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 .
Status
The amendment filed 10/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 21, and 38-46 are pending. In the amendment filed 10/13/2025, claims 1, 7, 10, and 21 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character 901 in Fig 6 is not mentioned in the description. Note that the discussion of Fig 6 in paragraph [0048] refers to “801” (see “In operation 801, ones the pressure transmitter 125 detects…”) which appears to be a typographical error in which it should have been referring to “901”. Applicant is kindly requested to correct this, and it is respectfully suggested to make the correction by amending the specification paragraph [0048] to refer to “901” instead of “801” in the sentence “In operation 801, ones the pressure transmitter 125 detects…”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, line 37-38 (note this is the second and third to last lines of the claim) recites “and wherein, upon determining that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number, the controller is configured to report a signal”. The instant specification refers to providing a signal when it is determined the number of cycles has met a predetermined number (see [0045-0046] and Fig 5 step 801 of “reporting a notification signal”). There is no indication that controller is able to exceed the predetermined number of cycles and there is no indication that completion of the predetermined number of cycles is an error state or would otherwise require an indication that the apparatus is in an error state. Therefore, for purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the use of “signal” in the context of the limitation “and wherein, upon determining that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number, the controller is configured to report a signal” is interpreted inclusive of an indication that the process step is complete. Regarding “determining that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number” the limitation is interpreted as inclusive of determining that the number of cycles would exceed a predetermined number if another cycle was completed (i.e. a determination of whether the number of cycles performed is equal to or less than a predetermined number) because this is consistent with the instant specification [0045-0046] and Fig 5.
Regarding claim 10, line 2-3 recites “wherein, if the controller determine that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number, the controller is configured to report a signal”. The instant specification refers to providing a signal when it is determined the number of cycles has met a predetermined number (see [0045-0046] and Fig 5 step 801 of “reporting a notification signal”). There is no indication that controller is able to exceed the predetermined number of cycles and there is no indication that completion of the predetermined number of cycles is an error state or would otherwise require an indication that the apparatus is in an error state. Therefore, for purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the use of “signal” in the context of the limitation “wherein, if the controller determine that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number, the controller is configured to report a signal” is interpreted inclusive of an indication that the process step is complete. Regarding “if the controller determine that the number of cycles exceeds a predetermined number” the limitation is interpreted as inclusive of determining that the number of cycles would exceed a predetermined number if another cycle was completed (i.e. a determination of whether the number of cycles performed is equal to or less than a predetermined number) because this is consistent with the instant specification [0045-0046] and Fig 5.
In claim 45, the pressure value in psi is interpreted as referring to a PSIG (psi gauge) value rather than an absolute psi (PSIA) because the instant specification usage of psi includes a value “less than or equal to 0 psi” (see, [0024], [0028], [0032]) and because PSIA cannot have a value less than 0.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 21, 39-41, and 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markulec (prev. presented US 5,836,355) in view of Young (prev. presented US 2003/0136446), McAndrew (prev. presented US 2002/0152797), and Klotz (prev. presented US 6,152,192).
Regarding claim 1, Markulec teaches a valve box module (200 Fig 2) for a semiconductor device manufacturing system (col 12, ln 1-10), comprising: a stick (see annotated version of Fig 6b below, also note it is the gas line from valve 622B to line 680) configured to be connected to a corresponding semiconductor manufacturing tool (see Fig 6b connection to “chamber” and col 12, ln 1-12 refers to the invention of Markulec being incorporated into a semiconductor manufacturing equipment); a first gas line connected to the stick (gas line containing valve 602, transducer 604, and valve 624 Fig 6b including portion of line 690, see also annotated Fig 6b below) and configured to supply a purge gas into the stick (Fig 6B note the line is labeled as a purge gas line, and col 9, ln 20-25); a second gas line (upper portion of line B see annotated fig 6b below) connected to the stick and configured to supply a process gas into the stick (col 9, ln 45-58), wherein the second gas line is isolated from the first gas line (Fig 6b, see annotated version below and col 9, ln 45-58); wherein the first gas line comprises a valve (602 Fig 6b) and a first pressure transmitter (604 Fig 6b) downstream of the valve (602 Fig 6b); wherein the first pressure transmitter (604 Fig 6b) is arranged between the valve (602 Fig 6b) and a junction point where the first gas line connects to the stick (point where line having valve 624 meets the stick Fig 6b, see annotated version of Fig 6b below). Markulec teaches that while purging the plurality of gas sticks, the plurality of sticks are subjected to a continuously pumped-down operation (col 12, ln 40-60 note teaching of the purge gas flowing through the sick and into the vacuum source). Markulec fails to explicitly disclose the valve (602 Fig 6b) is a pneumatic valve. However Fig 6b demonstrates the valve 602 is drawn with the same symbol as the pneumatic valves (see 614, 616, 622, 624, 634, 636, 640, 642, 652, 654, 664, 666, inter alia Fig 6b). Therefore Markulec appears to teach the valve 602 is a pneumatic valve due to the matching valve symbol in the diagram of Fig 6b. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a pneumatic valve as the valve 602 because Markulec already teaches pneumatic valves in the gas box for controlling the flow of gas within the system (see 614, 616, 622, 624, 634, 636, 640, 642, 652, 654, 664, 666, inter alia Fig 6b) and teaches a pneumatic valve may function as an isolation valve (612, 614 and 616 Fig 6b) (col 9, ln 35-45). Markulec fails to teach the controller connected to the pneumatic valve and the pressure transmitter of the first gas line and fails to teach the controller configured to control the pneumatic valve and the first pressure transmitter, wherein the controller is configured to perform the recited operations. Markulec further fails to teach the plurality of sticks configured to be individually connected to corresponding semiconductor manufacturing tools in a one-to-one manner and provided such that the first gas line and the second gas line are each connected to the plurality of sticks. Regarding the controller, Young teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing system (Fig 1,2, note 18 is the tool and [0002-0004]), comprising: a valve box module (GIB 10 Fig 1 and 3-4), comprising: at least one stick [0034] (and 52 Fig 5 and [0038] and Fig 6, such as line from V4A to 80); and a first gas line in fluid communication with the at least one stick (78 Fig 5,6), wherein the first gas line comprises a pneumatic valve (V3 Fig 5, 6 [0038]) and a pressure transmitter (PT1 Fig 5,6 [0058], note a pressure transducer is a pressure transmitter see [0044] and [0051]); a controller (12 Fig 2 [0033]) connecting the pneumatic valve and the pressure transmitter of the first gas line ([0045-0046] and [0051-0052]); a purge gas source in fluid communication with the first gas line (N2 Purge IN Fig 6); and at least one semiconductor manufacturing tool coupled to the at least one stick (18 Fig 1-2 and [0002-0004]) and a controller is configured to receive a pressure value from the pressure transmitter [0045], [0051-0054] (note that this is inclusive of driving the first pressure transmitter to detect whether a gas pressure in the stick reaches a first predetermined pressure value) and drive the pneumatic valve based on the pressure value from the pressure transmitter [0051-0054] to make purge gas flow into the stick through the first gas line when the transmitter detects that the gas pressure reaches the set point (predetermined pressure value). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include a controller connecting the pneumatic valve and the pressure transmitter of the first gas line and the controller configured to control the pneumatic valve based on the gas pressure detected by the pressure transmitter because Young teaches a controller which provides automated and feedback control [0033], [0051-0054] and teaches that controlling valves base on the pressure allows for verifying if purge gas is flowing as intended [0051-0054]. Regarding the specific control steps, Young teaches as part of the pressure control, performing the operations of (i) driving the pneumatic valve to make the purge gas flow into the stick through the first gas line [0052]; (ii) driving the pressure transmitter (PT1) to detect whether a gas pressure in the stick reaches a first predetermined pressure value while driving the pneumatic valve to allow a purge gas to flow into the plurality of sticks ([0052] teaching of verifying presence of purge gas by monitoring the pressure reading on PT1, note that verifying means proving or confirming a state is true, which in combination with a teaching of verifying via a pressure measurement means confirming the pressure has reached a predetermined pressure value); (iii) driving the pneumatic valve to block the purge gas from flowing into the stick through the first gas line if the first pressure transmitter detects that the gas pressure reaches the first predetermined pressure value while performing a pumped-down operation ([0053], note the teaching that only V2 is open, which indicates the pneumatic valve V3 is closed and [0054] confirms V3 is closed); (iv) driving the first pressure transmitter (PT1) to detect whether a gas pressure in the stick reaches a second predetermined pressure value, which is smaller than the first predetermined pressure value after driving the pneumatic valve to block purge gas from flowing into the stick through the first gas line while performing a pumped-down operation ([0053]-[0054] note the teaching of the presence of vacuum can be monitored on PT1 and that the presence of vacuum is a lower pressure than verifying the presence of purge gas); and (v) if the first pressure transmitter detects that the gas pressure in the plurality of sticks reaches the second predetermined pressure value, performing operation (i) (taught as repetition of the pump/purge cycle [0054]); wherein a gas pressure in the plurality of sticks that that are subjected to the pumped-down operation is equal to the second predetermined pressure value before driving the pneumatic valve to make the purge gas flow into the plurality of sticks [0052-0054]; the controller perform a predetermined number of cycles for the operations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) [0054], and wherein the predetermined number of cycles is 5-20 cycles (taught as 8 in [0054]). As indicated above, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include this pump/purge mode and number of cycles as taught by Young because Young teaches that pump and purge cycles can prevent mixing gases which prevents incompatible process gasses from mixing [0057] and because pump and purge cycles help prevent residues from building up in the supply pipes. Note that Young is silent as to whether the purge gas that enters to the tool (see [0052]) is then pumped down and continuously pumped down, however Markulec has taught continuously pumping down during purging (col 12, ln 40-60 note teaching of the purge gas flowing through the sick and into the vacuum source) and therefore the combination as applied herein renders obvious the inclusion of continuously pumping down during each step of the pump and purge process. The combination of Markulec on view of Young fails to teach the fails to teach the plurality of sticks such that the first gas line and the second gas line are each connected to the plurality of sticks and fails to teach the controller configured to report the alarms or signal as indicated.
Regarding the plurality of sticks such that the first gas line and the second gas line are each connected to the plurality of sticks and each stick is configured to be individually connected to a corresponding semiconductor tool in a one-to-one manner, initially it is noted that this represents a mere duplication of parts of the gas stick of Markulec. Further, McAndrew teaches that for supplying gas to a plurality of processing chambers (together may be considered the processing tool for a multichamber or batch processing tool), the inclusion of a plurality of sticks (line 1-4 of Fig 3), each stick is configured to be individually connected to a corresponding semiconductor tool in a one-to-one manner (see 306, 308, 310, 312 Fig 3 and [0020]) with a singular first gas line for supplying purge gas (line 318 Fig 3) and a separate second line for supplying process gas (line 114 Fig 3), the first and the second lines are each connected to each of the gas sticks (lines 1-4, Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include the plurality of sticks with shared feed lines and connected to individual tools as demonstrated by McAndrew because McAndrew teaches this is a typical manifold box arrangement for supplying gas to a plurality of chambers or tools from a shared source [0020] and such arrangement allows for an increased production scale (lowering the cost per unit).
Regarding the controller configured to report the alarms as indicated, in the same field of endeavor of an apparatus with a plurality of gas sticks and control thereof (abstract), Young as applied in the combination teaches the controller configured to receive a pressure from the pressure transmitter [0045], [0051-0054], but fails to teach reporting an alarm signal based on the pressure value. Klotz teaches the controller is connected to the components of the system including the pressure transducers (col 6, ln 1-25) and is configured to sound an alarm (col 6, ln 1-25) including an alarm when the pressure obtains certain values (col 7, ln 54-61) or the pressure transducer (53A-B Fig 1) does not report normal operation, including pressure values and during the purging (col 15, ln 8 to col 16, ln 45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec in view of Young to include the alarm and controller configured to alarm when certain values are obtained because the allows the operator to be informed a condition is not performing properly and to identify and correct the issue (col 17, ln 55 to col 18 ln 10). This reduces processing costs by resulting in faster identification and correction of issues. Note that not reporting normal operation is inclusive of when the stick is unable to reach a setpoint pressure value at any period such as if the stick is unable to reach the first predetermined pressure value (i.e. the first alarm) and if the stick is unable to reach the second pressure value (i.e. the second alarm).
