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 Ambrosina [US 20030130807].
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. Ambrosina is provided.
Ambrosina teaches a gas distribution system [abstract], wherein a mass flow meter is provided in the main line [0028; Fig. 1] and a ratio system that has an interface for receiving a desired flow ratio and a controller (FRC) is tied to that mass flow meter [0028-0029; Fig. 1], wherein a feedback line (Fig. 1) is directly connected from the mass flow meter to the FRC that bypasses the MFC (114) [0009, 0029-0032; Fig. 1]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide a MFM to the main line and a feedback line that connects from the MFM to the FRC bypassing the MFC as taught by Ambrosina so as to provide contaminant free and precisely metered quanties of gases to the process chambers [0001].
Claim 2: Lenz teaches the ampoule comprises 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: Ambrosina teaches generating signals to the flow controller that makes adjustments to the gas flown into the second line [0028; Fig. 1]. Since Ambrosina teaches making adjustments to the flow ratio, such as by changing gas flow in second lines [0028], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ratio between the first line and second line would have changed.
Claim 9: Shimizu teaches using MFC(s) to control the flow into the FRC [0024].
Claim 10: Ambrosina teaches the outlet mass flow meter (MFM) is coupled to 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 Ambrosina 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 filed 02/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues that the prior art failed to teach mainly “a flow ratio controller (FRC), a mass flow controller (MFC) to control a flow of gas into the FRC, a mass flow meter coupled to the main line and a feedback line directly from the mass flow meter to the FRC” on pages 6-7 of filed remarks. Examiner argues that Lenz teaches a system that comprises a MFC (154) that is coupled to a Controller (40); the Controller is coupled to the Ampoule (160) and coupled with multiple lines to the mainline that supplies the carrier gas and precursor gases (Fig. 3A); the Controller also is coupled to a (pressure) sensing system (169) which feedbacks to the Controller (Fig. 3a) where the controller can be used as a control process device, control gas delivery as well as a monitoring device [0050]; whereas Shimizu is relied upon to teach it is well known in the art to combine a MFC and Flow Ratio Controller (FRC) as complimentary control systems [0024] so as to increase the flexibility for complex mixtures of process fluids and uniform supply [0002], therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Lenz to be a FRC to increase flexibility of gas distributions. As for a mass flow meter being coupled to a main line and coupled to a controller such as a FRC by a feedback line, Ambrosina teaches a system where a Mass Flow Meter (MFM) is coupled to a mainline and has a feedback line to a FRC (Fig. 1), where the system is able to not disturb the performance of any upstream mass flow controllers [0007]. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Ambrosina feeds information forward to the controller (feedforward) rather than a feeding information back (feedback) based upon being located upstream, examiner argues that Ambrosina teaches the control system uses a PID system which is a feedback type of control loop.
Conclusion
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 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 1715
Prosecution Insights