DETAILED ACTION
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, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamford, US 2023/0377908.
Claims 1, 12: 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].
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)).
Claims 9, 15: 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).
Claim 13: Bamford provides heaters within the body of the fluid splitter, which the examiner understands to be commensurate with the claimed term of “heater cartridge” [0023].
Claim 14: Bamford refers to heat deriving from the “core” of the fluid splitter to heat each of the lumens [0046]. The examiner takes Official Notice that a skilled artisan would readily predict that placing the heater centrally within Bamford’s symmetrical fluid splitter would yield a reasonably uniform temperature distribution and, accordingly, it would have been obvious to situate the aforesaid heater centrally to achieve the predictable result of consistent heating.
Claim 17: As shown by Figure 3A, each lumen (356) is linear.
Claim 18: As shown by Figure 2A, the body defines four fluid outlets and four outlet lumens.
Claim 19: As shown by Figures 2C and 2D, all fluid inlets and outlets extend from the sidewalls of the body.
Claim 20: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 11 address these limitations.
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).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected 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].
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