DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-22 are pending
Claims 7-22 are withdrawn
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-11, 14, and 19 have been amended
Continued Examination
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. (US 11145505) in view of Kumada et al. (US 5405445) and Um et al. (US 20190145002), with Scholz (US 20200123653), Ni et al. (US 20200321193), Lei et al. (US 20060196603), and Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yahata teaches a semiconductor processing system (substrate processing apparatus 100) comprising: a plasma source vessel (gas supply source 244b) configured to contain a plasma source gas (gas supply source 244b supplies gas to RPU 244e), an inert gas source (gas supply source 245b; the inert gas is mainly supplied from the gas supply source 245b) configured to provide inert gas, a plasma generator (RPU 244e) in fluid communication with the plasma source vessel, a reactor (process container 202), and a gas line (common gas supply pipe 242) to convey an excited species, wherein the reactor is in fluid communication with the plasma generator through the gas line (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the common gas supply pipe 242 is in fluid communication with RPU 244e and process container 202) [Fig. 1 & Col. 5 lines 1-20].
Yahata does not specifically disclose and wherein the gas line is a double-walled pipe comprising an outer pipe and a perforated inner pipe having a plurality of openings, wherein an inner surface of the outer pipe and an outer surface of the inner pipe define an outer volume therebetween, wherein an inner surface of the inner pipe defines an inner volume within the inner pipe.
Kumada teaches and wherein the gas line is a double-walled pipe (the pipe member 74 comprises a perforated tube member 78 within it) comprising an outer pipe (pipe member 74), and a perforated inner pipe (perforated tube member 78) having a plurality of openings, wherein an inner surface of the outer pipe and an outer surface of the inner pipe define an outer volume therebetween (as evidenced by Fig. 2, pipe member 74 and perforated tube member 78 define a volume between them), wherein an inner surface of the inner pipe defines an inner volume within the inner pipe (as evidenced by Fig. 2, perforated tube member 78 defines an internal volume within it) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 25-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas line of Yahata to be a double-walled pipe with a perforated inner pipe, as in Kumada, to improve gas mixing [Kumada - Col. 2 lines 50-54, Col. 5 lines 25-30].
Modified Yahata does not specifically disclose wherein an angle of each of the plurality of openings is slanted in a direction toward the reactor.
Although Um does not specifically disclose "wherein an angle of each of the plurality of openings is slanted in a direction toward the reactor," Um does disclose that gas outlet angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the angle of a gas outlet can be changed to adjust gas flow behavior (such as changing the horizontal component of the momentum of gas flow in a desired direction) [Um - 0056]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum angles for gas openings to obtain a desired gas flow profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Scholz (US 20200123653), Ni et al. (US 20200321193), and Lei et al. (US 20060196603) also disclose that changing gas outlet angle changes gas flow profiles [Scholz -0040; Ni - 0088-0090; Lei - 0032].
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the plurality of openings is configured to allow gas to flow from the outer volume through the openings into the inner volume,” is merely an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that the perforated tube member 78 of Kumada is perforated and as such is still capable of receiving flow from the outer volume; despite the apparatus of Kumada being directed to discharge gas from the perforated tube member 78, the apparatus would still be capable of performing the aforementioned intended use [Kumada – Col. 5 lines 1-8]. It’s also noted that the applicant’s apparatus controls inward gas flow by changing the slant angle of the openings [IA - 0034]. Um discloses adjusting opening angles, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve a desired angle such that gas flow is capable of flowing into the inner volume [Um - 0056]. Therefore, the combination of references would disclose an apparatus that is capable of allowing gas flow into the inner volume.
It’s further noted that Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) discloses pressure differential as a result effective variable. Specifically, pressure differentials affect flow rate [Lerner - 0030]. As such, optimizing pressure differentials would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust pressures between the inner and outer volumes such that gas flows into the inner volume.
Regarding Claim 3:
Yahata does not specifically disclose wherein the double walled pipe comprises a first gas inlet in fluid communication with the outer volume and a second gas inlet in fluid communication with the inner volume, wherein the first gas inlet is configured to receive a first gas comprising the inert gas and the second gas inlet is configured to receive a second gas comprising the excited species.
Kumada teaches wherein the double walled pipe comprises a first gas inlet in fluid communication with the outer volume and a second gas inlet in fluid communication with the inner volume (as evidenced by Fig. 2, pipe member 74 and perforated tube member 78 both comprise inlets fluidly connected to respective inner and outer volumes) [Fig. 2 & Col. 4 lines 25-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas line of Yahata to be a double-walled pipe with a perforated inner pipe, as in Kumada, to improve gas mixing [Kumada - Col. 2 lines 50-54, Col. 5 lines 25-30]. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein the first gas inlet is connected to the inert gas source and configured to receive a first gas comprising the inert gas and the second gas inlet is connected to the plasma generator and configured to receive a second gas comprising the excited species," because if the gas line of Yahata were to be double walled in a manner similar to the pipe member 74 and perforated tube member 78 of Kumada, it would be obvious to fluidly connect either gas inlet to the RPU 244e or gas supply source 245b of Yahata (or to any of the other gas sources present in Yahata).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. (US 11145505) in view of Kumada et al. (US 5405445) and Um et al. (US 20190145002), with Scholz (US 20200123653), Ni et al. (US 20200321193), Lei et al. (US 20060196603), and Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hanazaki et al. (US 6287980), with Pokharna et al. (US 20030017087) and Frank et al. (US 20040131902) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1 and 3 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Yahata does not specifically disclose a first pressure transducer configured to monitor a pressure within the outer volume, a second pressure transducer configured to monitor a pressure within the inner volume, and regulators to adjust a pressure difference between the pressure within the outer volume and the pressure within the inner volume.
Although Hanazaki does not specifically disclose "a first pressure transducer configured to monitor a pressure within the outer volume, a second pressure transducer configured to monitor a pressure within the inner volume, and regulators to adjust a pressure difference between the pressure within the outer volume and the pressure within the inner volume," it would be obvious to modify each volume of the gas line of Modified Yahata to each comprise of pressure sensors and regulators since Hanazaki discloses that pressure sensors and regulators for respective gases would be useful for gas pressure regulation [Hanazaki - Col. 14 lines 44-53]. Pokharna et al. (US 20030017087) also discloses that pressure gauges may be useful for safety purposes [Pokharna - 0048].
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Yahata teaches a control system (controller 280) [Yahata - Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 8 lines 42-51].
Modified Yahata does not specifically disclose a control system configured to control operation of the regulators based at least in part on feedback of measured pressures in the outer volume and the inner volume.
Although Hanazaki does not specifically disclose "a control system configured to control operation of the regulators based at least in part on feedback of measured pressures in the outer volume and the inner volume," it would be obvious to modify each volume of the gas line of Modified Yahata to be pressure regulated since Hanazaki discloses that pressure regulation based of pressure readings may be useful for pressure regulation [Hanazaki - Col. 14 lines 44-53]. Pokharna et al. (US 20030017087) also discloses that pressure gauges may be useful for safety purposes [Pokharna - 0048]. Frank et al. (US 20040131902) also discloses that adjusting based on pressure differences can help prevent damage to components [Frank - 0083].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. (US 11145505) in view of Kumada et al. (US 5405445) and Um et al. (US 20190145002), and Hanazaki et al. (US 6287980), with Scholz (US 20200123653), Ni et al. (US 20200321193), Lei et al. (US 20060196603), and Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of Shrader (US 3201950), with Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 4-5 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Yahata does not specifically disclose wherein the control system is configured to maintain a pressure of the first gas in the outer volume at a higher value than a pressure of the second gas in the inner volume.
Shrader teaches wherein the control system is configured to maintain a pressure of the first gas in the outer volume at a higher value than a pressure of the second gas in the inner volume (in the embodiment of Fig. 3, the refrigerant flows into the inner tube 30' through orifice 32', therefore a higher pressure can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 3 - Col. 4 lines 67-75].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas line of Modified Yahata to be a double-walled pipe with a higher outer pressure and lower inner pressure, as in Shrader, to improve mixing and heat exchange [Shrader - Col. 4 lines 59-75].
It’s also noted that Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) discloses pressure differential as a result effective variable. Specifically, pressure differentials affect flow rate [Lerner - 0030]. As such, optimizing pressure differentials would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the plurality of openings is configured to allow gas to flow from the outer volume through the openings into the inner volume.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, as aforementioned limitation is merely an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that the perforated tube member 78 of Kumada et al. (US 5405445) is perforated and as such is still capable of receiving flow from the outer volume; despite the apparatus of Kumada being directed to discharge gas from the perforated tube member 78, the apparatus would still be capable of performing the aforementioned intended use [Kumada – Col. 5 lines 1-8].
Furthermore, the applicant’s apparatus controls inward gas flow by changing the slant angle of the openings [IA - 0034]. The examiner has utilized Um et al. (US 20190145002) to disclose adjusting opening angles, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve a desired angle such that gas flow is capable of flowing into the inner volume [Um - 0056]. Therefore, the combination of references would disclose an apparatus that is capable of allowing gas flow into the inner volume.
It’s further noted that Lerner et al. (US 20210069745) discloses pressure differential as a result effective variable. Specifically, pressure differentials affect flow rate [Lerner - 0030]. As such, optimizing pressure differentials would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust pressures between the inner and outer volumes such that gas flows into the inner volume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights