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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (CN01356298)
Regarding claims 1-2, Tsuda teaches that it is known to form a semiconductor processing tool comprising chamber capable of processing a wafer (Fig. 1)(11), a support in the chamber capable of securing a wafer at least by friction inside the chamber (13, 14), a gas inlet to allow the entrance of a first gas into the process chamber (41) and an exhaust system to remove process gas from the chamber further comprising at least an exhaust line (51) and a pump (55) to draw gas from the chamber and a heating module comprising a second line coupled to the first line capable of providing a second gas wherein said second line is coupled to the first (58 or 61) and the second gas may be the same (40) or different (60) than the first gas and a heating element to heat the second gas before it enter the first line (84 or 82). The teachings of Tsuda are as shown above. Tsuda further teaches the use of a switch valve (64) and flow valve (63) that control the flow of gas in the second line going to the first line. Tsuda fails to teach the use of a flow meter, pressure sensor or temperature sensor associated with the second line. However, Tsuda is generally concerned with the flow rate of gas in the line (61) and is set at a desired rate (see formula (1)). Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a flow rate is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some mean of measuring flow within the pipe. This is true in the provision of water to homes, in industrial oil and gas operations in operating rooms as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the flow rate provided matters for some outcome. These flow rates can affect the properties of products provided and affect safety situations wherein flow meters are both quality assurance tools and safety measures. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide flow meters that measure flow in conjunction with the already provided flow valve of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above.
Further Tsuda teaches the use of pressure adjusting valves (53) and that he is concerned with pressures within his provided piping system. Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a pressure is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some mean of measuring pressure within the pipe. This is true in the provision of water to homes, in industrial oil and gas operations in operating rooms as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the flow rate provided matters for some outcome. The pressure can affect flow rates of fluids provided which affect quality and affect safety situations wherein pressure sensors are both quality assurance tools and safety measures preventing rupturing of supply lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide flow meters that measure flow in conjunction with the already provided flow valve of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above. Further Tsuda teaches heating the second gas line with a heater (84) and it thus implicitly concerned with the temperature of the gas in the line. Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a temperature is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some means of measuring temperature of the pipe and the product within. This is true in the provision of in industrial oil and gas operations, in operating rooms, in home water heating as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the temperature matters for some outcome. These temperatures can affect the properties of products provided, possibly degrading products or affecting their ability to flow and affect safety situations wherein temperature affects pressure directly and can cause dangerous blowouts or overheated ejections of fluids or gases. Temperature sensors are both quality assurance tools and safety measures. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide temperatures sensors in conjunction with the already provided heaters of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above. Further "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A such the prior art teaches the use of structure that is capable of reading upon the currently claimed structure wherein the heating element is capable of being selectively energized in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the electric heaters of Tsuda implicitly require a power supply to energize them.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuda further teaches the use of an overall process controller than manages the operations of film forming using a keyboard input. As described above, the provided heater necessarily requires a power supply wherein the current claim requires essentially automating the use of the heater based upon sensing of the sensor described as obvious above. This reads upon essentially using the sensor as described above in an automated way rather than manually. However, the Court has long held that in general broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art wherein as described above the heat of the heater would be held within a range based upon the knowledge of that temperature provided by a sensor for quality and safety reasons. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Tsuda are as shown above. Tsuda fails to teach avoiding providing heat when a substantial amount of fluid is not present in the provided piping. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that this is a common safety feature frequently provided to heated gases and fluids in pipes primarily employed to prevent damage to machinery resulting from a local build- up of heat not dissipated by a flow of fluid away from the heat source. This measure is employed in home hot water heaters, pool heaters, hot tubs, refrigeration systems and other heated fluid systems regularly to prevent heat exchangers or heating elements from burning out due to overheating. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avoid providing power to a heater heating a fluid provision line when fluid was not present to prevent waste of energy and to avoid damaging sections of piping and machinery due to localize overheating.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Tsuda are as shown above. Tsuda fails to teach wherein a jacket of insulation is provided around a heating element section of a pipe. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is common industry practice to provide insulation around pipes in general in a variety of industries regardless of whether a heater is present or not. Pipe insulation conserves heat of heated substances within pipes and is employed in home water heating, refrigeration and oil and gas operations at large as well as in a host of other areas wherein fluids that are not room temperature are passed through pipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heating jacket (i.e., insulation) along any heated line of Tsuda in order to conserve heat provided in the invention of Tsuda.
Regarding claim 7, the gas of the processing tool is not considered to be part of the tool itself, which is the current invention. Therefore so long as the prior art device is at least capable of providing nitrogen gas it would read upon the currently claimed invention. Item (60) is at least capable of providing nitrogen gas but item (40) explicitly does provide nitrogen gas in the invention of Tsuda (see below item 40 for the list of gases provided).
Regarding claim 8, "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A such the prior art teaches the use of a heating module capable of heating as claimed and therefore meets the limitations of the apparatus claims provided herein.
Regarding claim 10, as stated above, the second line of Tsuda comprises a valve for starting and stopping the flow of the second gas in the second line. It is not stated as being automated. However, the Court has long held that in general broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art wherein operating the valve according to operations in general would be considered mere automation of the valve according to pre-determined conditions. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (CN01356298) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above and further in view of Mahawili et al. (USPGPub 2021/0343551).
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Tsuda are as shown above. Tsuda fails to teach wherein the heating element provided in the fluid line is a halogen lamp. However, Mahawili teaches that it is known to provide heat to gas and fluid lines of semiconductor processing lines via halogen lamps [0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pipe heaters of Tsuda with the halogen lamp heaters of Mahawili also shown to be suited for the purpose of heating gas and fluid supply lines in semiconductor manufacturing devices as a simple substitution of one known gas or fluid supply line heating means for another wherein he substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Mahawili.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. (CN01356298) in view of Felix et al. (USPGPub 2008/0085220), Mihira et al. (US5160542) and Ohmi et al. (US4917136).
Regarding claim 17, Tsuda teaches that it is known to form a semiconductor processing tool comprising chamber capable of processing a wafer (Fig. 1)(11), a support in the chamber capable of securing a wafer at least by friction inside the chamber (13, 14), a gas inlet to allow the entrance of a first gas into the process chamber (41) and an exhaust system to remove process gas from the chamber further comprising at least an exhaust line (51) and a pump (55) to draw gas from the chamber and a heating module comprising a second line coupled to the first line capable of providing a second gas wherein said second line is coupled to the first (58 or 61) and the second gas may be the same (40) or different (60) than the first gas and a heating element to heat the second gas before it enter the first line (84 or 82). Tsuda fails to teach the use of a flow meter, pressure sensor or temperature sensor associated with the second line. However, Tsuda is generally concerned with the flow rate of gas in the line (61) and is set at a desired rate (see formula (1)). Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a flow rate is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some mean of measuring flow within the pipe. This is true in the provision of water to homes, in industrial oil and gas operations in operating rooms as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the flow rate provided matters for some outcome. These flow rates can affect the properties of products provided and affect safety situations wherein flow meters are both quality assurance tools and safety measures. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide flow meters that measure flow in conjunction with the already provided flow valve of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above. Further Tsuda teaches the use of pressure adjusting valves (53) and that he is concerned with pressures within his provided piping system.
Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a pressure is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some mean of measuring pressure within the pipe. This is true in the provision of water to homes, in industrial oil and gas operations in operating rooms as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the flow rate provided matters for some outcome. These pressure can affect flow rates of fluids provided which affect quality and affect safety situations wherein pressure sensors are both quality assurance tools and safety measures preventing rupturing of supply lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide flow meters that measure flow in conjunction with the already provided flow valve of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above. Further Tsuda teaches heating the second gas line with a heater (84) and it thus implicitly concerned with the temperature of the gas in the line. Further, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that in piping system wherein a temperature is important within the pipe it is common industry practice to provide some means of measuring temperature of the pipe and the product within. This is true in the provision of in industrial oil and gas operations, in operating rooms, in home water heating as well as a myriad of industries wherein gas or liquid is provided in a pipe wherein the temperature matters for some outcome. These temperatures can affect the properties of products provided, possibly degrading products or affecting their ability to flow and affect safety situations wherein temperature affects pressure directly and can cause dangerous blowouts or overheated ejections of fluids or gases. Temperature sensors are both quality assurance tools and safety measures. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide temperatures sensors in conjunction with the already provided heaters of Tsuda for safety and quality assurance and described above. Further "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A such the prior art teaches the use of structure that is capable of reading upon the currently claimed structure wherein the heating element is capable of being selectively energized in the manner claimed. Tsuda fails to teach wherein the heating element provided is inside the gas supply pipe. However, Felix teaches that heating elements for gas lines may be provided inside of the gas line themselves [0025] using internal heating elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the external pipe heaters of Tsuda with the internal heaters of Felix also shown to be suited for the purpose of heating gas supply lines as a simple substitution of one known gas supply line heating means for another wherein he substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Felix. The teachings of Tsuda in view of Felix are as shown above. Tsuda in view of Felix fails to teach wherein the internal heater is necessarily helically shaped. However, the heaters of Tsuda in view of Felix must have some shape wherein the only difference between the prior art’s heaters and that of the current invention may be the shape, if there is any difference. However, the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from the shape of a prior art product, changes in shape of a prior art product are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based upon a prior art shaped product. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The teachings of Tsuda in view of Felix are as shown above. Tsuda in view of Felix fails to teach wherein a jacket of insulation is provided around a heating element section of a pipe. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is common industry practice to provide insulation around pipes in general in a variety of industries regardless of whether a heater is present or not. Pipe insulation conserves heat of heated substances within pipes and is employed in home water heating, refrigeration and oil and gas operations at large as well as in a host of other areas wherein fluids that are not room temperature are passed through pipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heating jacket (i.e., insulation) along any heated line of Tsuda in view of Felix in order to conserve heat provided in the invention of Tsuda in view of Felix. The teachings of Tsuda in view of Felix are as shown above.
