DETAILED ACTION
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites “a first an isolation valve”. This appears to be a typographical error and the limitation should recite “a first [[an]] isolation valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani et al (US 2011/0214742) in view of Chung et al (US 8,271,211) with substantiating evidence provided by Okabe et al (US 8,851,106).
Regarding claim 1:
Izutani teaches a flow control arrangement (50) [fig 1 & 0064], comprising: an inlet conduit (inlet of 1) and an outlet conduit (outlet of 1) [fig 1 & 0065]; an isolation valve (valve, 11) connected to the inlet conduit (inlet of 1) [fig 1 & 0065]; and a flow switch (switch, 13) with a shutoff trigger (pressure value for turning off the pressure switch) connected to the isolation valve (11), the flow switch (13) coupling the isolation valve (11) to the outlet conduit (outlet of 1) [fig 1 & 0070]
Izutani does not specifically teach a housing seating the inlet conduit and the outlet conduit; the isolation valve arranged within the housing; and the flow switch arranged within the housing.
Chung teaches a housing (gas box, 104) seating the inlet conduit (inlet of 106) and the outlet conduit (outlet of 106) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 30-54]; the isolation valve (valve, 110) arranged within the housing (104) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 30-54]; and the flow switch (116) arranged within the housing (104) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow control arrangement of Izutani to comprise a housing, as in Chung, to control any potential gas leakage [Okabe – col 9-10, lines 54-3].
The claim limitations “the flow switch further operatively connected to the isolation valve to close the isolation valve when flow traversing the isolation valve is greater than the shutoff trigger” are merely intended use and are 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).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Izutani teaches the housing (104) includes a tamperproof body enclosing the isolation valve and the flow switch (creates a physical barrier around 110 and 116) [Chung – fig 2 & col 4, lines 30-54].
Regarding claim 4:
Izutani teaches a controller (20) connected to the external communication cable (lines depicted in figure 1) and operably connecting the flow switch (13) to the isolation valve (11) [fig 1 & 0071].
Izutani does not specifically teach an internal communication harness arranged in the housing and connected to the isolation valve and the flow switch; an electrical connector connected to the internal communication harness and seated in a wall of the housing; an external communication cable connected to the electrical connector and arranged outside of the housing.
Chung teaches an internal communication harness (portion of 130/236 within 104) arranged in the housing (104) and connected to the isolation valve (110) and the flow switch (116) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17]; an electrical connector (portion of 130/236 within wall of 104) connected to the internal communication harness (portion of 130/236 within 104) and seated in a wall of the housing (wall of 104) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17]; an external communication cable (portion of 130/236 exterior to 104) connected to the electrical connector (portion of 130/236 within wall of 104) and arranged outside of the housing (104) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Izutani to comprise a wired connection between the controller and elements within the gas box, as in Chung, because such a structure forms an effective communications link [Chung - col 4-5, lines 55-5].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Izutani teaches a controller (20 of Izutani) arranged outside of the housing (104 of Chung) and operably connecting the flow switch (13 of Izutani) to the isolation valve (11 of Izutani) [Izutani – fig 1 & 0071 and Chung – fig 2].
Regarding claim 6:
Izutani teaches the controller (20) includes a safety programmable logic controller device (programmable logic controller) [fig 1 & 0073].
Regarding claim 7:
Izutani teaches the controller (20) comprises a processor (22A/22B) disposed in communication with a memory (23A/23B) including a non-transitory machine-readable medium (structure of 23A/23B) having a plurality of program modules (steps depicted in figure 5) recorded thereon containing instructions that, when read by the processor (22A/22B) [fig 3, 5 & 0073], cause the processor (22A/22B) to: receive a shutoff signal from the flow switch (s30) [fig 5 & 0081]; and provide a closure signal (turn off signal out1) to the isolation valve (valve, 11) upon receipt of the shutoff signal from the flow switch (13) [fig 5 & 0089-0090].
Regarding claim 8:
Izutani teaches the isolation valve is a first isolation valve (11) and further comprising a second isolation valve (12), wherein the second isolation valve (12) couples the first isolation valve (11) to the outlet conduit (outlet of 1), and wherein the second isolation valve (12) is operably associated with the flow switch (13) [fig 1 & 0066].
Izutani does not specifically teach the second isolation valve is arranged in the housing.
Chung teaches a second isolation valve (118) is arranged in the housing (gas box, 104) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow control arrangement of Izutani to comprise a housing, as in Chung, to control any potential gas leakage [Okabe – col 9-10, lines 54-3].
Regarding claim 10:
Izutani teaches a controller (20) connected to the external communication cable (lines depicted in figure 1) and operably connecting the flow switch (13) to the first isolation valve (11) and the second isolation valve (12) [fig 1 & 0071].
Izutani does not specifically teach an internal communication harness arranged in the housing and connected to the first isolation valve, the flow switch, and the second isolation valve; an electrical connector connected to the internal communication harness and seated in a wall of the housing; an external communication cable connected to the electrical connector and arranged outside of the housing.
Chung teaches an internal communication harness (portion of 130/230/236 within 104) arranged in the housing (104) and connected to the first isolation valve (110), the flow switch (116), and the second isolation valve (118) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17]; an electrical connector (portion of 130/230/236 within wall of 104) connected to the internal communication harness (portion of 130/230/236 within 104) and seated in a wall of the housing (wall of 104) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17]; an external communication cable (portion of 130/230/236 exterior to 104) connected to the electrical connector (portion of 130/230/236 within wall of 104) and arranged outside of the housing (104) [fig 2 & col 4-5, lines 30-17].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Izutani to comprise a wired connection between the controller elements within the gas box, as in Chung, because such a structure forms an effective communications link [Chung - col 4-5, lines 55-5].
Regarding claim 11:
Izutani teaches the controller (20) comprises a processor (22A/22B) disposed in communication with a memory (23A/23B) including a non-transitory machine-readable medium (structure of 23A/23B) having a plurality of program modules (steps depicted in figure 5) recorded thereon containing instructions that, when read by the processor (22A/22B) [fig 3, 5 & 0073], cause the processor (22A/22B) to: receive a shutoff signal from the flow switch (s30) [fig 5 & 0081]; provide a first closure signal (turn off signal out1) to the first isolation valve (valve, 11) upon receipt of the shutoff signal from the flow switch (13) [fig 5 & 0089-0090]; and provide a second closure signal (out2 keeps the off state) to the second isolation valve upon receipt of the shutoff signal from the flow switch (valve 12 is also controlled to close) [fig 5 & 0089-0090].
Regarding claims 12-14:
Izutani teaches the flow switch is a first flow switch (13) and further comprising a second flow switch (14), wherein the second flow switch (14) couples the first flow switch (13) to the outlet conduit (outlet of 1) and is operably connected to the isolation valve (11/12) [fig 1 & 0066, 0070].
The claim limitations “wherein the shutoff trigger is a first shutoff trigger and the second flow switch has a second shutoff trigger, wherein the second shutoff trigger is equivalent to the first shutoff trigger” and “wherein the shutoff trigger is a first shutoff trigger and the second flow switch has a second shutoff trigger, wherein the second shutoff trigger is greater than or less than the first shutoff trigger” are merely intended use and are 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).
Regarding claim 16:
Izutani teaches isolation valve is a first isolation valve (11) and the flow switch is a first flow switch (13), the flow control arrangement further comprising: a second flow switch (14) connected to the first flow switch (13) and coupled by the first flow switch (13) to the first isolation valve (11) [fig 1 & 0066, 0070]; and a second isolation valve (12) connected to the second flow switch (14) and fluidly coupled therethrough to the first flow switch (11), the second isolation valve (12) connecting the outlet conduit (outlet of 1) to the second flow switch (14), wherein the second flow switch (14) is operably connected to at least one of the first isolation valve (11) and the second isolation valve (12) [fig 1 & 0066, 0070].
Regarding claims 17-18:
The claim limitations “wherein the first flow switch is operably connected to the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve, wherein the second flow switch is operably connected to the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve” and “wherein one of the first flow switch and the second flow switch is operably connected to only one of the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve” are merely intended use and are 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). Specifically, said limitations merely describe how the structures are operated (i.e. operably connected).
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani et al (US 2011/0214742) in view of Chung et al (US 8,271,211) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-18 above, and further in view of Lu et al (US 2002/0127745).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Izutani teaches a circuit (input circuit, 21A/21B) outside of the housing and operatively associated with the flow switch (13) [Izutani – fig 1, 3 & 0070, 0074]; and a solenoid (solenoid, 3A) electrically connected to the circuit (21A/21B) and arranged in the housing (104 of Chung), wherein the solenoid (3A) is operatively connected to the isolation valve (11) [Izutani – fig 1 & 0066 and Chung – fig 2].
Modified Izutani does not specifically teach the circuit being a relay.
Lu teaches a relay (relays in interface board, 26) [fig 1-2 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the circuit of modified Izutani to be a relay, as in Lu, to achieve short refresh time and the control system is durable notwithstanding the very numerous repetitive operations required of the relay [Lu – 0033].
The claim limitations “to close the isolation valve when a flow rate of a fluid traversing the flow switch is greater than the shutoff trigger” are merely intended use and are 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).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Izutani teaches a first circuit (input circuit, 21A) outside of the housing and operatively associated with the flow switch (13) [Izutani – fig 1, 3 & 0070, 0074]; a first solenoid (solenoid, 3A) electrically connected to the first circuit (21A), arranged in the housing (104 of Chung), and operatively connected to the first isolation valve (11) [Izutani – fig 1 & 0066 and Chung – fig 2]; a second circuit (input circuit, 21B) outside of the housing and operatively associated with the flow switch (13) [Izutani – fig 1, 3 & 0070, 0074]; and a second solenoid (solenoid, 3B) electrically connected to the second circuit (21B), arranged in the housing (104 of Chung), and operatively connected to the second isolation valve (12) [Izutani – fig 1 & 0066 and Chung – fig 2].
Modified Izutani does not specifically teach the first circuit being a first relay; and the second circuit being a second relay.
Lu teaches a first relay and a second relay (relays in interface board, 26) [fig 1-2 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second circuits of modified Izutani to be relays, as in Lu, to achieve short refresh time and the control system is durable notwithstanding the very numerous repetitive operations required of the relays [Lu – 0033].
The claim limitations “to close the first isolation valve when a flow rate of fluid traversing the flow switch is greater than the shutoff trigger” and “to close the second isolation valve when the flow ate of the fluid traversing the flow switch is greater than the shutoff trigger” are merely intended use and are 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).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al (US 8,851,106) in view of Izutani et al (US 2011/0214742).
Regarding claim 19:
Okabe teaches a semiconductor processing system (apparatus depicted in figure 3) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 7-15], comprising: a gas box (cylinder cabinet, 10) with a flow control device (11/13), the flow control device having a flow rating [fig 3 & col 9, lines 7-15]; a flow control arrangement (40 and structure within) comprising: a housing (40) seating an inlet conduit (14A) and an outlet conduit (14B) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30]; an isolation valve (33) arranged within the housing (40) and connected to the inlet conduit (14A) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30]; and a pressure sensor (pressure sensor of 310) arranged within the housing (40) and connected to the isolation valve (33), the pressure sensor (pressure sensor of 310) coupling the isolation valve (33) to the outlet conduit (14B) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30], wherein the flow control arrangement (40 and structure within) is arranged outside of the gas box (10), wherein the flow control device (11/13) is connected to the outlet conduit (14B) and therethrough to the inlet conduit (14A) of the flow control arrangement (40 and structure within) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30]; a process chamber (22) including a substrate support (22a) connected to the flow control device (11/13) and fluidly coupled therethrough to the flow control arrangement (40 and structure within) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30]; and a fluid source (12) connected to the inlet conduit (14A) of the flow control arrangement (40 and structure within) and therethrough to the process chamber (22), wherein the fluid source (12) comprises a hazardous process material (etching gas) [fig 3 & col 9, lines 15-30 and col 12, lines 58-61].
Okabe does not specifically disclose the pressure sensor being a flow switch with a shutoff trigger.
Izutani teaches a flow switch (switch, 13) with a shutoff trigger (pressure value for turning off the pressure switch) [fig 1 & 0066, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pressure sensor of Okabe to be a flow switch with a shutoff trigger, as in Izutani, because such are known general-purpose pressure sensors [Izutani – 0070]. As such, this is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
The claim limitations “the flow switch further operatively connected to the isolation valve to close the isolation valve when flow traversing the isolation valve is greater than the shutoff trigger” are merely intended use and are 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).
Regarding claim 20:
Okabe teaches a vent source (10A) connected to the gas box (10) and providing a vent flow (ventilated) to the gas box (10) [fig 3 & col 9-10, lines 54-3].
The claim limitations “wherein the vent flow is undersized relative to the flow rating of the flow control device” are merely intended use and are 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).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al (US 8,851,106) in view of Izutani et al (US 2011/0214742) as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Watarai et al (US 2021/0071296).
The limitations of claims 19-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Okabe teaches an exhaust source (22b) connected to the process chamber (22) and receiving an exhaust flow from the process chamber (22) [fig 3 & col 4, lines 7-21].
Modified Okabe does not specifically teach an inert/diluent fluid source connected exhaust source providing an inert/diluent fluid with an inert/diluent flow rate to the exhaust flow.
Watarai teaches an inert/diluent fluid source (inert gas supplier, 80) connected exhaust source (24) providing an inert/diluent fluid with an inert/diluent flow rate to the exhaust flow [fig 9 & 0044].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the exhaust source of modified Okabe to be connected to an inert/diluent fluid source, as in Watarai, to remove or reduce by-product in the exhaust source [Watarai – 0049].
The claim limitations “wherein the inert/diluent fluid flow rate is undersized relative to the flow rating of the flow control device” are merely intended use and are 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morgan et al (US 7,204,158), Okabe (US 8,944,095), and Chang et al (US 10,161,060) teach a flow control arrangement [fig 1, 4, and 7B, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896