaust system configured to exhaust an inside of the processing chamber; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the first precursor supply system, the second precursor supply system (0012). Specifically, the controller is configured to control each part of the apparatus including supplying a first precursor and a second precursor in an alternating fashion in an ALD process (0088-0089). It is specifically noted that there is no mention of a precursor being held and cut and thus meets the limitation of holding a precursor without being cut. However, the reference fails to teach precursors with SiN and SiC bonds.
Takeda teaches a substrate processing apparatus having a hydro-based precursor supply system and a halogen-based precursor supply system and a controller (0191). The reference also teaches a silane precursor having a SiC bond and a Si and nitrogen precursor (0047, 0132). To utilize a SiN and SiC bonds in the precursor in Horii would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Takeda teaches precursors having SiN and SiC bonds.
Regarding claim 2, Horii teaches an oxidant supply system (0012).
Regarding claim 3, Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a catalyst (0107).
Regarding claim 4, the applicant requires removing a catalyst. Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a catalyst (0107). At some point, the catalyst will be removed.
Regarding claim 5, Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a catalyst (0107). Both references are absent a teaching of floating.
Regarding claim 6, Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a precursor with a SiC bond (0047) and a catalyst (0107).
Regarding claim 7, Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a precursor with a SiN bond (0132) and a catalyst (0107).
Regarding claim 8, Horii teaches a controller (0012) and Takeda teaches a catalyst (0107) and is silent on decomposition.
Regarding claim 9, Horii teaches sequentially forming (0011).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda teaches a catalyst (0107).
Dependent claims 4-10
Regarding claims 4-10, the apparatus claims presents no additional structural limitations to the claimed processing apparatus. Since the only structural limitations to the claimed apparatus is recited in independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that the reference also anticipates the dependent claims. To that end, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. For example, claim 4 requires a supplying order but not a distinguishable apparatus feature. It is the examiner’s contention that he substrate processing apparatus of Horii can do the claimed order of supplying.
Regarding claim 11, Horii teaches sequentially forming (0011).
Regarding claim 12, Horii teaches precursors without alkyl and without halogen (0031).
Regarding claim 13, Horii teaches a SiH bond (0047).
Regarding claim 14, while Horii teaches a carbon chain (0047), the references are silent on the C and C bonded to the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 15, while Horii teaches a carbon chain (0047), the references are silent on the C and C bonded to the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant requires a specific structure. Takeda teaches a precursor with a SiN bond (0132). To utilize a specific SiN structure would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 17, the applicant requires a specific material. To utilize a specific material would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 18, Takeda teaches a non-plasma condition (0120).
Regarding claim 19, Horii teaches heat treatment (0128).
Dependent claims 11-19
Regarding claims 11-19, the apparatus claims presents no additional structural limitations to the claimed processing apparatus. Since the only structural limitations to the claimed apparatus is recited in independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that the reference teaches the dependent claims. To that end, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. For example, claim 11 requires a supplying order but not a distinguishable apparatus feature. It is the examiner’s contention that he substrate processing apparatus of Horii can do the claimed order of supplying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights