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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12, 17-19, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitchison (US 2009/0320881) in view of WO 02/055756.
Aitchison teaches a method comprising:
in an apparatus comprising a process chamber (206, 306, 606) connected with a process roughing pump (250, 350, 650) via a pump foreline (207, 240, 307, 340, 607),
pumping from the process chamber to the foreline ammonia and a deposition precursor;
introducing into the foreline (207, 307, 607) a fluoride containing gas by an injector (210, 310, 610) to react with reaction products and deposits.
Aitchison exemplify the precursor as a transitional metal fluoride (WF6).
Aitchison exemplify the precursor as a silicon containing species (SiH4).
Aitchison also teaches introducing the fluoride containing gas into the foreline (207, 307, 607) and teaches that the referenced gas reacts downstream from the introduction point.
The area of the apparatus downstream from the introduction point is readable on the claimed mixing area.
Aitchison also teach providing overshoot of the fluorine containing gas ([0050], [0055]).
Aitchison also teach flowing Ar into the foreline and the roughing pump.
See at least Figures 1-3, 5-6 and the related description and the description at [0034-58].
Thus, Aitchison teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the HF as a processing gas and maintaining the pump and the foreline at temperatures of at least 100C.
Aitchison is silent about the temperature of the process.
Aitchison exemplify the use of NF3 and F2 as fluorine containing gases and state that other fluorine containing gases maybe used (at least [0009], [0034-35]).
However, WO 02/055756 teaches that it was known to conduct reacting fluorine containing gases with exhaust product of the processing chambers at temperatures 100-250C to activate reacting gases by providing heaters to the reacting areas and also exemplifies HF as a fluorine containing gas and as an analog of the gases used exemplified by Aitchison.
See at least Figures 2-3 and the related description and the description at pages 11-14.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use HF in the method of Aitchison in order to use a known reagent for its known purpose since WO 02/055756 teaches that it was known as a fluorine containing gas for reacting with exhaust product of the processing chambers and as an analog of the gases used exemplified by Aitchison.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use temperatures 100-250C in the method of Aitchison in order to activate gases since WO 02/055756 teaches such. It would have been also obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide heaters in Aitchison at the forelines and pumps to enable such.
As to claim 5 it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount and an optimum flow rate of HF in the modified method of Aitchison by routine experimentation depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the equipment used.
As to claim 19: the limitations of this claim are obviously met by the modified Aitchison since the modified method of Aitchison is performed in the apparatus comprising an abatement device as recited by the claim.
As to claims 22-23: the limitations recited by these claims (flowing Ar; maintaining the temperature at 100-250C, which is above sublimation point of ammonium fluoride (below 100C); flowing heated gas (temperatures 100-250C)) will be obviously present in the modified method of Aitchison.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitchison (US 2009/0320881) in view of WO 02/055756 and further in view of Lee et al (US 2015/0187562).
Modified Aitchison, as applied above, teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of the aqueous solution in the abatement device.
Aitchison is silent regarding the details of the abatement device.
However, the fluoride abatement devices utilizing water to dissolve the fluoride in an aqueous solution were known in the art, as evidenced by Lee et al.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize an abatement device of Lee et al in order to use a known device for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitchison (US 2009/0320881) in view of WO 02/055756 and further in view of Paranjpe et al (US 2006/0084283).
Modified Aitchison, as applied above, teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of the precursors as claimed.
However, the referenced precursors were known precursors that were known to be used with the precursors recited by Aitchison, as evidenced by Parankpe et al. See at least [0006-8], [0022-23], [0036].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use the precursors recited by Paranjpe et al in the modified method of Aitchison in order to use known chemicals for their known purpose.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitchison (US 2009/0320881) in view of WO 02/055756 and further in view of Blomberg et al et al (US 2014/0273452).
Modified Aitchison, as applied above, teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of the precursors as claimed.
However, the referenced precursors were known precursors that were known to be used with the precursors recited by Aitchison, as evidenced by Blomberg et al. See at least [0065-70].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use the precursors recited by Blomberg et al in the modified method of Aitchison in order to use known chemicals for their known purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants cancelled claim 21 and introduced the limitations of the referenced claim in claim 1.
The applicants allege that the claims allowable.
The applicants allege that none of the applied references described or suggest the mixing area recited by the claims.
It is not persuasive.
The Office clearly indicated in the previous Office action that the area of the apparatus downstream from the introduction point is readable on the claimed mixing area (page 4, lines 1-2 of the Office action mailed 12/18/2025).
The applicants failed to properly rebut the referenced position of the Office.
The applicants also allege that the Office has not properly addressed the limitation of claims 22 and 23.
This is not persuasive.
The Office clearly indicated in the previous Office action that Aitchison teaches introducing the fluoride containing gas into the foreline (207, 307, 607) and teaches that the referenced gas reacts downstream from the introduction point.
The Office clearly indicated in the previous Office action that Aitchison also teach flowing Ar into the foreline and the roughing pump.
The Office also clearly indicated in the previous Office action that Aitchison is silent about the temperature of the process.
The Office also indicated that WO 02/055756 teaches that it was known to conduct reacting fluorine containing gases with exhaust product of the processing chambers at temperatures 100-250C to activate reacting gases by providing heaters to the reacting areas and also exemplifies HF as a fluorine containing gas and as an analog of the gases used exemplified by Aitchison.
See at least Figures 2-3 and the related description and the description at pages 11-14.
The Office further indicated that it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use HF in the method of Aitchison in order to use a known reagent for its known purpose since WO 02/055756 teaches that it was known as a fluorine containing gas for reacting with exhaust product of the processing chambers and as an analog of the gases used exemplified by Aitchison.
The Office also indicated that it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use temperatures 100-250C in the method of Aitchison in order to activate gases since WO 02/055756 teaches such. It would have been also obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide heaters in Aitchison at the forelines and pumps to enable such.
The Office is also indicated that the limitations of claims 21-23 will be obviously present in such modified method of Aitchison.
See paragraph 7 of the Office action mailed 12/28/2025.
Please, note that in contrast to the applicants’ allegation the Office properly addressed the limitations recited by the argued claims: flowing Ar; maintaining the temperature at 100-250C, which is above sublimation point of ammonium fluoride (below 100C); flowing heated gas (temperatures 100-250C).
Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to methods for preventing damage to vacuum pumps.
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 ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711