DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
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 05/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 21, 40-42, and 47-55 are pending. In the amendment filed 05/07/2026, claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 21 were amended; claims 4-6, 38-39, and 43-46 were canceled; and claims 47-55 were newly added.
Specification
The specification amendment filed 05/07/2026 has been entered. The amendment to the specification has overcome the previously applied objection to the drawings by correcting “801” to be “901” which is in the figures.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 55 was newly added in the amendment filed 05/07/2026. The instant specification does not teach that the controller is configured to record the number of cycles of the operations and report the recorded number of cycles through the alarm device. Applicant’s remarks did not indicate where support for such an amendment is present. It is noted that while there is teaching of a notification signal when a predetermined number of cycles have been performed [0045-0046]. However, this is not support for the controller specifically recording the number of cycles performed or reporting the number of cycles performed because the specification merely supports reporting if a predetermined number of cycles was performed, not reporting the number of cycles performed. Therefore, this limitation represents new matter. For purpose of compact examination on the merits, the claim will be examined as if the limitation is supported in the event applicant can demonstrate support for such an interpretation. This is not an indication that such support is present.
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) 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 21, 40-41, 47-48, and 50-55 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), Klotz (prev. presented US 6,152,192), Fasheh (prev. presented US 2007/0246658), and US Patent 6,193,813 of Tseng et al., hereinafter Tseng.
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 for the stick (Fig 6b), a portion receiving the purge gas from the first gas line is positioned downstream of a portion receiving the process gas from the second gas line (Fig 6b, see annotated version below) and a second pressure transmitter (628 Fig 6b) is positioned downstream of where the sick receives purge gas (Fig 6b, see annotated version below); 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).
The combination remains as applied to 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. 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 a check valve downstream of the pneumatic valve, the combination remains as applied 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 not intended for the gas to flow (col 5, ln 35-37).
Regarding the first pressure transmitter is adjacent to the junction point, and wherein, 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, the combination remains as applied above. Markulec teaches the first pressure transmitter (605 Fig 6b) is adjacent to the junction point (note “adjacent” is inclusive of “nearby” and does not require directly contacting). Regarding the first gas line is connected solely to the plurality of sticks, with no connection to any other gas line, its noted that the lower portion of 850 is not considered part of the first gas line and therefore the first gas line is not connected to other gas lines. Note that even if the first gas line is interpreted as requiring line 850, this is not a gas line because it is an evacuation line. Additionally, regarding removal of line 850, 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). Further, McAndrew demonstrates the purge gas line (318 Fig 3) is only connected to the gas sticks. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas line to have a purge gas line that is only connected to the sticks because McAndrew demonstrates this as a functional alternative for supplying purge gas to the sticks. Note that any additional need for purge gas in Markulec may be supplied by a different purge gas line.
Regarding the claimed pressure ranges, 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 the controller is dedicated exclusively to the first gas line, the combination remains as applied 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.
Regarding upon completion of the number of cycles for the operations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), and after the first gas line is closed, the controller is configured to drive the first pressure transmitter to detect the gas pressure within the plurality of sticks, and if the first pressure transmitter detects that the gas pressure is greater than the second predetermined pressure value, the controller is configured to report a fifth alarm signal, it is initially noted that this merely represents a final pump down and leak check of the gas stick, which is obvious in view of the applied combination rendering obvious checking the pressure for leaks as explained above. If applicant believe a final pump down of the gas supply line is not an obvious control step, it is noted that in the same field of endeavor of gas supply to a semiconductor manufacturing system (abstract), Tseng teaches it is known to do a final pump down of the chamber and all gas feed lines (col 7, ln 3-15) after purging (col 7, ln 3-15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Markulec and the combination to include this final pump down because this ensures the gas supply line is empty prior to processing or removing a substrate from the chamber. This prevents unwanted dilution of gases. Regarding the leak check based on the pressure and alarm if the pressure is outside of the normal expected pressure, this is obvious for the same reasons presented above regarding step (iv) above and the inclusion of status alarms. 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.
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 1 above. A check valve by definition is to permit gas flow in one direction and prevent back flow. Therefore, the combination as applied to claim 1 which teaches the check valve in the same position provides for the directed flow while blocking unwanted back flow as recited.
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. Regarding the process being automated in response to the detected pressure, this represents broadly automating a process, which is obvious in view of the controllers taught in the combination as applied to the analogous limitations of claims 1 and 7 above. Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Further, allowing the process to proceed automatically without requiring user input reduces operational costs by reducing the number of operators required and by reducing undesired delays due to operator error or absence. Additionally, McAndrew teaches control may be performed automatically based on measured values [0085], further rendering obvious modifying the controller to perform the pump and purge cycle based on measured pressure values.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above and as applied to the analogous limitation of claim 1 above. The alarms as applied in the combination are separate alarms.
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 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 47, Markulec teaches nitrogen purge gas (Fig 6b).
Regarding claim 48, the specific number of sticks represents a mere duplication of parts. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 50, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied teaches 8 cycles of pumping and purging of the gas sticks. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller to perform additional cycles such as 10 because the number of repetitions is mere operator input and relies on optimization to determine the required amount of cleaning that balances the need to clean the line with the need for an efficient process. Young identifies that the number is not limited and that the operator may determine the number of cycles that is sufficient [0054]. Further, this represents a value that is “obvious to try” as it is only two more cycles than the number suggested by Young.
Regarding claim 51, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Fasheh as applied in the combination teaches the dedicated controller is a programable logic controller (taught as PLC in [0026]).
