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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not ‘select’ or ‘determine’ a gas pipe as claimed. However, ‘select’ as argued is not defined in the claims. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, select includes merely thinking of what gas pipe is being used or which valve is needed/not needed. It is not claimed as any actual physical action. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Selecting” “confirming” “determining/determined” etc. are not actually described as what actions they are performing and are broad. The claims indicate automating a manual activity of simply opening and closing valves and gas pipes to operate a gas deposition apparatus. “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” See MPEP 2144.04 In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained. New grounds of rejection are also below due to an updated search.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (Proc. SPIE 3213, Process, Equipment, and Materials Control in Integrated Circuit Manufacturing III, Aug 1997)
As to claims 1-2, Sharma teaches (A) creating a recipe by setting opening/closing states of a plurality of valves on a gas pattern screen indicating a gas pattern related to the plurality of valves and a plurality of gas pipes; and (B) processing a substrate by performing the recipe created in (A) (Section 3.2.2), wherein (A) comprises:(a) determining whether or not a valve among the plurality of valves on the gas pattern screen is operated (buttons, section 3.2.1); As to (b) and (c), Sharma et al. teaches a variety of these features and the capability of having these features on its LABVIEW interface in sections 3.2,3.2.1,3.2.2, for example. It would have been obvious to select particular gas valves and monitor them based upon the chosen recipe to make sure the recipe is moving smoothly. As in these sections, confirming actions as broadly claimed would occur for safety reasons, to make sure the process does not have to be aborted.
As to claims 2-5, the appearance and color is a matter of design choice. Matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)
As to claim 6, any valve can be changed in the recipe in sections 3.2,3.2.1,3.2.2.
As to claims 7-14, these are all within the capabilities of the LABVIEW program used by Sharma as taught in Section 3. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that LABVIEW allows the automation and control of almost any wireable/controllable chamber part and its modification would be obvious.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvaraj et al. (Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 095109 (2013))
As to claims 1-2, Selvarej teaches (A) creating a recipe by setting opening/closing states of a plurality of valves on a gas pattern screen indicating a gas pattern related to the plurality of valves and a plurality of gas pipes; and (B) processing a substrate by performing the recipe created in (A) (Section III), wherein (A) comprises:(a) determining whether or not a valve among the plurality of valves on the gas pattern screen is operated (Figure 4); As to (b) and (c), Selvaraj et al. teaches a variety of these features and the capability of having these features on its LABVIEW interface in section III and the Figures, for example. It would have been obvious to select particular gas valves and monitor them based upon the chosen recipe to make sure the recipe is moving smoothly. As in these sections, confirming actions as broadly claimed would occur for safety reasons, to make sure the process does not have to be aborted.
As to claims 2-5, the appearance and color is a matter of design choice. Matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)
As to claim 6, any valve can be changed in the recipe in Section III and the Figures
As to claims 7-14, these are all within the capabilities of the LABVIEW program used by Selvaraj as taught in Section III and Fig. 4. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that LABVIEW allows the automation and control of almost any wireable/controllable chamber part and its modification would be obvious.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru (JP 2006-093494 A; citations are taken from the attached Google Patent translation)
As to Claims 1-2, Toru teaches a method comprising (A) creating a recipe by setting opening/closing states of a plurality of valves on a gas pattern screen (soft gas pattern screen display module, p 2); and (B) processing a substrate by performing the recipe created in (A) (p2), wherein (A) comprises:(a) selecting a gas pipe on the gas pattern screen when an opening/closing state of any valve among the plurality of valves changes on the gas pattern screen (individual valves can be set to ON/OFF when the gas pattern screen is selected depending on timing and the deposition process to be run); and (b) confirming opening/closing states of one or more valves connected to the gas pipe selected in (a). Though Toru does not explicitly teach confirming opening/closing states, Toru does use a flow rate controller that is monitored when the valve is ON (p2) and operations are confirmed on p 4. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flow rate controller would confirm that the valve is set to ON and gas is flowing, otherwise it would not be operational or the flow setting would be too high if no gas is flowing.
Further, the claims indicate automating a manual activity of simply opening and closing valves and gas pipes to operate a gas deposition apparatus. “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” See MPEP 2144.04 In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
As to claim 6, Toru teaches that any of the valves are capable of being changed on p 2.
As to claims 7-9, the screens in Toru are capable of showing all of the parameters listed on p 2-4. Also see Figures 7-8 for the display and icons.
As to claims 10-14, these features are included in Toru p 2-4 and Figures 7-9.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru (JP 2006-093494 A; citations are taken from the attached Google Patent translation) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2010/0078128 A1).
As to Claims 1-2, Toru teaches a method comprising (A) creating a recipe by setting opening/closing states of a plurality of valves on a gas pattern screen (soft gas pattern screen display module, p 2); and (B) processing a substrate by performing the recipe created in (A) (p2), wherein (A) comprises:(a) selecting a gas pipe on the gas pattern screen when an opening/closing state of any valve among the plurality of valves changes on the gas pattern screen (individual valves can be set to ON/OFF when the gas pattern screen is selected depending on timing and the deposition process to be run); and (b) confirming opening/closing states of one or more valves connected to the gas pipe selected in (a). Though Toru does not explicitly teach confirming opening/closing states, Toru does use a flow rate controller that is monitored when the valve is ON (p2) and operations are confirmed on p 4.
Yamada et al. further teaches confirming ON/OFF states of valves in a controlled recipe in paras 0059-0064. Yamada et al. teaches that when the open and closed states of the valves are simulated and the gas flow states of the piping passages are displayed, that the gas flow states are simulated inside the pipe during the recipe creation process, that the gas flow states are more intuitively displayed and that the safety of the recipe creation is improved (para 0117-0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Toru to detect when a valve is open or closed as taught by Yamada et al. to improve recipe safety.
Further, the claims indicate automating a manual activity of simply opening and closing valves and gas pipes to operate a gas deposition apparatus. “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” See MPEP 2144.04 In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
As to claims 3-5, Yamada et al. teaches assigning a color to the gases and modifying them based on whether the valve is opened or closed in paras 0062-0096. The state of the pipe can also be indicated by dot marks (dashed line) in para 0105.
As to claim 6, Toru teaches that any of the valves are capable of being changed on p 2. Yamada et al. teaches the same as in Figure 4.
As to claims 7-9, the screens in Toru are capable of showing all of the parameters listed on p 2-4. Also see Figures 7-8 for the display and icons. Yamada et al. further teaches these features in paras 0054-0055
As to claims 10-14, these features are included in Toru p 2-4 and Figures 7-9. Yamada et al. further teaches these features in the Figures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Godwin et al. (Open-source automated chemical vapor deposition system for the production of two- dimensional nanomaterials. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210817) and Ahn et al. (Micro and Nano Syst Lett (2019) 7:11) both teach similar graphical user interfaces for CVD methods that control recipes and the open and closing states of valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights