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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Sharma and Shelvaraj do not teach a gas pattern screen used for setting a recipe and do not teach “(b) if it is determined in (a) that the valve among the plurality of valves on the gas pattern screen is operated, determining by the controller whether or not all of the gas pipes displayed on the gas pattern screen are selected”. By determining if the plurality of valves on the gas pattern screen is operated, it is assumed by the broadest reasonable interpretation that this means they are being used or able to be used. 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).
As far as a gas pattern screen, the examiner submits that such a feature is common in LABVIEW. Manipulation of valves, showing of valves, labelling of valves and performing recipes in LABVIEW is not inventive in general as it is accessible to one of ordinary skill in the art and a commonly used tool. See for example, the following images of a sample LABVIEW graphical user interfaces to show its capabilities at the time of invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is from https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/How-to-put-solenoid-valve-and-other-intrument-symbols-on-a/td-p/597217 and shows valves.
PNG
media_image2.png
711
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is from https://lavag.org/topic/21112-industrial-graphics/ and shows valves, with discussions on how to color the valves for opening and closing. From these examples, the broad claim language is well within the normal operation of a LABVIEW program, such as that is set up in Sharma and Shelvaraj. Narrowing the actual coating process with appropriate materials or with appropriate apparatus structures in conjunction with the operation of the valves may help progress the case past these references.
Both Sharma and Shelvaraj teach LABVIEW interfaces. LABVIEW includes operations of controllers that have a processor and memory, as it occurs on computers. Having a controller make a decision of “selecting” “confirming” “determining/determined” etc. are not actually described as what actions they are performing broadly are automating manural processes. 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).
If the applicant would like to request an interview, please request an interview under MPEP 713.01 IV.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 and 17 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.
LABVIEW includes operations of controllers that have a processor and memory, as it occurs on computers. Having a controller make a decision of “selecting” “confirming” “determining/determined” etc. are not actually described as what actions they are performing broadly are automating manural processes. 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 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.
As to claim 17, Sharma teaches a semiconductor on p 119.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17 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.
LABVIEW includes operations of controllers that have a processor and memory, as it occurs on computers. Having a controller make a decision of “selecting” “confirming” “determining/determined” etc. are not actually described as what actions they are performing broadly are automating manural processes. 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 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.
As to claim 17, Selvaraj teaches a semiconductor on p 84.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-14 and 17 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.
As to claim 17, Toru teaches a semiconductor on p 1.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17 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.
As to claim 17, Yamada et al. teaches a semiconductor in para 0005.
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 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