Regarding claim 52, Markulec teaches a plurality of purge valves (624 and 642 Fig 6b), each of the plurality of purge valves being coupled between the first gas line and a corresponding one of the plurality of sticks at a joint therebetween (see location of 624 and 642 in Fig 6b), and wherein each of the plurality of purge valves is positioned adjacent to the joint between the first gas line and the corresponding one of the plurality of sticks (see location of 624 and 642 in Fig 6b, note that “adjacent” is inclusive of “nearby”).
Regarding claim 53, the combination remains as applied to claim 52 above. The purge valves are closed when supply of purge gas is stopped and therefore after the first gas line is closed. Regarding closing after the cycles are completed, as indicated by Tseng the final step is a pumping after shutting off the gas flow and therefore the valves are closed after the completion of the cycles.
Regarding claim 54, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Opening of the upstream valve allows for supply of purge gas when required and closing after the completion of the operations is obvious in view of Tseng teaching the final step is a pumping after shutting off the gas flow and therefore any supply valves are closed after the completion of the cycles.
Regarding claim 55, the combination remains as applied to claim 21 above. Recording and reporting the number of purge cycles is an obvious modification to provide a log of processing conditions in the event an error is identified or for modeling or providing machine learning data. Further, Klotz as applied above teaches the controller includes information storage (col 6, ln 1-25) and references the controller having a record mode to record process conditions (col 14, ln 5-29). Regarding the alarm, Klotz as above has taught incorporating alarms to signal the operator and therefore renders obvious including an alarm with the completion of the cycles and recorded number of cycles performed.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markulec in view of Young, McAndrew, Klotz, Fasheh, and Tseng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (prev. presented US 2002/0079470).
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).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markulec in view of Young, McAndrew, Klotz, Fasheh, and Tseng as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0011910 of Jongbloed et al., hereinafter Jongbloed.
Regarding claim 49, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. The combination as applied to claim 2 fails to teach the first gas line further comprises a regulator valve between the valve upstream of the pneumatic valve and the pneumatic valve, the regulator valve being configured to regulate a pressure of the purge gas downstream thereof. In the same field of endeavor of gas supply to a processing chamber (abstract) Jongbloed teaches the inert gas line (60 and 80 Fig 9) includes a regulator valve (82 or 64 Fig 9) between a valve upstream of the pneumatic valve (81 Fig 9, is upstream of valve 73 Fig 9) and the pneumatic valve (equivalent is 73 Fig 9), the regulator valve is configured to regulate a pressure of the purge gas downstream thereof [0068]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Markulec and the combination to include the regulator valve as positioned because Jongbloed teaches this allows for pressure control in the purge gas line [0068].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/07/2023, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings (reply p1) has been overcome by the amendment to the specification filed 05/07/2026.
Applicant argues (reply p 4-5) that Markulec in view of McAndrew does not teach the claimed purge line connected solely to the plurality of sticks. This is not persuasive because as noted above, the additional portion 850 may not be considered the purge line and is not it’s own gas line to be considered a gas line connected to the purge line. Further, as indicated 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). Further, as indicated McAndrew teaches a purge line going only to the gas sticks. It is noted that the Markulec inclusion of a line for monitoring may be a separate line because this is not a need to monitor the purge gas composition and any need for purge gas to purge the sampling line may be provided by a separate gas line. Applicant argues that the pressure sensor in McAndrew is different, but there is no indication that the inclusion of the additional line 850 affects or is required for the purge gas supply or pressure detection. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the positioning of the check valve (reply p5-6) that the position is not obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees because this is a mere rearrangement of parts and the check valve is a structure provided to prevent backflow. Applicant’s check valve is not disclosed as having any structural different relative to a standard check valve. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the provided pressures are more than mere routine optimization (reply p6-7) but provides no evidence that the values which overlap and are contained within the values taught by the prior art provide superior unexpected results. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s characterization that the pressures used are not recognized as having a relationship to cleaning efficiency in a pump and purge cycle. Examiner notes that pump and purge is a routine operation in semiconductor manufacturing and gas supply and it is understood that the pressure alters the physisorption and chemisorption of species on the surfaces, further as indicated the pressures are within the taught range. Applicant argues the specific values are taught, but it is noted that the specification merely uses them as examples and provides no evidence that the values are critical and provide a benefit not previously recognized by the art. It is noted that the numerous references that have been applied to teach pumping and purging without limiting the gas pressure suggest it is well understood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose the desired pressures to optimize cleaning and processing time.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that the alarms are specific and diagnostic. It is noted that the combination as applied renders obvious the alarms as explained above. Applicant provides no indication that the specific alarm sounds are distinct or provide additional information. Further, having different alarms for different alerts is an obvious configuration to allow for distinction between critical alerts and status indicators. Further, applicant does not teach or suggest that a different controller is recognizing the different alarms or otherwise diagnosing the operation based on different alarms.
Regarding the argument regarding the number of references (reply p9), In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Regarding the argument regarding hindsight reasoning (reply p9), In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The arguments (reply p10-12) regarding the amended limitations are not persuasive in view of the modified rejection presented above which addressed the amended limitations. It is noted that Fasheh teaches the dedicated controller and provides motivation for modifying a controller to be dedicated.
Regarding the final leak check (reply p12-13), newly cited reference Tseng teaches this operation.
Independent claims 7 and 21 and dependent claims (reply p14-15) 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 2016/0172164 teaches a regulator valve in line with a pneumatic valve and a manual valve (Fig 1).
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
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights