DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 2, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 12, and 20 are amended; claims 13 and 14 are canceled.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material recited by claim 1 – namely, the feature of output manifolds “laterally offset” from the fluid splitter and “aligned with the respective…processing regions.” Bamford, for instance, “explicitly discloses that the distribution outlets of the valve inlet blocks…are interfaced with the inlets of the processing stations 212, without any output manifold connection” (p. 6).
In response, the examiner observes that four distribution outlets (220) respectively extend from Bamford’s fluid splitter (204) toward each processing region (212) to supply gas thereto (Fig. 2A). The interface between the terminus of a given distribution outlet and the opening to a corresponding processing region may be designated as the “output manifold.” And because Bamford’s output manifolds are respectively disposed above each processing region, they are necessarily offset in the lateral direction from the fluid splitter, i.e., they are not stacked along same vertical axis as the fluid splitter. For these reasons, it appears that the cited art already satisfies the new material.
Restriction
Newly presented claims 12 and 20 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a semiconductor processing system, classified in H10P 72/0402;
II. Claims 12 and 15-20, drawn to a processing system comprising a fluid splitter, classified in C23C 16/45563;
Claim 1 is related to claim 12 as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claim 1 does not require a heater cartridge. The subcombination has separate utility in a system with output manifolds that are not aligned with their respective processing region.
Claim 1 is related to claim 20 as related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed distinct because they recite mutually exclusive content. For instance, claim 1 recites output manifolds aligned with its corresponding processing region, and claim 20 recites heater cartridges. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamford, US 2023/0377908.
Claim 1: Bamford discloses a semiconductor processing system, comprising:
A lid plate (208) (Fig. 2A);
A plurality of processing regions (212) disposed beneath the lid plate [0033];
At least one fluid splitter (204) seated on the lid plate, each fluid splitter having top and side surfaces and including:
A fluid inlet (228) and a plurality of fluid outlets (220), with each extending through at least one side surface;
An inlet lumen (312) that extends from the fluid inlet to a central hub (352) ([0041]; Fig. 3A);
A plurality of outlet lumens (356) that each extend from the central hub to one of the fluid outlets, wherein each of the outlet lumens has a same length ([0042-43]; Fig. 3A);
A plurality of outlet manifolds seated on the lid plate, each being fluidly coupled with a respective one of the processing regions [0033].
Note: the examiner is interpreting the interface between the terminus of a given distribution outlet (220) and the opening to a corresponding processing region (212) as constituting an “output manifold.” Necessarily, the region disposed above a given processing region is offset in the lateral direction relative to the fluid splitter (204).
Regarding the final limitation of claim 1, Bamford provides a plurality of valves (308), but their positioning vis-à-vis the fluid outlet and output manifold is not fully specified. Paragraph [0043], however, suggests that each lumen (356) extends “radially outward from the central hub 352 toward the ODVs 308,” whereby the initialism stands for outlet/divert valve. In view of this guidance, it would have been obvious to situate a valve immediately prior to the manifold of the downstream processing station to achieve the predictable result of regulating the flow rate to the processing space.
Claims 2, 4: Bamford provides a plurality of vertically stacked fluid splitters (204-1, 204-2), whereby each splitter couples to a dedicated fluid inlet (230-1, 230-2) (Fig. 2D).
Claim 3: The type of gas supplied is a matter of intended use, as the operator can simply supply a purge or precursor gas to the necessary inlet – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 9: Bamford provides a divert lumen (328) coupled with the central hub (352) [0041].
Claim 11: As shown by Figure 2A, the number of fluid outlets (220) matches a number of processing regions (212).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamford in view of Burkhart et al., US 2017/0204989.
Claims 5, 7-8: Although Bamford provides a plurality of valves for a given outlet, the reference does not explicitly assert that they are organized in series, as the claim requires. In supplementation, Figure 1 of Bamford renders a valve network (100) coupled directly to a fluid inlet (102) [0057-59]. The valve network comprises a manual valve (104), a regulator (110), a filter (112), a primary shut-off valve (114), a purge valve (116), and a precursor valve (120), among other components. It would have been obvious to organize Bamford’s valve array in accordance with Burkhart’s example since using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 6: The purge valve (116) is disposed upstream of the precursor valve (120) (Fig. 1).
Claim 10 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamford in view of Chakravarthy et al., US 2022/0189793.
Bamford is silent regarding the matter of an orifice having a smaller diameter. Chakravarthy, though, contemplates an analogous fluid splitter and proposes inserting a choke plate (640) between an outlet lumen (606) and a corresponding fluid outlet (Fig. 10B). Chakravarthy clarifies that the choke plate “serves as a passive flow control device that enables downstream components…to be modified or replaced without the need for any further flow rate tuning” [0066]. For at least this reason, it would have been obvious to insert a choke plate at the relevant interfaces within Bamford’s fluid splitter.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Demos et al., US 2023/0203706. Demos discloses a semiconductor processing system comprising a fluid splitter (13) which directs gas from a plurality of sources (10, 12, 14) to a series of reaction stations (4) (Fig. 1A). A series of valves (22-26) regulates the flow of gas to the processing stations [0031].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights