Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark; Daniel O. et al. (US 20090017206 A1) and Kambara; Shinji et al. (US 20210238034 A1) in view of Grant; Robert Bruce (US 20100071549 A1). Clark teaches a gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) recycling system (204-232; Figure 2,5) for connection to a processing chamber (202; Figure 2,5), comprising: a pump (208; Figure 2,5) configured to fluidly connect to one or more outlet passages (204; Figure 2,5) of the processing chamber (202; Figure 2,5) to exhaust a gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) from the processing chamber (202; Figure 2,5);one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) in fluid communication with the pump (208; Figure 2,5) such that the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) flows from the pump (208; Figure 2,5) to the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1), the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) configured to remove one or more impurities from the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) to generate a filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) that has a purity (“high purity”; [0055],[0061],[0063]), wherein the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) comprise: a first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1); and a second filtration device (222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 184; Figure 1) in fluid communication with the first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1) such that the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) flows from the first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1) directly to the second filtration device (222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 184; Figure 1) to form a filtered gas; a buffer tank (228; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 186; Figure 1) in fluid communication between the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1); a compressor (224; Figure 2,5) in fluid communication between the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) and the buffer tank (228; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 186; Figure 1), wherein the compressor (224; Figure 2,5) is configured to pressurize the filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..); and a gas supply system (230; Figure 2; 510; Figure 5; hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) in fluid communication with the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) such that the filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) flows from the one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) to the gas supply system (230; Figure 2; 510; Figure 5; hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..), the gas supply system (230; Figure 2; 510; Figure 5; hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) configured to fluidly connect to one or more inlet passages (232; Figure 2,5) of the processing chamber (202; Figure 2,5) – claim 1
Clark further teaches:
Clark further teaches a scrubber (112; Figure 4) in a separate embodiment – claim 1
The gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) recycling system (204-232; Figure 2,5) of claim 1, further comprising: a third filtration device (212’; Figure 2,5) in fluid communication between the pump (208; Figure 2,5) and a bypass line (210; Figure 2,5) that bypasses the one or more filtration devices (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1); a controller (158; Figure 1A; [0050]-common to Figure 2) comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted, the plurality of operations – claim 3
the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) recycling system (204-232; Figure 2,5) of claim 1, wherein the gas supply system (230; Figure 2; 510; Figure 5; hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) comprises: a purge supply system (510; Figure 5) in fluid communication with one or more purge gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) sources (230; Figure 2; 510; Figure 5);a process supply system (230; Figure 5) in fluid communication with one or more reactive gas sources (230; Figure 5-hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) and one or more carrier gas sources (510; Figure 5; hydrogen; [0022], [0038], etc..) – claim 5
The gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) recycling system (204-232; Figure 2,5) of claim 5, wherein the filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) flows into one or more of the purge supply system (510; Figure 5), the process supply system (230; Figure 5), or the cleaning supply system, as claimed by claim 6
Kambara also teaches a hydrogen recycle system (All Figures) including high purity hydrogen recovery of 99.99999% ([0037]) using an optimized process controller (15; Figure 1).
Clark and Kambara do not teach:
Clark’s one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) configured to remove one or more impurities from the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) to generate a filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) that has a purity (“high purity”; [0055],[0061],[0063]) content of 99.9% or higher, wherein the first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1) is a scrubber and the second filtration device (222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 184; Figure 1) is an electrochemical filter – claim 1
Clark’s controller (158; Figure 1A; [0050]-common to Figure 2) comprising a plurality of operations comprising: identifying a first portion and a second portion of the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..), directing the first portion of the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) to Clark’s first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1), and directing the second portion of the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) to Clark’s third filtration device (212’; Figure 2,5) – claim 3
a cleaning supply system in fluid communication with one or more cleaning gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) sources – claim 5
Grant also teaches a hydrogen recycling system (title; Figure 1,2) including an electrochemical solid-state purifier (46; Figure 1) for dopant gas recovery ([0033]). Grant also teaches a cleaning gas source (60; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Clark to optimize Clark’s controller (158; Figure 1A; [0050]-common to Figure 2) for increased hydrogen and/or process gas recovery as taught by Clark and Kambara.
Motivation for Clark to optimize Clark’s controller (158; Figure 1A; [0050]-common to Figure 2) for increased hydrogen and/or process gas recovery as taught by Clark and Kambara is for reducing process economic overhead by reducing raw material purchases as taught by Kambara ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Clark to add Grant’s electrochemical solid-state purifier (46; Figure 1), additional scrubber, and cleaning gas source (60; Figure 2).
Motivation for Clark to add Grant’s electrochemical solid-state purifier (46; Figure 1) and additional scrubber is for dopant gas recovery as taught by Grant ([0033]).
Motivation for Clark to add Grant’s cleaning gas source (60; Figure 2) is for “removing deposits from the internal surfaces of the process chamber” as taught by Clark ([0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Clark does not disclose "a second filtration device in fluid communication with the first filtration device such that the gas flows from the first filtration device directly to the second filtration device," as recited in claim 1. Instead, Clark teaches that gas flows from "oil filters 212, 212"' to "separation systems 214, 214'," which include "isolation valves 216, 218; dopant separator 220; and silicon separator 222," and then to "blower 224" before reaching "oil filter 228" (paras. [0045]-[0047]). Therefore, Clarkfails to disclose that gas flows "directly" from the first filtration device to the second filtration device.
“
Consistent with the Examiner’s March 30, 2026 interview summary, the Examiner reconsidered Clark and finds that Clark indeed teaches Clark’s first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1). Clark further teaching Clark’s second filtration device (222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 184; Figure 1) in fluid communication with Clark’s first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1) such that the gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..) flows from Clark’s first filtration device (220; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182; Figure 1) directly to Clark’s second filtration device (222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 184; Figure 1) to form a filtered gas.
Applicant states:
“
Clark also does not disclose "the first filtration device is a scrubber," as recited in claim 1. Clark expressly teaches that "in the deposition mode the unused reagents may not be passed through a wet scrubber, a cold trap, and a dryer, as they are in system 100 of FIG. 1" (para. [0051]). Clark further teaches that "[i]nstead, the unused reagents (and any dopants) may be passed from blower package 208 through conduits 210, 210', through oil filters 212, 212' and into separation systems 214, 214"' (para. [0052]). Thus, Figure 2 of Clark does not disclose that "the gas flows from the first filtration device directly to the second filtration device to form a filtered gas, wherein the first filtration device is a scrubber.
“
The Examiner agrees to the extent that Clark’s scrubber (112; Figure 4), in a separate embodiment, is not disclosed as claimed. However, the Examiner specifically asserts that it would … for Clark to add Grant’s electrochemical solid-state purifier (46; Figure 1), additional scrubber, and cleaning gas source (60; Figure 2). Motivation for Clark to add Grant’s electrochemical solid-state purifier (46; Figure 1) and additional scrubber is for dopant gas recovery as taught by Grant ([0033]). Motivation for Clark to add Grant’s cleaning gas source (60; Figure 2) is for “removing deposits from the internal surfaces of the process chamber” as taught by Clark ([0037]).
Applicant states:
“
Clark further fails to disclose "a buffer tank in fluid communication with the one or more filtration devices; a compressor in fluid communication between the one or more filtration devices and the buffer tank, wherein the compressor is configured to pressurize the filtered gas." Clark teaches that "dopant separator 220 may be an absorption separation matrix or an adsorption separation matrix" and that "silicon separator 222 may be an absorption separation matrix or an adsorption separation matrix, or, alternatively, silicon separator 222 may be a silicon filter" (para. [0046]). Clark does not describe 220 or 222 as a buffer tank.
“
In response, the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation notes that the claimed “buffer tank” does not imply any additional structural or functional limitations that are not claimed. Thus, any gas containing volume described by Clark, including Clark’s buffer tank (228; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 186; Figure 1), provides equivalent functionality as a “buffer tank”. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant states:
“
Clark also teaches that "Blower 224 may be connected through conduit 226 and oil filter 228 to gas box 230" (para. [0047]) and that "the unused reagent gas which flows from the separation systems 214, 214' into blower 224 may include high purity hydrogen gas" (para. [0055]). Clark does not describe blower 224 as a compressor, and does not disclose blower 224 being arranged "between the one or more filtration devices and the buffer tank," as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Clark fails to teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.
“
In response, the amended claims necessitated the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection whereby Clark teaches a buffer tank (228; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 186; Figure 1) in fluid communication between Clark’s one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1); Clark’s compressor (224; Figure 2,5) in fluid communication between Clark’s one or more filtration devices (212,212’,220,222; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 182,184; Figure 1) and Clark’s buffer tank (228; Figure 2,5-Applicant’s 186; Figure 1), wherein Clark’s compressor (224; Figure 2,5) is configured to pressurize Clark’s filtered gas (hydrogen, silane; [0022], [0038], etc..).
Applicant states:
“
Kambara fails to cure the deficiencies of Clark. Kambara teaches that "The hydrogen recycle means 10 includes a plasma reaction vessel 31, a hydrogen separation membrane 34, and an electrode 35" (para. [0032]). Kambara further teaches that "[t]he discharge space 32 is filled with the adsorbent 36" (para. [0053]). Kambara does not disclose "a second filtration device in fluid communication with the first filtration device such that the gas flows from the first filtration device directly to the second filtration device to form a filtered gas, wherein the first filtration device is a scrubber and the second filtration device is an electrochemical filter; a buffer tank in fluid communication with the one or more filtration devices; a compressor in fluid communication between the one or more filtration devices and the buffer tank, wherein the compressor is configured to pressurize the filtered gas." Therefore, Clark and Kambara, alone or in combination, fail to teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.
“
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).
Applicant states:
“
Grant fails to cure the deficiencies of Clark and Kambara. Grant teaches that "a first gas treatment device 46 may be provided for removing any unconsumed dopant" and that the device "may comprise a solid-state purifier comprising an alkali metal ion conducting membrane" (para. [0033]). Grant further teaches that "the purifier can behave as an electrochemical concentration cell" (para. [0033]). Grant does not disclose "a second filtration device in fluid communication with the first filtration device such that the gas flows from the first filtration device directly to the second filtration device to form a filtered gas, wherein the first filtration device is a scrubber and the second filtration device is an electrochemical filter; a buffer tank in fluid communication with the one or more filtration devices; a compressor in fluid communication between the one or more filtration devices and the buffer tank, wherein the compressor is configured to pressurize the filtered gas." Therefore, Clark, Kambara, and Grant, alone or in combination, fail to teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claim 1 and claims dependent thereon. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
“
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Recycling systems for semiconductor processing systems include US 20110206842 A1; US 20150139879 A1; US 20130139690 A1; US 20120058022 A1
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights