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 .
Election/Restrictions
Group III claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 drawn to a vaporization supply device are elected by applicant. Claim 1 has been amended to depend on claim 7, thus, Group I, claims 1, 2, and 4-6, directed to a method are not withdrawn from consideration. Group II, claims 3,13,and 14, directed to a method, and group IV claims 9, 15, and 16, directed to an apparatus, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 October 2025. This requirement is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 7, 10, 12, 1, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/ 0249874) in view of Nagata (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0100483).
Regarding claim 7, Hoshino discloses a vaporization supply device (fig. 1) comprising:
a vaporizer (Hoshino, Fig. 1, element 12) for heating and vaporizing a liquid raw material;
a flow rate (controller to control 18) controller for controlling a flow rate of a gas supplied from the vaporizer to a gas supply destination; and
a controller for heating an inside of the vaporizer to obtain a necessary gas flow rate and performing feedback control so that a pressure becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined value (Hoshino, ¶¶0011-0013, “a liquid amount delivered by the liquid delivery mechanism so that the pressure detected by the pressure detection mechanism comes to a predetermined value”, ¶11))
But, Hoshino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured so as to stop the feedback control at a time point when the flow rate control by the flow rate controller starts, heat the liquid raw material by providing an amount of heat to the vaporizer more than the amount of heat that has already been provided until immediately before the feedback control ends, and change to the feedback control after a predetermined time has elapsed from the time point when the flow rate control by the flow rate controller starts.
Hoshino does teach “a flow rate of the process gas is controlled by detecting a pressure of the process gas between the vaporizer and an orifice provided at a downstream side of the vaporizer and by controlling the liquid amount delivered by the liquid delivery mechanism so that the detected pressure comes to a predetermined value” (¶13). That is, to maintain the pressure withing the vaporizing chamber (¶11), and then, when the valve 18 is opened to let out gas, to control a flow rate of the processed gas by detecting a pressure, downstream at P, and by controlling a liquid amount delivered the vaporizer allow more liquid into the heating chamber through 17 and 13, so that the detected pressure comes to a predetermined value. It is also known, as well, as in Nagata, in his vaporizer for manufacturing semiconductors, that heating the gas increases the pressure in a vaporizer (Nagata, ¶0016, “a temperature control device that adjusts a heating temperature of the vaporizer so that the pressure on the upstream side of the high-temperature type pressure type flow rate control device reaches a predetermined setting pressure or higher”.), and Hoshino already also, teaches that gas pressure should remain relatively constant.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino with the teachings of Nagata, that when the valve is released, to further heat the vaporizing chamber, so that there is not as big of a drop of pressure when the valve is opened releasing some gas, to keep the pressure within the chamber relatively constant and to also have the gas flow consistent, leaving the chamber at a certain pressure.
Regarding claim 10, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, and further teaches wherein the flow rate controller is a pressure type flow rate controller (Hoshino, ¶0013, flow rate of the process gas is controlled by detecting a pressure etc.”).
Regarding claim 12, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach wherein the controller controls the heater for heating the liquid raw material at a duty ratio of 100% until a predetermined time has elapsed from the time point when the flow rate control by the flow rate controller starts. However, a duty ratio of 100%, just means that the heater is in an on state while it is heating the gas or the liquid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata, to have the heater on (duty cycle of 100%), as would be done routinely in turning on a heater, while heating the gas and liquid desirably, in order to keep the heat rising and pressure on as it passes gas through to the chamber, and then to turn of the heater when it is no longer needed.
Regarding claim 1, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches a vaporization supply method of a vaporizer of the vaporization supply device according to claim 7 for
heating and vaporizing a liquid raw material inside the vaporizer (Hoshino, Fig. 1, heating and vaporizing in element 12),
controlling a flow rate of a vaporized gas, and supplying the vaporized gas to a supply destination, by using the vaporizer, an inside of the vaporizer being heated to obtain a necessary gas flow rate, and feedback control being performed so that a pressure becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined value (Hoshino, ¶¶0011-0013, “a liquid amount delivered by the liquid delivery mechanism so that the pressure detected by the pressure detection mechanism comes to a predetermined value”, ¶11)),
but, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, Hoshino does not disclose the vaporization supply method comprising steps of: stopping the feedback control at a time point when the flow rate control of the vaporized gas starts, and heating the liquid raw material in the vaporizer by providing a heat amount more than a heat amount that has already been provided immediately before stopping the feedback control, thereby increasing an evaporation amount of the vaporized gas more than that when the feedback control is performed; and changing the amount of heat provided to the vaporizer to the amount of heat provided by the feedback control, after a predetermined time has elapsed from the time when the flow rate control of the vaporized gas starts.
However, as noted above, Hoshino does teach “a flow rate of the process gas is controlled by detecting a pressure of the process gas between the vaporizer and an orifice provided at a downstream side of the vaporizer and by controlling the liquid amount delivered by the liquid delivery mechanism so that the detected pressure comes to a predetermined value” (¶13). That is, to maintain the pressure withing the vaporizing chamber (¶11), and then, when the valve 18 is opened to let out gas, to control a flow rate of the processed gas by detecting a pressure, downstream at P, and by controlling a liquid amount delivered the vaporizer allow more liquid into the heating chamber through 17 and 13, so that the detected pressure comes to a predetermined value. It is also known, as well, as in Nagata, in his vaporizer for manufacturing semiconductors, that heating the gas increases the pressure in a vaporizer (Nagata, ¶0016) and Hoshino already teaches that gas pressure should remain relatively constant.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino with the teachings of Nagata, that when the valve is released, to further heat the vaporizing chamber, so that there is not as big of a drop of pressure when the valve is opened releasing some gas, to keep the pressure within the chamber relatively constant and to also have the gas flow consistent, leaving the chamber at a certain pressure.
Regarding claim 4, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 1, above, but does not further teach a vaporization supply method wherein the gas in the vaporizer is flow-rate controlled by a pressure type flow rate control device and supplied to the supply destination (Hoshino, ¶0013, flow rate of the process gas is controlled by detecting a pressure etc.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 1, above, but does not further teach a vaporization supply method wherein a heater for heating the liquid raw material is controlled at a duty ratio of 100% until a predetermined time has elapsed from the time when the flow rate control of the vaporized gas starts. However, a duty ratio of 100%, just means that the heater is in an on state while it is heating the gas or the liquid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata, to have the heater on (duty cycle of 100%), as would be done routinely in turning on a heater, while heating the gas and liquid desirably, in order to keep the heat rising and pressure on as it passes gas through to the chamber, and then to turn of the heater when it is no longer needed.
Claims 8 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/ 0249874) in view of Nagata (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0100483) further in view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0028445).
Regarding claim 8, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the controller is configured so as to stop heating the vaporizer a predetermined time before the time point when the gas supply from the vaporizer ends, thereby vaporize the liquid in the vaporizer by the amount of heat that has already been given to the vaporizer until the time point when the gas supply from the vaporizer ends. However, it is well known, for instance, in Suzuki, to use residual heat after a heater is turned off (Suzuki, ¶0069), using the heat for a limited time to continue with the process. The advantage would be to maximize the efficiency and life of the heater of the heater, so that less heat is wasted and so that the heater is only on to the extent that its heat is required to vaporize the liquid and increase the pressure, including the residual heat after the heater is turned off, that can still be used to process the liquid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata with the teaching of Suzuki, to use the residual heat of the heater, in order to maximize the efficiency and life of the heater of the heater, so that less heat is wasted and so that the heater is only on to the extent that its heat is required to vaporize the liquid and increase the pressure, including the residual heat after the heater is turned off, that can still be used to process the liquid, so the heater may be turned off at a predetermined time before the gas supply from the vaporizer ends, and the residual heat is used up until the time when the gas supply is determined to end (and determining this would only require routine experimentation on the amount of gas and the power of the heater that would be required).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 1, above, but does not further teach a vaporization supply method comprising a step of stopping to heat the liquid raw material a predetermined time before the time point when the gas supply from the vaporizer ends and vaporizing the liquid raw material in the vaporizer by the amount of heat that has already been provided to the vaporizer until the time point when the gas supply from the vaporizer ends. However, it is well known, for instance, in Suzuki, to use residual heat after a heater is turned off (Suzuki, ¶0069), using the heat for a limited time to continue with the process. The advantage would be to maximize the efficiency and life of the heater of the heater, so that less heat is wasted and so that the heater is only on to the extent that its heat is required to vaporize the liquid and increase the pressure, including the residual heat after the heater is turned off, that can still be used to process the liquid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata with the teaching of Suzuki, to use the residual heat of the heater, in order to maximize the efficiency and life of the heater of the heater, so that less heat is wasted and so that the heater is only on to the extent that its heat is required to vaporize the liquid and increase the pressure, including the residual heat after the heater is turned off, that can still be used to process the liquid, so the heater may be turned off at a predetermined time before the gas supply from the vaporizer ends, and the residual heat is used up until the time when the gas supply is determined to end (and determining this would only require routine experimentation on the amount of gas and the power of the heater that would be required).
Claims 11 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/ 0249874) in view of Nagata (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0100483) further in view of Taguchi (U.S. 2019/ 0136370).
Regarding claim 11, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein a preheater for preheating the liquid raw material to be supplied to the vaporizer is connected to the vaporizer. However, Taguchi teaches a preheater for preheating the liquid raw material to be supplied to the vaporizer is connected to the vaporizer (Taguchi, ¶0042, “The liquid material preheated by the preheater 23 is introduced into the vaporizer 21 by controlling the electromagnetic open/close valve 22 as the supply amount controller. Then, in the vaporizer 21, the liquid material is brought into a state of being constantly stored, and vaporized, and the resulting vaporized gas is continuously produced and then continuously led out to the mass flow controller 3.¶0041, ”Preheater heats the liquid material to a temperature (less than a boiling point) just before the vaporization”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata, with the teachings of Taguchi, to have a preheater preheat the liquid before going to the vaporizer, in order to preheat the liquid, and reduce the load and power required by the vaporizer, so that the vaporizer can focus on the last step, and only supply the amount for the liquid to reach a gaseous state and may be otherwise very controllable, and thus the liquid entering the vaporizer may be immediately turned into a gas, so that that the gas may flow constantly (Taguchi, ¶0042, see, Cain, U.S. Patent 5,356451, column 3 line 42, “decrease the load on the vaporizer”).
Regarding claim 5, Hoshino in view of Nagata teaches all the limitations of claim 1, above, but does not further teach a vaporization supply method comprising a step of preheating the liquid raw material to be vaporized in the vaporizer. However, Taguchi teaches a preheater for preheating the liquid raw material to be supplied to the vaporizer is connected to the vaporizer (Taguchi, ¶0042, “The liquid material preheated by the preheater 23 is introduced into the vaporizer 21 by controlling the electromagnetic open/close valve 22 as the supply amount controller. Then, in the vaporizer 21, the liquid material is brought into a state of being constantly stored, and vaporized, and the resulting vaporized gas is continuously produced and then continuously led out to the mass flow controller 3.¶0041, ”Preheater heats the liquid material to a temperature (less than a boiling point) just before the vaporization”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hoshino in view of Nagata, with the teachings of Taguchi, to have a preheater preheat the liquid before going to the vaporizer, in order to preheat the liquid, and reduce the load and power required by the vaporizer, so that the vaporizer can focus on the last step, and only supply the amount for the liquid to reach a gaseous state and may be otherwise very controllable, and thus the liquid entering the vaporizer may be immediately turned into a gas, so that that the gas may flow constantly (Taguchi, ¶0042, see, Cain, U.S. Patent 5,356451, column 3 line 42, “decrease the load on the vaporizer”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761