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 Interpretation (1)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “silicon wafer doping unit in claim 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “doping” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “unit” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to a “furnace” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., Pg. 7, lines 1-6).
Claim limitation “mixer device” in claims 1 and 4 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “mixer” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “device” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 4 has/have been interpreted to cover the combination of “a flow disturbing element (i.e., plate, pipe portion, and/or insert)” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., Pg. 12, lines 2-8).
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 1 and 4 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “unit” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 4 has/have been interpreted to cover a “programmable logic controller” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., Pg. 10, lines 27-31).
Claim limitation “analysis unit” in claims 2-5 and 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “analysis” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “unit” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 2-5 and 10 has/have been interpreted to cover “a thermal conductivity detector, a paramagnetic alternating pressure detector, a catalytic adsorption detector, a non-dispersive infrared absorption detector, an infrared spectrometer, an analyzer of gas concentration with acoustic or photo-acoustic wave propagation” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., Pg. 24, lines 30-34 through Pg. 25, line 1).
Claim limitation “heating means” in claim 15 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “heating” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 15 has/have been interpreted to cover any art-recognized structure capable of achieving the claimed function (Spec., Pg. 7, lines 1-6). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation (2)
The term “type” in the limitation “proportional, integral, and derivative (PID) type” in claims 9 and 10 is deemed definite since the ordinary artisan would understand the form of electronic corrector required by the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 13 each recite “the measurement sensor”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 (Pg. 3, line 1) previously recites at least one measurement sensor. The following limitations in claims 1, 3 9, 11, and 13 will be interpreted as “the at least one measurement sensor” for consistency and clarity.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the container of dopant gas” on Pg. 2, line 5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the source of dopant gas” for consistency and clarity.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the variation” on Pg. 3, line 2. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the variable consumption of the gas mixture” for consistency and clarity.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a buffer tank connected by an outlet duct to the outlet (33) of the mixer device on the one hand and to a delivery line on the other hand”. The expressions “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” render claim 1 indefinite since these expressions are in narrative form. The limitation will be interpreted as “a buffer tank connected by an outlet duct to the outlet (33) of the mixer device
Claims 2-17 are dependent on independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the supply line” in the last line. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the delivery line” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 4 recites “the first outlet (33)”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the outlet” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “the outlet line (23)”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the outlet duct” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 6 recites “a mixture having a content of dopant gas of between 0.0001% and 50%.” This limitation is indefinite since it is unclear whether the percentages or referring to mass or volume. The limitation will be interpreted as referring to “by volume” in accordance with applicant’s specification (Spec., Pg. 27. Ines 1-13).
Claims 9 and 10 recite “a first (second) corrector (12A (12B)) arranged within the control unit (5), in particular of proportional, integral and derivative (PID) type”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “proportional, integral and derivative (PID) type” following the limitation “a first (second) corrector” is required by the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitations in claims 9 and 10 will be interpreted as “arranged within the control unit (5), including a proportional, integral and derivative (PID) type” for clarity.
Claim 10 recites “a second feedback loop”, “a second comparator”, and “a second corrector”. The term “second” renders the limitations confusing since claim 10 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 does not previously recite a “first” feedback loop, “first” comparator, or “first” corrector. It is unclear whether claim 10 is intended to depend from claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae (KR20090118428, see Espacenet translation) in view of Yamamoto (JP2014093497, see Espacenet translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jae teaches a plant for delivering a gas mixture suitable for and intended to be used in a silicon wafer doping unit, said plant comprising:
a source of a dopant gas (20) (Pg. 7; Fig. 2),
a source of a carrier gas (30) (Pg. 7; Fig. 2),
a mixer device (40) comprising stirrer blades (shown in Fig. 2) fluidically connected to the sources of dopant and carrier gases (20, 30), said mixer device being configured to produce, at an outlet, a gas mixture comprising the dopant gas and the carrier gas (Pgs. 7-8; Fig. 2),
first and second flow regulators (26, 36) which are configured to regulate respectively the flow of the dopant gas and the flow of the carrier gas flowing towards the mixer device (40) according to a first and second flow rate setpoints defining, in operation, a production flow rate of the gas mixture at the outlet of the mixer device (40) (Pgs. 7-8, Fig. 2),
an electronic control unit (implicit of controlling mass flow controllers) configured to control the first and second flow regulators (26, 36) so as to adjust the first and second flow rate setpoints in respective proportions relative to the production flow rate, said respective proportions being determined as a function of a target content of dopant gas and/or carrier gas in the gas mixture (Pgs. 8-9; Fig. 2),
a buffer tank (120) connected by an outlet duct to the outlet of the mixer device (40) and a delivery line, the delivery line being configured to deliver the gas mixture to a silicon wafer doping unit (70) with a consumption flow rate (DC) representative of a variable consumption of the gas mixture (Pgs. 9-11; Fig. 2).
Jae does not explicitly teach a measurement sensor configured to measure a physical quantity, the variable consumption of the gas mixture of which is representative of a variation in the consumption flow rate (DC) delivered by the delivery line and to provide a first measurement signal of said physical quantity, the control unit being connected to the measurement sensor and configured to produce a first control signal from the first measurement signal, the flow regulator members being configured to adjust the first flow rate setpoint (D1) and the second flow rate setpoint (D2) in response to said first control signal.
However, Yamamoto teaches a measurement sensor (61) configured to measure a pressure (physical quantity) inside the chamber, the variation of the pressure inside the chamber representing a variation in a gas consumption flow rate and provide a measurement signal (para 0034, 0039-0040, 0055, 0065; Figs. 1 and 6), a control unit (80) being connected to the measurement sensor (61) and configured to produce a first control signal from the first measurement signal, and a flow regulator member (43) configured to adjust a flow rate setpoint in response to said first control signal (para 0050,0055-0060), for the benefit of mitigating the pressure increase inside the processing chamber (for motivation see para 0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a measurement sensor with the control unit in the apparatus of Jae, as taught by Yamamoto, for the benefit of mitigating the pressure increase inside the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Jae further teaches a first analysis unit (128) arranged downstream of the buffer tank (120) and configured to analyze content of dopant gas and/or carrier gas in the gas mixture delivered by the delivery line (Pgs. 8-11; Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Jae further teaches that the prior apparatus is fully capable of providing a mixture having a content of dopant gas between 0.0001% and 50% or 0.05% and 30% (% by volume), since Jae teaches every structural feature necessary to carry out the claimed operation. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Jae further teaches the source of dopant gas contains diborane (B2H6) and the source of carrier gas contains hydrogen (H2) (see Pg. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Jae further teaches a flowmeter configured to measure the consumption flow rate (implicit of “adjust(ing) the flow rate to a set range”; see Pg. 9).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae (KR20090118428, see Espacenet translation) and Yamamoto (JP2014093497, see Espacenet translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nishikawa (US 5470390).
Regarding claim 8, Jae does not explicitly teach that the source of dopant gas contains a gas premix formed of dopant gas and carrier gas.
However, Nishikawa teaches that a source of dopant gas containing a gas premix formed of dopant gas and carrier gas (SiH4 and N2)-, for the benefit of supplying special material gas for semiconductor manufacturing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the source of dopant gas in Jae to comprising a premix form, as taught by Nishikawa, for the benefit of supplying special material gas for semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 13, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach that the measurement sensor comprises a pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure prevailing in the buffer tank.
However, Nishikawa teaches a pressure sensor (7B) configured to measure the pressure prevailing in a buffer tank (21), for the benefit of detecting abnormal values and adjusting mass flow controllers (10, 11) (col. 6, lines 56-60; for further motivation se col. 4, lines 13-19; see for example Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a pressure sensor with the buffer tank (120) in the apparatus of Jae, as taught by Nishikawa, for the benefit of detecting abnormal values and adjusting first and second flow regulators (26, 36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4-5 (as being dependent on claim 3) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1, 2, and 3, further comprising a first sampling duct (36) connecting the first analysis unit (13) to the supply line (6) at a first sampling point (36a); and a first return line (37) connecting the first analysis unit (13) to the supply line (6) at a first return point (37a), the return point (37a) being located downstream of the first sampling point (36a) on the supply line (6), a pressure-reducing valve (51) being mounted on the supply line (6) between the first sampling point (36a) and the first return point (37a), preferably the pressure-reducing valve (51) is mounted upstream of the at least one measurement sensor (8).
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1 and 9, further comprising a first feedback loop from the first and second flow rate setpoints (D1, D2) to the first measurement signal provided by the measurement sensor (8), said first loop comprising: a first comparator (11A) arranged within the control unit (5) and configured to produce at least a first error signal from the first measurement signal, a first corrector (12A) arranged within the control unit (5), in particular of proportional, integral and derivative (PID) type, and configured to produce the first control signal from the first error signal, actuators of the first and second flow regulator members (41, 42) which are connected to the first corrector (12A) and configured to receive the first control signal and move the first and second flow regulator members (41, 42) into respective positions in which the first flow rate setpoint (D1) and the second flow rate setpoint (D2) comply with the first control signal.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1 and 10, further comprising a second feedback loop from the respective proportions of the first flow rate setpoint (D1) and/or the second flow rate setpoint (D2) relative to the production flow rate (DP) to the second measurement signal provided by the second analysis unit (14), the second feedback loop comprising: a second comparator (11B) arranged within the control unit (5) and configured to produce at least a second error signal from a comparison of the second measurement signal with at least one parameter chosen from: a target content (C1) of the dopant gas (1), a target content (C2) of the carrier gas (2), a second corrector (12B) arranged within the control unit (5), in particular of proportional, integral and derivative (PID) type, and configured to produce the second control signal from the second error signal; and actuators of the first and second flow regulator members (41, 42) which are connected to the second corrector (12B) and configured to move the first and/or second flow regulator members (41, 42) into respective positions in which the proportions of the first flow rate setpoint (D1) and/or second flow rate setpoint (D2) relative to the production flow rate (DP) comply with the second control signal.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1 and 12, wherein the first comparator (11A) is configured to produce at least a first error signal representative of a variation in the consumption flow rate (DC) and the first corrector (12A) is configured to produce a first control signal controlling a movement of the first and second flow regulator members (41, 42) so that the first and second flow rate setpoints (D1, D2) vary in the same direction as that of the variation in the flow rate (DC).
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1, 13, and 14, wherein the first comparator (11A) is configured to produce a first error signal representative of a variation in the pressure in the buffer tank (7) and the first corrector (12A) is configured to produce at least a first control signal controlling a movement of the first and second flow regulator members (41, 42) so that the first and second flow rate setpoints (D1, D2) vary in the opposite direction to that of the variation in the pressure.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1 and 15, an assembly comprising a silicon wafer doping unit comprising a furnace equipped with a chamber associated with heating means and a support arranged in said chamber on which wafers are installed, the furnace comprising means for introducing a mixture of dopant gas (1) and of carrier gas (2) into the chamber, wherein the assembly further comprises a plant according to claim 1, said introduction means being fluidically connected to the supply line (6) of said plant.
The examiner agrees with the “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority” issued November 2, 2021 for International application no. PCT/EP2021/064520 that it would not have been obvious to arrive at the inventions recited in the combinations of independent claim 1 and each dependent claim, respectively, described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAPOZZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717