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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II in the reply filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups have each been classified in G01F15/002 and thus a search for groups I and II would yield references applicable to both. This is not found persuasive because while the classification is similar between the groups, the subject matter is still divergent and the additional steps of group II would not necessarily be present in the elected invention of group I. Additionally, while the classification may be similar, the search requires additional consideration outside of the class and subclass into which the inventions themselves may be classified. It is noted however that any amendments which may be included in future correspondence with regard to elected group I, may be considered if applied to withdrawn claims as well if they are deemed to likely put those claims in condition for allowance as well.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, it is not clear as to what is meant by “accepting or rejecting the flow ratio according to the comparison” and what would be doing the accepting or rejecting. Paragraph 0057 of the specification refers to accepting or rejecting the flow curve, but not the ratio as claimed, while paragraph 0056 discusses the flow ratio being out of the acceptance range and generating an alert in response, but not accepting or rejecting it.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons due to its dependency on claim 16.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. US 2006/0212233 and Tarkoma et al US 2021/0003461.
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a system and method of conducting a calibration operation on a plurality of mass flow controllers 213a-213p of a semiconductor processing system comprising the steps of calibrating a first mass flow controller by flowing a gas through the first mass flow controller at a target flow rate (paragraphs 0021-0023 discloses flowing a gas through the controller at a target flow rate which is compared to a gas flow setpoint), stepping the target flow rate of the gas through a plurality of flow rates corresponding to a plurality of setpoints (paragraph 0023 discloses using 10 setpoints for calibration), and verifying a measured flow rate of the gas at each of the plurality of setpoints using a mass flow verifier (paragraph 0028 discloses the use of a verifier which services the gas flow controllers for verification of the flow controllers). Wong does not explicitly teach the step of selecting a first mass flow controller from the plurality of flow controllers according to a prioritized rank list of the plurality of mass flow controllers as claimed.
Tarkoma discloses a method of sensor calibration for a plurality of sensors and in paragraph 0014 teaches a step of hierarchically ranking the sensors and selecting a first sensor for calibration which is ranked higher in the hierarchal model, thereby prioritizing the sensor. Since Tarkoma is considered analogous art in the field of sensor calibration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tarkoma with those of Wong to order the calibration of the sensors in Wong in a hierarchal manner and to calibrate the highest sensor first with the highest need for calibration to ensure the most accurate results and measurements are maintained in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Wong discloses performing the calibration and verification to avoid issues during startup or service which would be according to an operation time of each mass flow controller since it is performed in relation to their operating times (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 3, Tarkoma teaches detecting calibration needs of the sensors to prioritize them hieratically which would include an error (abstract) which would be considered an operational failure as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, since all of the flow controllers in Wong and Tarkoma are to be calibrated, a second mass flow controller would be selected from the list and calibrated accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, Wong discloses a system and method of conducting a calibration operation on a plurality of mass flow controllers 213a-213p of a semiconductor processing system comprising the steps of calibrating a first mass flow controller by flowing a gas through the first mass flow controller at a target flow rate (paragraphs 0021-0023 discloses flowing a gas through the controller at a target flow rate which is compared to a gas flow setpoint), stepping the target flow rate of the gas through a plurality of flow rates corresponding to a plurality of setpoints (paragraph 0023 discloses using 10 setpoints for calibration), and verifying a measured flow rate of the gas at each of the plurality of setpoints using a mass flow verifier (paragraph 0028 discloses the use of a verifier which services the gas flow controllers for verification of the flow controllers). Wong does not explicitly teach the step of selecting a first mass flow controller from the plurality of flow controllers according to a prioritized rank list of the plurality of mass flow controllers as claimed.
Tarkoma discloses a method of sensor calibration for a plurality of sensors and in paragraph 0014 teaches a step of hierarchically ranking the sensors and selecting a first sensor for calibration which is ranked higher in the hierarchal model, thereby prioritizing the sensor. Paragraph 0037 of Tarkoma further discloses detecting the calibration needs by taking into account a difference of sensor values to a known calibrating sensor and one or more variables (operational parameters of the mass flow sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tarkoma with those of Wong in order to order the calibration of the sensors in Wong in a hierarchal manner to calibrate the highest sensor first with the highest need for calibrating to ensure the most accurate results are maintained in the system.
Regarding claim 12, Wong discloses performing the calibration and verification to avoid issues during startup or service which would be during an idle time of the processing system as claimed (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 13, Tarkoma teaches detecting calibration needs of the sensors to prioritize them hieratically which would include an error (abstract) which would be considered an operational failure as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Wong discloses in paragraph 0043 the determination of a flow ratio of the measured flow rate relative to a target flow rate and determining a corrected flow rate that corrects the measured flow rate as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Wong discloses in paragraph 0020 the comparison of the flow rate to an acceptable tolerance range. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have compared the flow ratio to any acceptance ranges desired including a broad or narrower range depending on how precise of a calibration is required for the device.
Regarding claim 18, Wong discloses the use of a calibration curve in paragraph 0045. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings for form a similar calibration curve of setpoints which are connected in the claimed manner since doing so would only require general data mapping methods and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed towards data manipulation by adjusting the flow curve with a correction factor to generate a second flow curve which is considered obvious as it was known to adjust data for analysis using correction factors. See Wong for example in equation 1 and paragraph 0022 which uses a conversion factor C to calculate a flow rate.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong and Tarkoma and further in view of Thilderkvist et al. US 2004/0050326.
Regarding claims 4-6, Wong discloses the use of a recipe in the manufacturing steps (paragraph 0001). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected the setpoints according to the process recipe in order to ensure that the calibrated MFCs are matched to the recipe which is to be employed. Additionally, Thilderkvist discloses in paragraph 0052 the use of a recipe in a substrate processing system which may include flow rates at setpoints which would correspond to the values used during the recipe including the flowrate of the gas and would therefore be an obvious choice of values to one of ordinary skill in the art for using during calibration in order to ensure that the correct flow rates are being applied during manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach:
With regard to claim 7, the generation of a further prioritized rank list of the plurality of setpoints, wherein each of the setpoints corresponds to a flowrate of the gas in the process recipe.
With regard to claim 15, the corrected flow rate determined in the claimed manner by dividing the target flow rate by the correction factor which is equal to one of the flow ratio or the average of the flow ratio and one or more previous flow ratios.
With regard to claim 17, for each setpoint, determining the first and second acceptance ranges based on previous flow ratios or correction factors resulting from one or more previous calibrations of the first mass flow controller.
With regard to claim 19, comparing the first corrected flow curve with a second corrected flow curve for the first mass flow controller in the claimed manner and generated a third corrected flow curve by weighing and averaging the first and second corrected flow curves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855