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 Amendment
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/22/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-29 are pending.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-10 are currently amended.
Claims 26-29 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 recites “…wherein the plurality of valves are control flow of the third gas…” (emphasis added). The claim should read as “are configured to control flow of the third gas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gelatos teaches a gas delivery system for substrate processing tool (Fig. 1, [0014], gas distribution system 104 of substrate processing system 100), comprising:
a first gas box configured to supply a first gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a first set of N gases to a first substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 134 provides gases to chamber processing region 112 which may be an individual chamber, [0015]), where N is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 134 provides gases from independent sources 210 and 220);
a second gas box configured to selectively supply a second gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a second set of M gases to a second substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases to chamber processing region 114 which may be an individual chamber, [0015]), where M is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases from independent sources 232 and 242); and
a third gas box comprising a plurality of valves, wherein the plurality of valves configured to supply a third gas to the first substrate processing chamber at a first concentration and supply the third gas to the second substrate processing chamber at a second concentration (Fig. 2, [0024], gas supply circuit 132 provides gases from sources 254, 264, 282, 288, and 298 to processing regions 112 and 114 via flow controllers 248, 258, 278, and 284, and valves 246, 256, 274, 276, 286, 292, 249), wherein the first concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the first set of N gases, wherein the second concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the second set of M gases, wherein the third gas, when provided within an incompatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, and wherein the third gas, when provided within a compatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is not hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], gas supply circuit 132 simultaneously provides a gas or gases from sources 254/264/282/288/298 to each chamber 112 and 114 and at a given flow rate using MFCs 248, 258, 278, and 284, while at the same time gas supply circuit 134 provides a gas or gases from sources 210/220 via MFCs 204, and 214 at a given flow rate to chamber 112, and also at the same time gas supply circuit 136 provides a gas or gases from sources 232/242 via MFCs 226, and 236 at a given flow rate to chamber 114).
To clarify the record, the limitations “configured to supply a first gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a first set of N gases to a first substrate processing chamber“, “configured to selectively supply a second gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a second set of M gases to a second substrate processing chamber”, and “configured to supply a third gas to the first substrate processing chamber at a first concentration and to supply the third gas to the second substrate processing chamber at a second concentration, wherein the first concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the first set of N gases, wherein the second concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the second set of M gases, wherein the third gas, when provided within an incompatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, and wherein the third gas, when provided within a compatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is not hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos, including the flow controllers and valves, are connected between processing regions/chambers and gas sources, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Gelatos teaches wherein the one or more gases in the first set of N gases includes molecular oxygen (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 134 provides gases from independent sources 210 and 220 via flow controllers 204 and 214, where the flow controllers are mass flow controllers, [0029], to selectively supply a specific gas, [0007]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the one or more gases in the first set of N gases includes molecular oxygen” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include flow controllers that are capable of selectively supplying a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. In support of this, cited reference Yamagishi (US 20120328780 A1) teaches wherein oxygen may be introduced via a mass flow controller to chambers through gas lines ([0038]) in order to process a wafer.
Regarding claim 4, Gelatos teaches wherein the one or more gases in the second set of M gases includes molecular oxygen (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases from independent sources 232 and 242 via flow controllers 226 and 236, where the flow controllers are mass flow controllers, [0029], to selectively supply a specific gas, [0007]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the one or more gases in the second set of M gases includes molecular oxygen” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include flow controllers that are capable of selectively supplying a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. In support of this, cited reference Yamagishi teaches wherein oxygen may be introduced via a mass flow controller to chambers through gas lines ([0038]) in order to process a wafer.
Regarding claim 5, Gelatos teaches wherein the third gas comprises molecular hydrogen (Fig. 2, [0024], gas supply circuit 132 provides gases from sources 254, 264, 282, 288, and 298 to processing regions 112 and 114 via flow controllers 248, 258, 278, and 284).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the third gas comprises molecular hydrogen” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include flow controllers that are capable of selectively supplying a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. In support of this, cited reference Yamagishi teaches wherein hydrogen may be introduced via a mass flow controller to chambers through gas lines ([0038]) in order to process a wafer.
Regarding claim 6, Gelatos teaches wherein the third gas comprises ammonia (Fig. 2, [0024], gas supply circuit 132 provides gases from sources 254, 264, 282, 288, and 298 to processing regions 112 and 114 via flow controllers 248, 258, 278, and 284).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the third gas comprises ammonia” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include flow controllers that are capable of selectively supplying a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Gelatos discloses ammonia ([0044]) as a process gas that is capable of being utilized by the gas delivery system, as necessitated by the desired process to be performed.
Regarding claim 7, Gelatos teaches wherein the first concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% relative to the first set of N gases (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% relative to the first set of N gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include process gas and carrier gas sources coupled to a common supply line, the flows of which are regulated by flow control systems, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Gelatos teaches wherein the first concentration of the third gas is in a range from 4% to 100% relative to the first set of N gases (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the first concentration of the third gas is in a range from 4% to 100% relative to the first set of N gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include process gas and carrier gas sources coupled to a common supply line, the flows of which are regulated by flow control systems, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 9, Gelatos teaches wherein the second concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% relative to the first set of M gases (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the second concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% relative to the first set of M gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include process gas and carrier gas sources coupled to a common supply line, the flows of which are regulated by flow control systems, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 10, Gelatos teaches wherein the second concentration of the third gas is in a range from 4% to 100% relative to the first set of M gases (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the second concentration of the third gas is in a range from 4% to 100% relative to the first set of M gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include process gas and carrier gas sources coupled to a common supply line, the flows of which are regulated by flow control systems, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 14, Gelatos teaches wherein: the one or more gases in the first set of N gases includes molecular oxygen (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases from independent sources 232 and 242);
the one or more gases in the second set of M gases includes molecular oxygen (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases from independent sources 232 and 242);
the third gas comprises molecular hydrogen (Fig. 2, [0024], gas supply circuit 132 provides gases from sources 254, 264, 282, 288, and 298 to processing regions 112 and 114 via flow controllers 248, 258, 278, and 284);
the first concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).; and
the second concentration of the third gas is greater than 4% (Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027], process gas 288 is provided to processing regions 112/114 along with carrier gas 282, which is regulated by flow control systems 213/215).
To clarify the record, the limitations “the one or more gases in the first set of N gases includes molecular oxygen”, “the one or more gases in the second set of M gases includes molecular oxygen”, and “the third gas comprises molecular hydrogen” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include flow controllers that are capable of selectively supplying a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. In support of this, cited reference Yamagishi teaches wherein oxygen or hydrogen may be introduced via a mass flow controller to chambers through gas lines ([0038]) in order to process a wafer.
As well, the limitations “the first concentration of the third gas is greater than 4%” and “the second concentration of the third gas is greater than 4%” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos include process gas and carrier gas sources coupled to a common supply line, the flows of which are regulated by flow control systems, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 26, Gelatos teaches a controller configured to control the plurality of valves to provide the first concentration in the first substrate processing chamber and the second concentration in the second substrate processing chamber,
wherein the plurality of valves are control flow of the third gas to the first substrate processing chamber and to the second substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], gas supply circuit 132 simultaneously provides a gas or gases from sources 254/264/282/288/298 to each chamber 112/114 at a given flow rate using MFCs 248/258/278/284 and valves 246/256/274/276/286/290/249, while at the same time gas supply circuit 134 provides a gas or gases from sources 210/220 via MFCs 204/214 at a given flow rate to chamber 112, and also at the same time gas supply circuit 136 provides a gas or gases from sources 232/242 via MFCs 226/236 at a given flow rate to chamber 114, where the controller is coupled to the system 100). The gas supply circuits of Gelatos, including the flow controllers and valves, are connected between processing regions/chambers and gas sources, where one circuit is connected to both chambers, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 27, Gelatos teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of valves to selectively supply the third gas such that at least one of the first concentration and the second concentration is in the incompatible concentration range (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], gas supply circuit 132 simultaneously provides a gas or gases from sources 254/264/282/288/298 to each chamber 112/114 at a given flow rate using MFCs 248/258/278/284 and valves 246/256/274/276/286/290/249, while at the same time gas supply circuit 134 provides a gas or gases from sources 210/220 via MFCs 204/214 at a given flow rate to chamber 112, and also at the same time gas supply circuit 136 provides a gas or gases from sources 232/242 via MFCs 226/236 at a given flow rate to chamber 114, where the controller is coupled to the system 100). The gas supply circuits of Gelatos, including the flow controllers and valves, are connected between processing regions/chambers and gas sources, where one circuit is connected to both chambers, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
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.
Claims 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27, and further in view of Yen (US 20030211015 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, while Gelatos teaches interlocks between valves of separate gas lines (for example, [0027], valve 274 is interlocked with other valves of system 100 to prevent inadvertent flow), Gelatos fails to explicitly teach an interlock circuit configured to selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the first substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the first substrate processing chamber.
However, Yen teaches an interlock circuit (Yen, Fig.1, [0021], cross interlock circuit 18) configured to selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the first substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the first substrate processing chamber (Yen, [0027], Fig. 1 and 2, cross interlock circuit 18 cooperates with a pair of valve systems to prevent inadvertent mixing of two reactive gasses).
Yen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock circuit and delay timers of Yen to control the valve interlocks of Gelatos as doing so would reduce the possibility that even small amounts of incompatible gases may be mixed together or simultaneously introduced into a processing chamber such that the chamber becomes contaminated (Yen, [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Gelatos fails to teach wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the third gas when a chamber interlock signal is asserted.
However, Yen teaches wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the third gas when a chamber interlock signal is asserted (Yen, [0024], control signal energizes relay 46 to flow gas 1, which deenergizes relay 48 of gas 2 to prevent flowing of gas 2).
Yen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock circuit and delay timers of Yen to control the valve interlocks of Gelatos as doing so would reduce the possibility that even small amounts of incompatible gases may be mixed together or simultaneously introduced into a processing chamber such that the chamber becomes contaminated (Yen, [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Gelatos fails to teach wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the second set of M gases to the second substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the second substrate processing chamber.
However, Yen teaches wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the second set of M gases to the second substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the second substrate processing chamber (Yen, [0024], control signal energizes relay 46 to flow gas 1, which deenergizes relay 48 of gas 2 to prevent flowing of gas 2).
Yen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock circuit and delay timers of Yen to control the valve interlocks of Gelatos as doing so would reduce the possibility that even small amounts of incompatible gases may be mixed together or simultaneously introduced into a processing chamber such that the chamber becomes contaminated (Yen, [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, while Gelatos teaches interlocks between valves of separate gas lines (for example, [0027], valve 274 is interlocked with other valves of system 100 to prevent inadvertent flow), Gelatos fails to explicitly teach an interlock circuit configured to: selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the first substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the first substrate processing chamber; and selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the second set of M gases to the second substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the second substrate processing chamber.
However, Yen teaches an interlock circuit configured to: selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the first substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the first substrate processing chamber; and selectively prevent delivery of the one or more gases in the second set of M gases to the second substrate processing chamber at the same time that the third gas is delivered to the second substrate processing chamber (Yen, [0027], Fig. 1 and 2, cross interlock circuit 18 cooperates with a pair of valve systems to prevent inadvertent mixing of two reactive gasses).
Yen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock circuit and delay timers of Yen to control the valve interlocks of Gelatos as doing so would reduce the possibility that even small amounts of incompatible gases may be mixed together or simultaneously introduced into a processing chamber such that the chamber becomes contaminated (Yen, [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Gelatos fails to teach wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the third gas when a chamber interlock signal is asserted.
