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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 20 February 2023 (JP2023-024296). It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 August 2025, 22 September 2025, 17 November 2025, 20 February 2026, and 26 May 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claim 16 is 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.
With regard to Claim 16, there is not antecedent basis for the term “the motion member.” Accordingly, the claim is unclear. For purposes of examination, Claim 16 is presumed to depend from Claim 15, which recites a motion member.
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.
(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.
2. Claims 1, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2007-266185 to Imai et al., an English translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein, (“Imai”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 11-12, Imai teaches a method for producing a thin film via cyclic atomic layer deposition comprising vaporizing a raw material liquid comprising a raw material compound in a vaporizer, introducing vaporized raw material into a film deposition chamber, and introducing a reactive gas into the film deposition chamber to form a thin film on a substrate while discharging a gas phase of the raw material from the vaporizer (see FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0001], [0030], [0033]-[0037], [0042]). Imai teaches vaporizing a raw material at temperatures within the claimed range (see ¶¶ [0045]-[0046]), and continuous discharge of raw material gas from the vaporizer to maintain a ready supply of raw material vapor for additional process steps (see ¶ [0037]).
Further regarding Claim 12, Imai teaches introducing raw material compound into the deposition chamber, exhausting excess raw material therefrom, introducing a reactive gas into the deposition chamber for film formation on the substrate, and exhausting excess reactive gas and purging the chamber (see ¶¶ [0036]-[0039]).
With regard to Claim 14, Imai teaches a film deposition apparatus comprising a vaporizer 18, a discharging member 19 for discharging gas from the vaporizer, an ALD film deposition chamber 2, a pipe and valve 21 connecting the vaporizer to the deposition chamber, and exhaust pipes 44, 52, 53 and valves 54, 55 (see FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0025], [0037], [0053]).
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.
3. Claims 2-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai as applied to Claims 1 and 14, and further in view of JP H09 217175 to H. Jinba, an English translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein, (“Jinba”).
With regard to Claims 2-4 and 15-16, Imai emphasizes the importance of a steady supply of vaporized raw material, and teaches agitation of raw material gas (see ¶¶ [0034], [0037]); however the reference does not teach stirring in the vaporizer. Jinba is directed to devices and methods for supplying vaporized raw material to a film deposition chamber, and teaches equipping a vaporizer with a rotating stirrer to increase contact area between liquid raw material and gas within the vaporizer, which promotes vaporization of liquid raw material and stable provision of vaporized raw material (see ¶¶ [0001], [0015]-[0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a vaporizer stirring device in the process and apparatus of Imai, as taught by Jinba, in order to obtain the advantages identified by Jinba. To the extent the stirring device of Jinba does not implicitly entail raw material liquid – vaporizer gas contact area within the claimed range, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjust stirring parameters to increase contact area among the liquid raw material and gases residing in the vaporizer, including values within the claimed range, throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization to promote liquid raw material vaporization.
4. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai as applied to Claims 1 and 14, and further in view of US 2007/0042119 to Matthysse et al. (“Matthysse”).
With regard to Claims 5 and 17, Imai remarks upon the importance of raw material vapor pressure as it relates to supplying the deposition chamber, and teaches pressure control within the deposition chamber (see ¶¶ [0005]-[0007], [0025]). Imai also instructs maintaining a flow of raw material vapor from the vaporizer to ensure a ready supply thereof (see ¶ [0037]); however the reference does not expressly teach equalization of raw material partial pressure in the vaporizer and connections therefrom. To the extent that it is not implicitly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have maintained partial pressure of reactive gases from source to destination in order to facilitate delivery of process feeds to the deposition chamber or otherwise maintain supply-sufficient pressure, Matthysse is directed to a vaporizer for an ALD system, and teaches raw material partial pressure is result-effective regarding successful deposition (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0003]-[0004]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have maintained raw material partial pressure throughout the method and device of Imai in order to ensure successful deposition and otherwise maintain a ready state of raw material vapor supply.
5. Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0324516 to Schweinfurth et al. (“Schweinfurth”).
With regard to Claims 6-7, Imai teaches deposition of thin films using organometallic complexes (see ¶ [0006]); however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed types of raw materials. Schweinfurth is directed to processes for deposition of metal-containing thin films, and teaches ALD deposition of carbonyl and amidinate complexes comprising cobalt and tungsten from a gaseous state (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0016]-[0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed types of raw material compounds in the method of Imai, as taught by Schweinfurth, in order to deposit films comprising cobalt or tungsten.
With regard to Claim 10, Imai does not particularly limit the type of substrate material (see ¶ [0016]); however the reference does not expressly teach copper. Schweinfurth teaches copper substrates (see ¶ [0018]).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2008/0099147 to Myo et al. (“Myo”).
With regard to Claim 8, Imai teaches deposition of thin films using organometallic complexes (see ¶ [0006]); however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed types of raw materials. Myo is directed to a vapor deposition apparatus and methods, and teaches ALD deposition of the claimed types of raw materials (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0034]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed types of raw material compounds in the method of Imai, as taught by Myo, with a reasonable expectation of success.
7. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai as applied to Claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Jinba, Schweinfurth, and US 2019/0203358 to Babayan et al. (“Babayan”).
With regard to Claims 9 and 13, the teachings of Imai, Jinba, and Schweinfurth as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 10 are reiterated. Further, Imai teaches deposition of thin films using organometallic complexes (see ¶ [0006]); however the reference does not expressly teach the presence of decomposition products or the claimed raw material. Babayan is directed to methods and devices for controlling raw material flow in vapor deposition systems, and teaches exemplary atomic layer deposition of the claimed raw material and that some decomposition of raw materials occurs during transport thereof (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0040]-[0041]). Babayan is also noted as teaching control of raw material partial pressure via temperature (see ¶ [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed raw material in the method of Imai in view of Jinba and Schweinfurth to deposit a cobalt-containing metal film layer on a copper substrate with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
