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
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.
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) s 1-4, 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz [US 20160097127] in view of Shimizu [US 20200312680] and Hyon [US 20170372929].
Claim 1: Lenz teaches a system for supplying precursor gas to a processing chamber (gas distribution assembly) [abstract] comprising: a MFC (mas flow controller), a line from the MFC to an ampoule, a second line from the MFC to a controller and redirected to the main line (of providing carrier gas and precursor gas to the chamber); a third line from the ampoule to the main line [Fig. 3a]. However, Lenz does not appear to teach providing a flow ratio controller (FRC) and a mass flow controller (MFC) to control a flow of gas into the FRC. Shimizu is provided.
Shimizu, also directed to CVD processing [0002], teaches providing a MFC and a FRC [0024], wherein the MRF is used to control the total flow rate of the fluid to a FRC [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a MFC to a FRC as taught by Shimizu so as to increase the flexibility for complex mixtures of process fluids and allow for more uniform supply of the process fluids to the process chamber [0002].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach providing a mass flow meter coupled to the main line and a feedback line from the mass flow meter to the FRC bypassing the MFC. Hyon is provided.
Hyon teaches a multiple gases providing method [title[, where a mass flow meter is provided at least one main line [Fig. 2] wherein at least one feedback line is directly connected from the mass flow meter to controller (FRC) that bypasses the MFC and provides a closed feedback loop [Fig. 2; 0023; 0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a feedback line that connects the MFM to the FRC as taught by Hyon for the advantage capable of sufficiently controlling total flow [0036].
Claim 2: Lenz teaches the ampoule comprises of precursors gases such as tungsten hexachloride. It would be interpreted that tungsten hexachloride is considered as a low vapor pressure precursor, since tungsten hexachloride has a vapor pressure lower than tungsten pentachloride.
Claims 3-4: Lenz teaches the precursor could be solid or liquid [0032].
Claim 6: Hyon teaches that based upon each branch line, a controller monitors the flow and compares to a predetermined value which in turn sends an action to adjust the control valve based upon findings (sending control signal) [0030] which then adjust according to each branch [0026-0027], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized by making adjustment on any one of the branch lines would have changed the ratio of the gas flown.
Claim 9: Shimizu teaches using MFC(s) to control the flow into the FRC [0024].
Claim 10: Hyon teaches the reaction gases are flow into a chamber using a plurality of branch lines and controlling the gas flow ratio among the respective branch lines [0002] wherein a mass flow meter (MFM) is coupled to each of the branch lines flowing into a processing chamber [Fig. 1].
Claim 11: Lenz teaches the gas distribution assembly is suitable for CVD and ALD [0033].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz in view of Shimizu and Hyon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kutney [US 20210088367].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the mass flow meter is temperature controlled. Kutney is provided.
Claims 7-8: Kutney teaches the mass flow meter is a thermal mass flow meter that is heated (temperature controlled) [0006], which can be heated to a temperature of 40-60 degrees C (up to approximately 150 degrees C) [claim 12, 0041], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide a thermal mass flow meter that is heated to the claimed range, so as to better control and minimize decomposition of the gases [0002] while passing through the MFM.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 08/17/2026, specifically with Ambrosina providing feeding information forward (feed forward) to the controller 24, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-20 under 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference Hyon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights