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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the term “low concentration low concentration” in ln. 13 should read “low concentration”.
As to claim 10, the claim is not numbered properly. Unnumbered claim on pg. 11 has been renumbered as claim 10 for the purpose of examination. However, the Applicant still required to number the unnumbered claim on pg. 11 as claim 10 in an amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the dilution gas supply" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term “the dilution gas supply” is interpreted as “the dilution gas supplier.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. US 2013/0270103 to Shao (hereinafter referred to as “SHAO”) in view of Oxidation Technologies, Flash Reactor 70-NK (February 24, 2018) (hereinafter referred to as “OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES”) .
As to claim 1, SHAO teaches a low concentration ozone gas supply device for supplying low concentration ozone gas to a plurality of reaction chambers (see SHAO at ¶9 for teaching a novel ozone delivery system configured to control ozone concentration and ozone flow; see SHAO at ¶2 for teaching ozone cleaning for semiconductor wafers and equipment), comprising:
an ozone dilution tank provided with a dilution space defined therein (see SHAO at ¶40, ¶51, and Fig. 5B for teaching flow dilution 570 and flow diverter 520 assemblies configured to provide a low concentration but with a high flow), and the ozone dilution tank being provided with an overflow vent connected to the dilution space (see SHAO at Fig. 4B for teaching flows 425 and relief valve 426, wherein the rest of the flow in the flow diverter assembly 421 can be flowed out through the exhaust line of 425);
an ozone generator, configured to continuously supply ozone to the dilution space of the ozone dilution tank (see SHAO at ¶4 and Fig. 1A and Fig. 6B, for teaching an ozone generator130 comprising electrodes 112 and 114 for forming a corona discharge);
a dilution gas supplier, configured to supply a dilution gas to the dilution space, wherein the ozone is mixed with the dilution gas in the dilution space (see SHAO at ¶64 and Fig. 6B for teaching the oxygen input 615 and nitrogen input 616; either nitrogen or oxygen is used for the dilution of the resulting ozone gas and the gases are mixed in the ozone generator and stay mixed in the flow dilution and/or flow diverter assemblies prior to reaching process chamber 640) to form the low concentration ozone gas (see SHAO at ¶72 for teaching that the ozone generator is operable to deliver an ozone concentration lower than 5 wt%), and the low concentration gas in the dilution space continuously overflows via the overflow vent (see SHAO at Fig. 4B for teaching flows 425 and relief valve 426, wherein the rest of the flow in the flow diverter assembly 421 can be flowed out through the exhaust line of 425; also see SHAO at ¶5, ¶64, Fig. 1B, and 6B for teaching exhaust conduit 158 or pressure relief path for optimizing ozone generation condition and for regulating pressure in the ozone generator 130; the exhaust conduit 158 is configured to let the low concentration gas in the ozone generator 130 to continuously overflow and such structure is known to be operable in the ozone treatment art).
While SHAO teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device as set forth above, SHAO fails to explicitly teach a plurality of gas reservoirs, connected to the dilution space for respectively receiving the low concentration and that the volume of the dilution space is larger than the sum of the volumes of the gas reservoirs as claimed. However, OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches a flash reactor as a mixing chamber for mixing ozone into water (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 8 at Description), in which the flash reactor, read as a gas reservoir under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is configured to provide high mass transfer efficiency with minimal contact or residence time (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 8 at Description). While OXDIATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches dimensions (hence the volume can be calculated) of the flash reactor (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 9 at Additional Information), OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES is silent to the volume of the dilution space being larger than the sum of the volumes of the flash reactors. However, in light of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES’s teaching of ozone water generation at high mass transfer efficiency with minimal contact or residence time (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 8 at Description), the claimed structure amounts merely to a matter of obvious engineering choice, as the high mass transfer efficiency with minimal contact or residence time can only be thermodynamically achieved by smaller volume at an operating temperature. Please see MPEP 2144.02. OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches to a flash reactor and is silent to a plurality of flash reactors, but the applicant is reminded that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. Accordingly, OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches that it was well known in the ozonation art to have used flash reactors. The low concentration ozone gas supply device can comprise of flash reactors. Because OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the novel ozone delivery system of SHAO with flash reactors of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their perspective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 2, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the ozone dilution tank is provided with an ozone receiving vent, and the ozone generator is connected to the ozone receiving vent (see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching that the second portion 601B comprising the flow diverter assembly 621 receives the nitrogen-diluted ozone from the first portion 601A comprising the ozone generator 130; the ozone generator 130 and the flow diverter assembly 621 must be connected for the ozone delivery system if a flow controller 631 is incorporated for controlling the flow of low ozone concentration ozone to the process chamber 640 because the second portion 601B comprising the flow diverter assembly 621 is positioned between the first portion 601A comprising the ozone generator 130 and the process chamber 640).
As to claim 3, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the ozone generator is connected to an oxygen source for receiving oxygen (see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching the ozone generator 130 in connection to oxygen input 615 with flow controller 120), and the ozone generator provides a high-voltage electric field within the ozone generator to convert the oxygen into ozone (see SHAO at Fig. 1A for teaching a known electrical discharge method of converting oxygen into ozone; see SHAO at ¶4 teaching for instance, a corona discharge which involves a high-voltage electric field).
As to claim 4, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the ozone dilution tank includes a dilution gas receiving vent and the dilution gas supply is connected to the dilution gas receiving vent (see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching that the second portion 601B comprising the flow diverter assembly 621 receives the nitrogen-diluted ozone from the first portion 601A comprising the nitrogen input 616 with flow controller 125; the ozone generator 130 and the flow diverter assembly 621 must be connected for the ozone delivery system if a flow controller 631 is incorporated for controlling the nitrogen-diluted flow of low ozone concentration ozone to the process chamber 640 because the second portion 601B comprising the flow diverter assembly 621 is positioned between the first portion 601A comprising the ozone generator 130 and the process chamber 640; for examination purposes, the term “the dilution gas supply” is interpreted as the dilution gas supplier).
As to claim 5, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein depending on the mass flow rate of ozone supplied by the ozone generator, the dilution gas supplier supplies the dilution gas to the dilution space at a predetermined mass flow rate, such that a mass percentage concentration of the ozone in the low concentration ozone as is less than 10% (see SHAO at ¶72 for teaching mass flow controllers and that the ozone generator is operable to deliver an ozone concentration lower than 5 wt%; also see SHAO at ¶7 and 8 for presenting the ozone delivery systems capable of operating at very low, for example 1 wt.%, to high concentrations, for example 20% wt.%, of ozone at different flow rates).
As to claim 6, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the dilution gas supplier includes a dilution gas source and a mass flow controller (see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching that the nitrogen input 616 is provided with flow controller 125), the dilution gas source is configured to supply the dilution gas, and the mass flow controller is connected to the dilution gas source to control the mass flow rate of the dilution gas flowing from the dilution gas source into the dilution space (see SHAO at ¶64 and Fig. 6B for teaching the oxygen input 615 and nitrogen input 616; either nitrogen or oxygen is used for the dilution of the resulting ozone gas and the gases are mixed in the ozone generator and stay mixed in the flow dilution and/or flow diverter assemblies prior to reaching process chamber 640).
As to claim 7, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the dilution gas is oxygen, the dilution gas source of the dilution gas supplier is an oxygen source, and the ozone generator receives oxygen from the oxygen source (see SHAO at ¶64 and Fig. 6B for teaching the oxygen input 615 and nitrogen input 616; either nitrogen or oxygen is used for the dilution of the resulting ozone gas and the gases are mixed in the ozone generator and stay mixed in the flow dilution and/or flow diverter assemblies prior to reaching process chamber 640; see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching the ozone generator 130 in connection to oxygen input 615 with flow controller 120).
As to claim 8, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device, wherein the ozone dilution tank is provided with an ozone pressure gauge configured to monitor the pressure in the dilution space so as to adjust the flow rate of ozone and dilution gas (see SHAO at Fig. 6B and ¶5 for teaching pressure regulator 150 configured to regulate the pressure in the ozone generator 130 for optimizing the ozone generating condition that comprise diluted ozone).
As to claim 10, while SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches the low concentration ozone gas supply device as set forth above, SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES fails to explicitly teach each of the gas reservoirs being connected to one corresponding reaction chamber by an ozone supply pipe as claimed. However, SHAO does teach to delivering ozone at low concentration from the second portion 601B to the process chamber 640 (see SHAO at Fig. 6B for teaching the flow 635 between the second portion 601B and the process chamber 640). Further, OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES does teach the flash reactor as a mixing chamber for mixing ozone into water (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 8 at Description), in which the flash reactor is configured to provide high mass transfer efficiency with minimal contact or residence time by ensuring rapid dissolution and attainment of ozone gas dissolved into water (see OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES on pg. 8 at Description). OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches to a flash reactor and is silent to a plurality of flash reactors, but the applicant is reminded that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. The duplicated flash reactors with the corresponding ozone supply lines are operable with same volume sizes and same ozone line lengths. Accordingly, OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches that it was well known in the ozone treatment art to have used the flash reactor prior to the use of the ozonated water because the flash reactor is responsible for the production of the ozonated water. The low concentration ozone gas supply device can comprise of the flash reactor being connected to the process chamber for supplying ozone at low concentration. Because SHAO in view of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the novel ozone delivery system of SHAO by utilizing one or more flash reactors of OXIDATION TECHNOLOGIES at the flow 635 between the second portion 601B and the process chamber 640 with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 9, the closest prior art is SHAO. While SHAO teaches that it is known in the art to have a novel ozone delivery system for delivering controlled ozone at concentration less than 5 wt.% to a process chamber for cleaning semiconductor wafer or equipment (see SHAO at ¶72 for teaching that the ozone generator is operable to deliver an ozone concentration lower than 5 wt%), SHAO is silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Another closest prior art is US Pub. No. 2013/0092084 to Shao (hereinafter referred to as “SHAO ‘084”). While SHAO ‘084 teaches that it is known in the art to have used a gas reservoir for diluted ozone mixture prior to reaching a process chamber (see SHAO ‘084 at Fig. 8A for teaching the chamber 876 for delivering oxygen mixture 874 to process chamber 870), SHAO ‘084 is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Yet another closest prior art is GORE® Ozonation Modules For Semiconductor & Microelectronics Fabrication Processing (2022) (hereinafter referred to as “GORE”). While GORE teaches that ozonated water is commonly used for cleaning silicon wafers and semiconductor equipment (see GORE at Fig. 1 for teaching a gas reservoir for delivering ozone dissolved water prior to a process chamber in semiconductor processing for reducing bubbles in the mixing between ozone and water), GORE is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Yet another closest prior art is US Pub. No. 2012/0079984 to Schmidt (hereinafter referred to as “SCHMIDT”). While SCHMIDT teaches to gas mixer and manifold assembly for ALD reactor (see SCHMIDT at Fig. 5A and 5B for teaching a rear view and a side cross-sectional view of the upstream member of the mixer assembly with buffer regions), SCHMIDT is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Yet another closest prior art is US Pub. No. 2001/0007645 to Honma (hereinafter referred to as “HONMA”). While HONMA teaches to an ozone processing apparatus for a semiconductor processing system (see HONMA at Fig. 1 for teaching an ozone processing apparatus with an ozone generator 33), HOMA is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Yet another closest prior art is US Pub. No. 2006/0021634 to Liu (hereinafter referred to as “LIU”). While LIU teaches to a system for creating an ozonated process solution comprising a static mixer coupled to a recirculation lip of an auxiliary tank (see LIU at Fig. 1 for teaching a system for creating an ozonated process solution comprising ozone generator 20 and a static mixer 80), LIU is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Yet another closest prior art is JP 7403592 B1 to Nishiguchi et. al (hereinafter referred to as “NISHIGUCHI”). While NISHIGUCHI teaches to an ozone gas supply system comprising a buffer tank prior to delivering diluted ozone to ALD chambers (see NISHIGUCHI at Fig. 1 for teaching buffer tank 40), NISHIGUCHI is also silent, nor would it fairly suggest, to the apparatus as claimed related to the volume of the dilution space being at least larger than the total volume of the gas reservoirs by 10% or more of the total volume of the gas reservoirs, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
As such, it is the Examiner’s opinion that the prior art neither teaches nor fairly suggests the apparatus as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