Regarding the controller configured to report a signal, the claim interpretation explained above applied. Young as applied in the combination teaches performing the predetermined number of times but fails to explicitly teach reporting a signal when the controller monitors that the operations have reached the predetermined number of times. Klotz teaches reporting on the process and status of the system during operation, including a screen display of the status (i.e. notification, which is a type of signal as the claim interpretation provided above explains) (col 7, ln 15-25) and the process includes identifying if and when the predetermined number of cycles has been reached (col 16, ln 3-65) as a step of the process (see claim interpretation above). Therefore Klotz renders obvious providing a notification report (i.e. signal) of when the number of cycles has reached the setpoint (predetermined) value (i.e. would exceed the value if continued). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec in view of Young to include the notification report (i.e. signal) because Klotz teaches the display provides a user with information on the status of the operation, this allows users to know which process is currently occurring and allows the operators to interact with the progress as needed (col 7, ln 10-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Markulec fails to teach the first gas line comprises a valve upstream of the pneumatic valve (valve 602 Fig 6b). McAndrew demonstrates the purge line (first gas line) comprises a valve upstream of another valve (see line 318 with two valves). Additionally, McAndrew teaches the line connected to a gas source includes a valve (208 Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include an additional valve upstream of the pneumatic valve because McAndrew teaches additional valves upstream of other valves on the purge gas (first gas line) supply line as part of the gas supply control structure (note the valve 208 allows for control of the gas exiting the cylinder).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Markulec fails to teach the first gas line comprises a valve upstream of the pneumatic valve. Addressing the same problem of applying gas to a chamber (cylinder) via a gas manifold (abstract), Klotz teaches the gas supply line includes a check valve (65a-69a Fig 1) between a valve (60a-64a Fig 1) and a pressure transmitter (53A Fig 1 pressure transducer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include a check valve between the pneumatic valve and the pressure transmitter of Markulec because Klotz teaches it is known to use a check valve in this position and teaches using a check valve to prevent backward flow of gas in a direction no intended for the gas to flow (col 5, ln 35-37).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied, the portion of the stick receiving the purge gas is positioned downstream of a portion receiving the process gas (see Markulec Fig 6b and see McAndrew Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied, Markulec teaches a valve (634 Fig 6b) positioned downstream of the portion of the stick receiving the purge gas. Additionally, McAndrew teaches a regulator valve (314 Fig 3) downstream of the portion of the stick receiving the purge gas (Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to include the regulator valve of McAndrew because McAndrew demonstrates this as a functional alternative structure for the gas stick flow control and because a regulator provides pressure control in the gas stick allowing for individual chamber or stick adjustments as desired.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. In the combination as applied, Markulec teaches a second pressure transmitter (628 Fig 6b) on the gas line down stream of where the stick receives the purge gas and McAndrew teaches a pressure monitor is present on the stick downstream of valve 314 (Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include this arrangement because it represents a mere rearrangement of parts and allows the pressure after the regulator (314) to be monitored to provide detection for the control of the regulator valve.
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 and/or 21. The combination as applied to claim 1 and 21 fails to teach or suggest monitoring whether a time for performing the operations of pumping and purging exceeds a predetermined time. In the same field of endeavor of a gas delivery apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract and [0003-0005]), McAndrew teaches the controller (540 [0095]) is connected to the components of the system including the pressure transducers [0085] and is configured to monitor whether a time to achieve a pressure set point is within a predetermined time [0090], [0095] and report an alarm if the time exceeds the predetermined time [0095]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec and Markulec in view of Young to include monitoring the time duration of the cycles to determine if it is within a predetermined time and report an alarm if it is not because McAndrew teaches this is one of several setpoint values to determine if the system is sealed and leak free as desired and the ability to warn, via an alarm, an operator to check for a leak [0095]. Including monitoring of time and signaling an alarm allows for detecting when the system has a leak.
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1. As applied to claim 1, Young in the combination has taught controlling to perform a number of cycles for the pumping and purging operation (see Young [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above and as applied to the analogous limitation of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. In the combination as applied, the controller of Young as applied in the combination controls that after the set number of pump and purge cycles [0054], during anther operation of supplying process gas, the purge gas line (first gas line) is closed [0051].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Markulec in view of Young, McAndrew, and Klotz remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 above. McAndrew as applied in the combination teaches a plurality of semiconductor tools (see 306, 308, 310, 312 Fig 3 and [0020]) and Young as applied in the combination teaches using the tool to pump down the attached gas stick [0054].
Regarding claim 39, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Markulec teaches the first pressure transmitter (604 Fig 6b) is adjacent (note that “adjacent” is inclusive of “nearby”) to the junction point (Fig 6b, see annotated version above). Markulec fails to teach that downstream of the first pressure transmitter, the first gas line is connected solely to the plurality of sticks with no connection to any other gas line because Markulec also teaches line 850 (Fig 6b). As noted above, it has been held that omission of an element with a corresponding omission of function is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Wilson 153 USPQ 740 (CCPA 1967); In re Portz 145 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1965); In re Larson 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Karlson 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963); In re Listen 58 USPQ 481 (CCPA 1943); In re Porter 20 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1934). Additionally, McAndrew demonstrates that downstream of a pressure sensor (note P in a circle on line 318 Fig 3) is connected to solely the plurality of sticks with no connection to any other gas line (see McAndrew Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec to use this arrangement as taught by McAndrew because it represents a mere rearrangement of parts and because McAndrew demonstrates the arrangement is a functional alternative for the same purpose of supplying purge and process gas to a gas stick for supply to a processing chamber.
Regarding claim 40-41, the combination remains as applied to claim 1. The combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach or suggest monitoring whether a time for performing the operations of pumping and purging exceeds a predetermined time. In the same field of endeavor of a gas delivery apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract and [0003-0005]), McAndrew teaches the controller (540 [0095]) is connected to the components of the system including the pressure transducers [0085] and is configured to monitor whether a time to achieve a pressure set point is within a predetermined time [0090], [0095] and report an alarm if the time exceeds the predetermined time [0095]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec and Markulec in view of Young to include monitoring the time duration of the cycles to determine if it is within a predetermined time and report an alarm if it is not because McAndrew teaches this is one of several setpoint values to determine if the system is sealed and leak free as desired and the ability to warn, via an alarm, an operator to check for a leak [0095]. Including monitoring of time and signaling an alarm allows for detecting when the system has a leak.
Regarding claim 43, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Young as applied in the combination has taught monitoring pressure during operation. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the controller configured to drive the pressure transmitter to perform a pressure check at the end of the cycles to confirm the pressure is a desired pressure set point because this is an additional pressure check. Additionally, Klotz as applied in the combination routinely includes pressure checks at teach step (col 15-16) to ensure the apparatus is operating at expected conditions. This further renders obvious modifying the controller to include an additional pressure checking step to confirm the system is operating as expected with no new leaks or errors.
Regarding claim 44, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 43. As cited in the combination, Klotz teaches reporting an alarm if the pressure is not at the desires pressure. This renders obvious modifying the controller of the combination to report an alarm if the gas pressure is not at the desired second predetermined pressure value at the end of the cycles because this would be another error state.
Regarding claim 45, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Markulec is silent as to the pressure during processing steps. Young as applied in the combination does not explicitly teach pressure set values as claimed. Young does teach the pressure transducer has a range of -14.7 psig to 100 psig. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the controller of Young in the combination to have pressure verification set points that fall within the pressure detection range of the pressure transducer (i.e. within -14.7psig to 100psig) because this represents the limits of pressure detection. The specific set points for during gas supply and application of vacuum represent values the user can set to provide the desired level of purging and pumping for the system. They represent routine optimization values to optimize the cleaning level of the gas supply line and optimize the time required to perform the cycles of pumping and purging (note that a higher difference in the purge pressure and the pump pressure results in more cleaning but increases the cycle time).
Regarding claim 46, the combination remains as applied to claim 21 above. Young as applied in the combination has taught monitoring pressure during operation. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the controller configured to drive the pressure transmitter to perform a pressure check at the end of the cycles to confirm the pressure is a desired pressure set point because this is an additional pressure check. Additionally, Klotz as applied in the combination routinely includes pressure checks at teach step (col 15-16) to ensure the apparatus is operating at expected conditions. This further renders obvious modifying the controller to include an additional pressure checking step to confirm the system is operating as expected with no new leaks or errors. As cited in the combination, Klotz teaches reporting an alarm if the pressure is not at the desires pressure. This renders obvious modifying the controller of the combination to report an alarm if the gas pressure is not at the desired second predetermined pressure value at the end of the cycles because this would be another error state.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markulec in view of Young, McAndrew, and Klotz as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Fasheh (prev. presented US 2007/0246658).
Regarding claim 38, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The controller taught by Young and as applied in the combination includes a function of controlling additional structures and valves and therefore is not dedicated exclusively to the first gas line. It has been held that omission of an element with a corresponding omission of function is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Wilson 153 USPQ 740 (CCPA 1967); In re Portz 145 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1965); In re Larson 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Karlson 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963); In re Listen 58 USPQ 481 (CCPA 1943); In re Porter 20 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1934). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor processing equipment [0001], Fasheh teaches inclusion of a dedicated special purpose controller (112 Fig 2, as opposed to 110) [0026] to control only a portion of the apparatus [0026-0027] allows for a fast acting control that reduces timing variation between cycles to provide improved repeatable control sequence [0026-0028]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec and the combination to include a dedicated specialized controller configured solely to coordinate the operation of the pressure transmitter and pneumatic valve (i.e. a controller dedicated exclusively to the first line) because the operation is repeated for several cycles and Fasheh teaches that a dedicated controller provides a faster more repeatable cycling.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markulec in view of Young, McAndrew, and Klotz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0079470 of Chen, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 42, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Markulec fails to teach the second gas line comprises an expansion port upstream of a joint point where the second gas line connects to the plurality of sticks. McAndrew as applied in the combination teaches the second gas line includes a port for an additional process gas (V2 Fig 3, note there are two process gas inlets) and that this valve is upstream of a joint point where the second gas line connects to the plurality of sticks. McAndrew fails to teach this is an expansion port. In the same field of endeavor of a gas supply stick array for supplying gas in semiconductor fabrication (Fig 1 and [0002]), Chen teaches the process gas inlet line (18 Fig 1) includes an expansion valve (60 Fig 1, note this is a port) so that additional gas lines may be connected [0006]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Markulec and the combination to include the expansion port as taught by Chen because Chen teaches this allows for expansion of the processing equipment for future needs [0006]. Regarding the specific position, this represents mere rearrangement of parts. Also note that an expansion valve upstream of the supply allows for the valve to be used to add additional process gases, which is suggested by Markulec with the teaching of additional process gases (Fig 6b) and McAndrew with the teaching of additional process gas inlets (Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/13/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings, applicant indicates (reply p 1) that the specification was amended but no such specification amendment was filed. Therefore the objection remains.
Applicant argues (reply p 3-5) that Young and Markulec in view of Young does not teach the recited continuously pumped down operation. This is not persuasive because Markulec teaches pumping down during the purging step. Young is operated to supply the purge gas to the tool also but is silent as to whether the tool vacuum system is being operated. In view of the teaching of the primary reference Markulec of operating a vacuum source during the purging, the operation to include continuously pumping down is obvious.
Applicant argues (reply p5-6) that McAndrew and Klotz do not teach the continuously pumped down operation, but this is moot because Markulec teaches the pumped down operation. Applicant further argues that Fasheh and Chen (reply p7) do not teach the amended limitation, but this is moot because Markulec teaches the pumped down operation
Independent claims 7 and 21 (reply p8) have been argued for the analogous limitations of claim 1 addressed above are therefore not allowable for the same reasons that the amended language does not render claim 1 allowable.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0028838 teaches a pump purge of 20 cycles [0008]. US 2019/0211955 teaches a gas stick with purging and a pneumatic valve [0009].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716