As previously stated, Tsuda teaches provided valves to start and stop the flow of gases from the two sources of his invention wherein both valves are present in lines that may read upon a second line (59 and 64). Tsuda fails to teach that these valves are pneumatic valves. However, Mihira teaches that gas supply valves provided to start and stop the flow of gas in semiconductor processing operations are commonly pneumatic valves (see description of Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute generalized gas supply valves of Tsuda in view of Felix which may well be pneumatic valves with the pneumatic valves of Mihira also shown to be suited for the purpose of closing and opening the supply of process gases in semiconductor manufacturing devices as a simple substitution of one known gas or fluid supply line shutoff valves means for another wherein he substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Mihira. The teachings of Tsuda in view of Felix and Mihira are as shown above. Tsuda in view of Felix and Mihira fails to teach the use of a needle valve as the specific type of flow regulator valve employed although as described above Tsuda does teach the use of a flow rate valve (63). However, Ohmi teaches that flow rate regulation valves used for the regulation of process gases in semiconductor manufacturing processes are known to be provided as needle valves (see Embodiment 1 section). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute generalized gas flow valves of Tsuda in view of Felix and Mihira which may well needle valves with the needle valves of Ohmi also shown to be suited for the purpose of regulating the flow of process gases in semiconductor manufacturing devices as a simple substitution of one known gas or fluid supply line flow rate regulation means for another wherein he substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Ohmi.
Regarding claim 18, the electric heaters of Tsuda implicitly require a power supply to energize them.
Regarding claim 19, Tsuda further teaches the use of an overall process controller than manages the operations of film forming using a keyboard input. As generally stated above the applicant is essentially claiming the automatic operation of processing machinery that is already discussed in the rejection above wherein Court has long held that in general broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art wherein operating the valve according to operations in general would be considered mere automation of the general machinery according to pre-determined conditions. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 20, "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A such the prior art teaches the use of structure that is capable of reading upon the currently claimed structure and capable of functioning as claimed if provided with nitrogen gas.
Response to Arguments
The applicants’ arguments are largely drawn to newly provided claim limitations that were not previously presented in the current application that are now addressed herein. Further as noted above, the claim modifications require the ability to selectively operate the heating element based on a pressure reading from the second line. However, the apparatus of the prior art is structurally identical to that claimed and therefore meets the limitations of the current claims even if it is not mentioned that the prior art inventions intended to operate in the manner described.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 were allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: it is not known in the prior art to provide a semiconductor processing tool comprising a process chamber into which a semiconductor wafer is loaded for conducting a semiconductor fabrication process with the tool; a vacuum chuck contained in the process chamber, the vacuum chuck selectively securing thereto the semiconductor wafer loaded into the process chamber for processing by the tool; a gas inlet system which selectively introduces a first gas into the process chamber in connection with processing the semiconductor wafer in the process chamber; an exhaust system that selectively exhausts gas from the process chamber, the exhaust system including :a first line coupled to the process chamber and the vacuum chuck through which gas is exhausted from the process chamber, the vacuum chuck coupled to the first line using a vacuum line extending within the first line and extending substantially parallel to an interior wall of the first line; and a pump coupled to the first line to selectively draw gas through the first line from the process chamber; a second line coupled to the first line and a supply of a second gas, wherein the second gas is an inert gas and the second gas is selectively flowed through the second line from the supply into the first line; a pressure sensor that measures a pressure within the second line and a heating element contained in the second line, the heating element being selectively energized to heat the second gas flowing in the second line before the second gas is flowed from the second line into the first line, and the heating element being selectively deenergized to limit the heating of the second gas flowing in the second line based on the measured pressure within the second line as in claim 21.
The most pertinent prior art (cited above as Tsuda et al.) teaches that it is known to provide a semiconductor processing apparatus having some similar gas inlet an exhaust piping arrangement compared to the current claims. However, the prior art fails to teach the use of a vacuum chuck to hold wafers in place and more specifically the use of a vacuum line extending within the first line and parallel to the interior wall of the first line that is coupled to the vacuum chuck that attaches to the process chamber.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights