DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on May 13, 2026, claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 1 – 11, 18 – 19 have been amended. Claims 12 – 17 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Analysis
Repeating from the previous Office Action, the present claims recite “supplying a mixed gas … the mixed gas comprising a plurality of process gases; … measuring … for each one of the plurality of process gases…” A question then arises of: what constitutes a process gas?
A gas is defined in one sense as “a fluid (such as air) that has neither independent shape nor volume but tends to expand indefinitely”1. A “gas” then is allowed to be a mixture a mixture of chemical species which are also individual gases/ gas phase under its plain meaning. Additionally, the prior art allows for process gas to refer to a gas with individual chemical species or to refer to a gas that is a mixture of individual precursors in a carrier gas such as N2. See Zhao et al. US 6189482 B1 (hereinafter “Zhao”) at Fig. 1A and col 9; and Shah et al. US 2023003704 A1 (hereinafter “Shah”) at paragraph [0004], for example. Accordingly, the scope of a process gas includes gases that are mixtures of individual chemical species which comprise, not consists of, a combustible species.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets a process gas as being either an individually-supplied, individual-species gas (e.g. pure H2, N2, NH3); or individually-supplied mixture of gases (e.g. precursor in a carrier gas, air, combined reactant stream such as H2/N2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112(a) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are newly rejected, as necessitated by amendment, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier et al. US 2018/0073137 A1 (hereinafter “Xavier”) in view of Zhao, Sawaki et al. US 2002/0004603 A1 (hereinafter “Sawaki”), Vrtis et al. US 2006/0196525 A1 (hereinafter “Vrtis”), and Karna et al. US 4069018 A (hereinafter “Karna”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xavier is directed to method for reducing effluent buildup in a pumping exhaust system of a substrate processing system used for deposition processes such as chemical vapor deposition and atomic layer deposition (Abstract; [0004], [0022]). In the embodiment depicted in Figure 1 (reproduced below), Xavier discloses a substrate processing system comprising:
a gas delivery system 20 having gas sources 22-n connected to valves 24-n and MFCs 26-n configured to control one or more [process] gases ([0031]);
a manifold 30 for supplying mixtures of the gas from the gas sources to a processing chamber ([0031]);
a purge gas supply 13 for injecting inert purge gas [dilution gas] to the processing chamber ([0029], [0039])
a controller used for monitoring process parameters using sensors and controlling the components of the gas delivery system ([0028], [0033]).
Xavier discloses general deposition and cleaning process comprising the steps of:
supplying deposition process gases or cleaning gases from the gas sources of the gas delivery system, including precursor gas, oxidizer gas, and both purge and carrier gases such as nitrogen [inert dilution gases] ([0009], [0024], [0031], [0034], [0036], [0039], [0042]);
measuring [first] flow rates using the MFCs or other sensors ([0032], [0037]); and
controlling the delivery of process gases and flow rate settings with the controller ([0049]).
As evident in the disclosure, the Xavier does not disclose sensors or MFCs in the manifold [no gas sensor to sense a supply flow rate of the mixed gas supplied to the process chamber]. Xavier also discloses that certain precursor process gases are likely to react ([0024]) as well as providing inert dilution gas to prevent combustion in exhaust lines based on the precursor used [combustible process gas] and the oxidizer used ([0012], [0023], [0027]).
Furthermore while Xavier does not expressly teach measurements, processing and determinations in real-time, Xavier discloses that the controller controls process timing and monitors process parameters to direct actions such as the evacuation of reactants from the processing chamber between phases of substrate processing ([0032], [0039], [0046], [0049] – [0051]); one of ordinary skill in the art would then have reasonably inferred that Xavier teaches both determinations in real time as well as process adjustments in real time2.
Xavier does not expressly teach:
the step of determining, based on the first flow rates, a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas and the first volume percentage;
that the determination of a supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas, i.e. first dilution gas, is based on the lower explosion limit; and
that the supplying of the independent line of carrier gas at the determined supply flow rate.
With regards to measuring first flow rates, determination based on first flow rates for each one of a plurality of process gases, and determining supply flow rates of dilution gases for mixed gases supplied to a process chamber:
In analogous art, Zhao is directed to systems, methods and apparatus for depositing titanium films (Abstract). Zhao discloses a similar apparatus to that of Xavier comprising a gas delivery system comprising gas lines and a processor that controls inter alia flow rates and timing of gases through a gas control subroutine (col 8 lines 20 – 60, col 15 lines 15 – 45, col 16 lines 55 – 67). The processor controls mass flow controllers to obtain desired flow rates for process gases. The controller repeatedly reads [in real time] necessary mass flow controllers [relating to measuring of first flow rates], monitors the values of the mass flow controllers to determine gas compositions [necessarily determining a volume percentage in real time for each component of the total gas composition, i.e. the ratio of a given gas flow rate to the sum of provided gases(mixed gas)], detects [determines in real time] unsafe conditions from the monitoring of the gas flow rates, and adjusts the gas flow rates or activates shut-off valves based on the detection [real-time determining based on first flow rates and volume percentages] (col 16 line 55 – col 17 line 14). Zhao also expresses a desire to maintain process safety (col 17 line 63 – col 18 line 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier by measuring first flow rates, determining in real time volume percentages based on first flow rates for each one of a plurality of process gases, and determining in real time flow rates of dilution gases based on the first volume percentage, and supplying the dilution gas to the mixed gas; because Xavier suggests a desire to prevent combustion conditions in a mixed gas having a combustible precursor and an oxidizers, and Zhao teaches that incorporation of such steps is to avoid or prevent unsafe gas flow.
With regards to determining a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas, also basing the determination of a supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas on the lower explosion limit, and supplying dilution gas at the determined supply flow rate:
In analogous art, Vrtis is directed to a method of removing residues from surfaces of a processing chamber (Abstract; [0001]). Vritis discloses supplying a cleaning composition comprising an oxidizing gas, an organic species and optionally a diluent gas ([0011], [0031]). Vrtis further discloses that the purpose of the diluent gas is to increase or reduce the composition as a whole either below a lower explosive limit or above an upper explosive limit or to otherwise avoid explosive or flammable limits ([0031]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Vrtis implies a desire to maintain safe processes.
Similarly in analogous art Sawaki, directed to the production of maleic anhydride in a processing container/reactor, discloses that securing explosion safely of a mixture of an oxygen-containing gas and a flammable gas is known to be accomplished by methods such as keeping a concentration of flammable gas lower than the lower explosive limit, keeping the concentration of a flammable gas at higher than an upper explosive limit [relevant and meeting claim 4] ([0053] – [0054]). The lower explosive limit of a gas mixture – which in context of Sawaki would be an oxygen-containing and a flammable gas – can be predicted [determined] by application of Le Chatelier’s law ([0054]). Finally, Sawaki discloses that the concentrations of gases can be monitored and then compared to the lower explosive limit of the monitored composition to secure the safety of an exhaust gas generated from the reactor ([0054]).
Finally also in analogous art, Karna – directed to the monitoring of a recirculated atmosphere of an oxygen pulping reactor or any other atmosphere (Abstract; col 14 lines 30 – 40) – discloses that those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the well-defined limits by which a deflagrative explosion can occur (col 1 lines 35 – 61); that the lower explosive limits for specific compounds can be determined to have reported values (col 5 lines 10 – 35); and that the lower explosive limit of a mixture of gases can be calculated [determined] using LeChatelier’s law (col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 20). The monitored condition can be used for automatic control purposes such as automatic venting or reactor shut down (col 4 lines 20 – 30).
Therefore, in view of the prior art as a whole it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier in view of Zhao to determine a lower explosion limit for the mixture of gases from their first flow rates, and set the supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas based, at least in part, by the lower explosion limit in combination and the concentration of combustible gas within the mixed gas [combustible process gas] in order to enhance the safety of their process and prevent deflagrative explosions as reflected and taught by Karna, Sawaki and Vrtis; such safety enhancements would be appreciated when considering the desire for safety expressed in Xavier and Zhao.
Claim(s) 6 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna as applied to claims 1 – 5 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US 2020/0399759 A1 (hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8:
Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna do not expressly teach the recited measuring, determining and supplying steps of a second dilution gas in which the first dilution gas and the mixed gas are mixed.
The disclosure of Yamazaki and conclusions of obviousness as discussed above with respect to the rejections of claims 6, 7 and 8 under 35 USC 103 over Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 11:
The limitations of the claims amount to a repetition of the first and second determinations, alongside the follow-up to such determinations.
Outside a showing of criticality, the teachings of Xavier, Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki would have rendered obvious repetitions of further mixture and dilution to ensure process safety, as elaborated above.
Claim(s) 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
Regarding claims 18 – 20:
The claims substantially match the limitations discussed above concerning claims 6 – 11. Furthermore, Yamazaki discloses that the dilution gas can be supplied to a vacuum pump or ahead of the vacuum pump; and that the dilution gas, like Shan, may be nitrogen gas [same material] ([0051] – [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier in view of Zhao to include the steps of determining lower explosion limits, and controlling flow rates of dilution gas based on concentrations of combustible gases and explosion limits to enhance safety of equipment and processes from potential explosion, as discussed above concerning the teachings of Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining principal arguments are:
a.) Xavier, Zhao and the other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest determining in real time, based on the first flow rate for each one of the plurality of process gases, a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas and a first volume percentage of a combustible process gas among the plurality of process gases, much less determining, in real time, a supply flow rate of a first dilution gas based on the first volume percentage and the lower explosion limit.
b.) Zhao's teachings regarding using the process gas control subroutine to maintain process safety would also have incorporated Zhao's teachings to use a mass flow controller to monitor the flow rate of the gas into the chamber to implement the process gas control subroutine 163 's steps for "monitoring the gas flow rates for unsafe rates, and activating the safety shut-off valves when an unsafe condition is detected" (Zhao, col. 17, lines 3). Zhao explicitly teaches using mass flow controllers to control the rate at which gas is supplied to the chamber 30 (see also, Zhao, col. 9, lines 41-49).
c.) Zhao's "unsafe rates" is based on comparison with desired flow rates, and does not disclose the concept of a lower explosion limit (LEL) or a volume percentage of combustible gas at all.
d.) There would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhao with the other cited references to arrive at the subject matter encompassed by present claim 1. In particular, is no motivation presented in any of the references, or any combination the cited references, for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhao's "shut-off'' approach to the "dilution" approach of one or more example embodiments consistent with claim 1.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that 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. See MPEP 2103, 2112.
Contrary to Applicant’s submission that Xavier and other prior art of record fails to determine parameters and values in real time, Xavier reasonably suggests and implies that flow rates are measured, and that parameters and calculations are determined in real time, as discussed above on pages 5 – 6 of the rejection of at least claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna. Furthermore, Zhao likewise teaches that parameters may be calculated in real time based on the measurements of flow rates, further indicating a reasonable expectation of success of performing calculations and adjusting process parameters based on such calculations (e.g. Zhao col 16 line 55 – col 17 line 15 “gas control subroutine 165 operates … reading …mass flow controllers …comparing …adjusting the flow rates of the gas supply lines). The specific teachings that lower explosion limits are used as the basis for adjusting supply flow rates is found in Sawaki, Vrtis and Karna as discussed above.
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).
b.) "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Mass flow controllers are taught in both Xavier and Zhao. Zhao also discloses that mass flow controllers have both the functions of measuring fluid flow and controlling such fluid flows through each of the supply lines, not of the mixed gas (col 9 lines 33 – 65 “…measures the flow of gas or liquid through each of the supply lines…”). Lastly, the specific arrangement of Zhao is not required for its teachings to be considered whether the prior art would render the subject matter of claim 1 as obvious. The limitations are met by the modifications of Xavier’s teachings by the prior art, including Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis and Karna. Likewise with regards to Sawaki, Vrtis and Karna the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.
c.) The consideration of the concept of a lower explosion limit (LEL) or a volume percentage of combustible gas at all is found in Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Furthermore, the "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). This includes understanding of necessary values and thresholds for combustion as suggested by the prior art of record combined with motivations such as Xavier’s desire to prevent combustion in exhaust lines based on the precursor used [combustible process gas] and the oxidizer used ([0012], [0023], [0027]).
d.) Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Zhao does not merely teach a shut-off technique to prevent or mitigate unsafe conditions. Zhao also discloses adjustment of flow rates as necessary and that more than one process gas control subroutine can be combined (col 16 lines 55 – col 17 line 15). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combined is provided not only by Zhao, but also by Xavier, namely to prevent combustion conditions. Such a motivation is shared by Karna, Sawaki and Vrtis as discussed above, is ubiquitous across a wide range of process arts, and speaks to both the design incentives that would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the method of Xavier in a predictable manner and application of known techniques (explosion limit methodology) to known devices ready for improvement for predictable results. See MPEP 2143 Subheadings D, F, and G.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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 on (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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 See “Gas.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, (2022) Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gas as archived at web.archive.org.
2 "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Prosecution Insights