However, Yen teaches wherein the interlock circuit is further configured to selectively prevent delivery of the third gas when a chamber interlock signal is asserted (Yen, [0024], control signal energizes relay 46 to flow gas 1, which deenergizes relay 48 of gas 2 to prevent flowing of gas 2).
Yen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock circuit and delay timers of Yen to control the valve interlocks of Gelatos as doing so would reduce the possibility that even small amounts of incompatible gases may be mixed together or simultaneously introduced into a processing chamber such that the chamber becomes contaminated (Yen, [0003]).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27, and further in view of Ferrara (US 20200350139 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Gelatos fails to teach wherein the third gas box includes an enclosure that is connected to an exhaust system.
However, Ferrara teaches wherein the third gas box includes an enclosure that is connected to an exhaust system (Ferrara, Fig. 4, [0052], enclosure 308 surrounds gas source 302).
Ferrara is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock system, sensors, enclosure, and exhaust system of Ferrara to the gas box of Gelatos as doing so would allow for prevention of leaking process gases building up in the enclosure and provide an external notification signal to indicate a gas release (Ferrara, Abstract, [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Gelatos fails to teach a pressure sensor to monitor pressure in the enclosure.
However, Ferrara teaches a pressure sensor to monitor pressure in the enclosure (Ferrara, Fig. 4, [0052], sensor 310 located in enclosure 308 monitors gas concentration).
Ferrara is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock system, sensors, enclosure, and exhaust system of Ferrara to the gas box of Gelatos as doing so would allow for prevention of leaking process gases building up in the enclosure and provide an external notification signal to indicate a gas release (Ferrara, Abstract, [0052]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to monitor pressure in the enclosure” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The sensor of Ferrara is located in the enclosure and capable of reading changes in concentration of a gas, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 19, Gelatos fails to teach a controller configured to assert a chamber interlock signal when the pressure is greater than a predetermined pressure.
However, Ferrara teaches a controller configured to assert a chamber interlock signal when the pressure is greater than a predetermined pressure (Ferrara, Fig. 4, [0052], control interlock system 316 can send a signal to controller 148 when sensor 310 detects a value above a predefined value).
Ferrara is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the interlock system, sensors, enclosure, and exhaust system of Ferrara to the gas box of Gelatos as doing so would allow for prevention of leaking process gases building up in the enclosure and provide an external notification signal to indicate a gas release (Ferrara, Abstract, [0052]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20170183775 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Gelatos fails to teach a controller configured to at least one of purge or pump down the first substrate processing chamber for a first predetermined period when switching from the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the third gas and when switching from the third gas to the one or more gases in the first set of N gases.
However, Yamamoto teaches a controller configured to at least one of purge or pump down the first substrate processing chamber for a first predetermined period when switching from the one or more gases in the first set of N gases to the third gas and when switching from the third gas to the one or more gases in the first set of N gases (Yamamoto, Fig. 7, [0137]-[0156], in film forming step S104, once first processing gas supply step S202 is completed, purge step S204 commences during which time purge gas is supplied to processing space 2021; upon completion of purge step S204, second processing gas supply step S206 commences; following completion of second processing gas supply step S206, purge step S208 commences; upon completion of purge step S208, first gas supply step S202 starts again when the cycle is to be repeated per determination step S210, where controller 281 is configured to transmit operation instructions of the respective components of the apparatus through the signal lines, [0043], such as executing the film forming step S104 based on determination step S210).
Yamamoto is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the controller and purging sequence of Yamamoto into the apparatus of Gelatos as doing so would provide for automatic and complete purging of both the exhaust piping and the processing space prior to the introduction of a different gas, thereby improving exhaust efficiency (Yamamoto, [0145]).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodruff (US 20020102156 A1), further in view of Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Woodruff teaches a substrate processing tool (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0039], processing apparatus 100) comprising:
a substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0039], transfer device 130 in cabinet 102);
2P substrate processing chambers, where P is an integer greater than one (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0039], plural processing stations 120), wherein the 2P substrate processing chambers are connected to the substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0039], plural processing stations 120 are connected to transfer device 130 in interior region 104);
the first substrate processing chamber (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, processing station 120a); and
the second substrate processing chamber (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, processing station 120c),
wherein the first substrate processing chamber and the second substrate processing chamber are connected to the substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0039], plural processing stations 120 are connected to transfer device 130 in interior region 104).
Woodruff fails to teach the gas delivery system of claim 1.
However, Gelatos teaches the gas delivery system of claim 1, comprising:
a first gas box configured to supply a first gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a first set of N gases to a first substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 134 provides gases to chamber processing region 112 which may be an individual chamber, [0015]), where N is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 134 provides gases from independent sources 210 and 220);
a second gas box configured to selectively supply a second gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a second set of M gases to a second substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases to chamber processing region 114 which may be an individual chamber, [0015]), where M is an integer greater than one (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0025], gas supply circuit 136 provides gases from independent sources 232 and 242); and
a third gas box comprising a plurality of valves, wherein the plurality of valves configured to supply a third gas to the first substrate processing chamber at a first concentration and supply the third gas to the second substrate processing chamber at a second concentration (Fig. 2, [0024], gas supply circuit 132 provides gases from sources 254, 264, 282, 288, and 298 to processing regions 112 and 114 via flow controllers 248, 258, 278, and 284, and valves 246, 256, 274, 276, 286, 292, 249), wherein the first concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the first set of N gases, wherein the second concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the second set of M gases, wherein the third gas, when provided within an incompatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, and wherein the third gas, when provided within a compatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is not hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], gas supply circuit 132 simultaneously provides a gas or gases from sources 254/264/282/288/298 to each gas box 126A and 126B at a given flow rate using MFCs 248, 258, 278, and 284, while at the same time gas supply circuit 134 provides a gas or gases from sources 210/220 via MFCs 204, and 214 at a given flow rate to gas box 126A, and also at the same time gas supply circuit 136 provides a gas or gases from sources 232/242 via MFCs 226, and 236 at a given flow rate to gas box 126B).
To clarify the record, the limitations “configured to supply a first gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a first set of N gases to a first substrate processing chamber“, “configured to selectively supply a second gas mixture including one or more gases selected from a second set of M gases to a second substrate processing chamber”, and “configured to supply a third gas to the first substrate processing chamber at a first concentration and to supply the third gas to the second substrate processing chamber at a second concentration, wherein the first concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the first set of N gases, wherein the second concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the second set of M gases, wherein the third gas, when provided within an incompatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, and wherein the third gas, when provided within a compatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of i) the first set of N gases and ii) the second set of M gases, is not hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas supply circuits of Gelatos, including the flow controllers and valves, are connected between processing regions/chambers and gas sources, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, Woodruff teaches wherein P=5 (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, ten processing stations 120a-d are present).
Regarding claim 23, Woodruff teaches wherein P of the 2P substrate processing chambers are arranged in a first row on one side of the substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0040], five processing stations 120 are arranged along first row R1, connected to the left of transfer device 130) and P of the 2P substrate processing chambers are arranged in a second row on an opposite side of the substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, [0040], five processing stations 120 are arranged along second row R2, connected to the right of transfer device 130, opposite row R1).
Regarding claim 24, Woodruff teaches wherein the first substrate processing chamber and the second substrate processing chamber are arranged at one end of the substrate transfer module (Woodruff, Fig. 3A, processing stations 120 are arranged on the sides of transfer device 130, perpendicular to the travel axis of linear track 132).
Regarding claim 25, Woodruff teaches wherein the 2P substrate processing chambers perform etching of substrates and wherein the first substrate processing chamber and the second substrate processing chamber perform stripping of the substrates (Woodruff, [0039], processing stations 120 can be configured for various uses such as cleaning and etching).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelatos (US 20030003696 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27, and further in view of Thilderkvist (US 20040050326 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-10, 14 and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 28, Gelatos teaches wherein: the plurality of valves comprise a first valve receiving the third gas (Fig. 2, [0027]-[0033], valve 286 receives gas from source 288),
a second valve and a third valve each receiving the first set of N gases (Fig. 2, [0044]-[0046], valves 202 and 212 receive gases from sources 210 and 220), and
the mass flow controller configured to control flow of the third gas from the first valve to the fourth valve (Fig. 2, [0027]-[0033], MFC 284 controls flow of gas after valve 286).
Gelatos fails to teach a fourth valve receiving outputs of the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve.
However, Thilderkvist teaches a fourth valve receiving outputs of the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve (Thilderkvist, Fig. 10, [0127]-[0129], valve 1078 receives gas outputs from valves 1013/1023/1033).
Thilderkvist is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the valve taught by Thilderkvist into the apparatus of Gelatos between the output of the valves and the processing chamber as doing so would allow one to meter the flow of the mixture of the gases into the processing chamber (Thilderkvist, [0127]).
Regarding claim 29, Gelatos teaches wherein: the first gas box comprises a first and a second valve each receiving a same gas valve (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], valves 231 and 233),
a third valve (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], valve 202),
a mass flow controller configured to control flow of the same gas from the second valve to the third valve (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], MFC 204 controls flow of gas from 231 to 202), and
the same gas is one of the gases in the first set of gases (Fig. 2, [0019]-[0054], gas sources 210 and 220).
Gelatos fails to teach a fourth valve receiving outputs of the first valve and the third valve, and outputting the same gas from the first gas box.
However, Thilderkvist teaches a fourth valve receiving outputs of the first valve and the third valve, and outputting the same gas from the first gas box (Thilderkvist, Fig. 10, [0127]-[0129], valve 1078 receives gas outputs from valves 1013/1023/1033).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the valve taught by Thilderkvist into the apparatus of Gelatos between the output of the valves and the processing chamber as doing so would allow one to meter the flow of the mixture of the gases into the processing chamber (Thilderkvist, [0127]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/21/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Gelatos, teach the claim limitations “"a third gas source storing a third gas; and a third gas box comprising a plurality of valves, wherein the plurality of valves supply the third gas to the first substrate processing chamber at a first concentration and to supply the third gas to the second substrate processing chamber at a second concentration, wherein the first concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the first set of N gases, wherein the second concentration refers to an amount of the third gas in proportion to the second set of M gases, wherein the third gas, when provided within an incompatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, is hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, and wherein the third gas, when provided within a compatible concentration range in proportion to at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases, is not hazardous in combination with the at least one of the first set of N gases and the second set of M gases” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive.
As reflected in the rejections sections above, Gelatos teaches plural gas supply circuits connected between two chambers, where gas supply circuit 132 simultaneously provides a gas or gases from sources 254/264/282/288/298 to each chamber 112/114 at a given flow rate using MFCs 248/258/278/284 and valves 246/256/274/276/286/290/249, while at the same time gas supply circuit 134 provides a gas or gases from sources 210/220 via MFCs 204/214 at a given flow rate to chamber 112, and also at the same time gas supply circuit 136 provides a gas or gases from sources 232/242 via MFCs 226/236 at a given flow rate to chamber 114. Gelatos also teaches that the individual gas supply sources can be configured to supply any number of process gases (Gelatos, [0026], [0044], [0049]). Therefore, Gelatos is structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. Amendments related to inclusion of a controller performing steps such that specific gases are flowed and the manner in which they are flowed would give further structure to the claims and would avoid being considered as intended use.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights