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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 05 Nov 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-15 are amended. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein each vaporized” (claim 9 line 3) should read as “wherein eachvaporizer” to correct for the apparent typographical error.
“a vaporizer of the or more vaporizers” (in claim 9 second to last paragraph) should read as “the one or more vaporizers to correct for the apparent typographical error.
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 12 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed in the non-final rejection of 07 Aug 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 05 Nov 2025.
However, applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitated new rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) as further discussed below.
Claim 8, 9 (and dependent claims 10-15) is/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 8, limitation “the pressure regulator” is unclear and confusing whether this is the same or different from the first pressure regulator recited in claim 1, on which claim 8 depends.
For the purpose of examination, the above discussed limitation shall be interpreted as “the first pressure regulator.”
Regarding claim 9, limitation “the pressure regulator” (in second to last line and last line of claim 9) is unclear and confusing whether this is the same or different from “a first pressure regulator” recited at the beginning of the last paragraph of claim 9.
For the purpose of examination, the above discussed limitations shall be interpreted as “the first pressure regulator.”
In light of the above, dependent claims 10-15 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 9.
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, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”) in view of Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”).
Regarding independent claim 1, preamble limitations, "for providing a liquid source precursor to a reactor" limitations are intended use and do not receive patentable weight. However, those limitations are mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nishizato teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus for providing a liquid-source precursor to a reactor (comprising reaction furnace process chamber/reaction chamber/deposition chamber 20, Fig. 1, col 4 line 57-58), the liquid delivery system apparatus comprising:
a precursor source (comprising 5 and LM, Fig. 1) comprising a vessel (comprising liquid material tank 5, Fig. 1) and the liquid-source precursor (comprising liquid material LM, Fig. 1, col 4 line 15-18) therein;
a fluid line (comprising liquid materials supply line 2, Fig. 1, col 4 line 19; see also annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a first fluid line end and a second fluid line end, the first fluid line end coupled to the vessel (comprising 5, Fig. 1);
a vaporizer (comprising control valve 1, Fig. 1-5, col 4 line 50-col 6 line 29) coupled to the second fluid line end,
wherein the vaporizer comprises a control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1, claim 10), and wherein the vaporizer is configured to convert the liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor (col 6 line 25-29, claim 10);
a liquid mass flow meter (comprising flow meter 8, col 4 line 23-24) connected to the fluid line upstream of the vaporizer (comprising 1, Fig. 1;
a controller (comprising control unit 10, Fig. 1) connected to the liquid mass flow meter (comprising 8, Fig. 1) and the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1), wherein the controller (comprising 10, Fig. 1) is configured to control the flowrate of the vaporized precursor through the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) by receiving an output signal from the liquid mass flow meter (comprising 8, Fig. 1) and sending a control signal to the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) (col 4 line 24-28, col 4 line 40-42, col 7 line 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishizato does not explicitly teach: a first pressure regulator fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator.
However, Nolet teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising a first pressure regulator (comprising control means 24 including actuator 22 and valve 20, Fig. 1; comprising upstream pressure tap 26 and valve 42, Fig. 2; col 4 line 37-55, col 5 line 22-24, see claim 1) fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end (i.e. end connected to liquid reagent, Fig. 1 and 2) and the second fluid line end (i.e. end connected to vaporization chamber 46, Fig. 2), the first pressure regulator (comprising 24, Fig. 1; comprising 26 and 42, Fig. 2) configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator (col 4 line 37-55). Nolet teaches such a configuration enables preventing uncontrolled pressure variations and/or minimizing downstream pressure perturbances (col 4 line 37; claim 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a first pressure regulator fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator because Nolet teaches/suggests that such a configuration enables minimizing downstream pressure perturbances/variations (Nolet: col 4 line 37, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nishizato in view of Nolet teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Nishizato further teaches wherein the vaporizer further comprises an open/close valve (comprising 11, Fig. 1, col 4 line 28-29) upstream of the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nishizato in view of Nolet teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Nishizato further teaches a gas source (comprising IN which is supply of gas flowing into inert gas supply pipe 7, Fig. 1) comprising one or more of nitrogen, argon, helium, coupled to the vessel (comprising 5, Fig. 1) (col 4 line 15-18).
Regarding claim 5, Nishizato in view of Nolet teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Nishizato further teaches a carrier gas line (comprising carrier gas supply line 3, Fig. 1, col 4 line 4-12) connected to the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) which the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) is configured to mix the vaporized precursor with a carrier gas (col 4 line 64-col 6 line 36, see specifically col 6 line 25-36).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”) in view of Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and further in view of Nagata et al. (US 2011/0100483 A1 hereinafter “Nagata”).
Regarding claim 3, Nishizato in view of Nolet teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the flow rate of the vaporized precursor is less than 20000 sccm.
However, Nishizato does provide an example of 0.2 cc/min and 1.0 cc/min (col 9 line 26-28) and further teaches that the vaporized precursor can be any appropriate reactant material for use in the semiconductor industry (col 9 line 61-64).
Further, Nagata teaches the flow rate of the vaporized precursor is less than 20000 sccm (para. [0050],[0066] discloses 100 sccm) wherein the vaporized precursor is suitable for use in the semiconductor industry (para. [0002]).
Additionally, and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the flow rate of the vaporized precursor is a result-effective variable which would affect the processing of a substrate in the reactor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the apparatus such that the flow rate of the vaporized precursor less than 20000 sccm or alternatively to optimize the flow rate because Nishizato teaches/suggests a vaporized precursor suitable for use in the semiconductor industry and an example flow rate in cc/min and because Nagata teaches that such a flow rate is suitable for a precursor used in the semiconductor industry or alternatively because optimizing the flow rate would optimize substrate processing in the reactor.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2003/0049933 A1 hereinafter “Lei”) in view of Winkler (US 2021/0002767 A1), Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”) and Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”).
Independent claims 1 and 9 rejections:
Regarding independent claim 1, preamble limitations, "for providing a liquid source precursor to a reactor" limitations are intended use and do not receive patentable weight. However, those limitations are mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding independent claim 1, Lei teaches:
a liquid delivery system apparatus for providing a liquid-source precursor to a reactor (comprising first CVD chamber 116 and second CVD chamber, Fig. 1, para. [0029],[0034]), the liquid delivery system apparatus comprising: a precursor source comprising a vessel (comprising dual tank liquid refill (DTLR) module 104 including first tank 106 and second tank 108, Fig. 1 and 2) and a liquid-source precursor therein (para. [0026]-[0028]);
a fluid line (see annotated Fig. 1 and 3A below) comprising a first fluid line end and a second fluid line end, the first fluid line end coupled to the vessel (comprising 104, Fig. 1);
a vaporizer (comprising 184 in the gas panel 110, Fig. 3A, para. [0039]) (see annotated Fig. 1 and 3A below) coupled to the second fluid line end.
wherein the vaporizer (comprising 184, Fig. 3A) comprises a control valve (comprising control valve 52 and vaporization valve 54, Fig. 6-8, para. [0039], [0052]), and wherein the vaporizer is configured to convert the liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor (para. [0039], [0050]-[0053]);
a liquid flow meter (comprising 180, Fig. 3A) connected to the fluid line upstream of the vaporizer (comprising 184, Fig. 3A) (para. [0037]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1013
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
784
993
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lei does not clearly and explicitly teach a first pressure regulator connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator, the liquid flow meter is a mass flow meter; a controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve, wherein the controller is configured to control the flowrate of the vaporized precursor through the control valve by receiving an output signal from the liquid mass flow meter and sending a control signal to the control valve.
However, Lei does teach valves (comprising 176b-176c, 174, 182, Fig. 3A) connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end (para. [0037]).
Additionally, Winkler teaches providing a valve (comprising 11, Fig. 2) which is configured to control a pressure and flow of liquid flowing downstream from the liquid precursor source (comprising 3, Fig. 2) to the vaporizer (comprising 10, Fig. 2) (para. [0021]).
Further, Nolet teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising a first pressure regulator (comprising control means 24 including actuator 22 and valve 20, Fig. 1; comprising upstream pressure tap 26 and valve 42, Fig. 2; col 4 line 37-55, col 5 line 22-24, see claim 1) fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end (i.e. end connected to liquid reagent, Fig. 1 and 2) and the second fluid line end (i.e. end connected to vaporization chamber 46, Fig. 2), the first pressure regulator (comprising 24, Fig. 1; comprising 26 and 42, Fig. 2) configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator (col 4 line 37-55). Nolet teaches such a configuration enables preventing uncontrolled pressure variations and/or minimizing downstream pressure perturbances (col 4 line 37; claim 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a first pressure regulator fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator or alternatively to configure at least one of the valves of Lei such that a pressure is controlled/regulated because Winkler teaches this is a known configuration for controlling/regulating the flow of liquid into the vaporizer (para. [0021]) and because Nolet teaches/suggests that providing a pressure regulator enables minimizing downstream pressure perturbances/variations (Nolet: col 4 line 37, claim 1).
Lei in view of Winkler and Nolet as applied above does not explicitly teach the liquid flow meter is a mass flow meter and a controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve, wherein the controller is configured to control the flowrate of the vaporized precursor through the control valve by receiving an output signal from the liquid mass flow meter and sending a control signal to the control valve.
However, Nishizato teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus for providing a liquid-source precursor to a reactor (comprising reaction furnace process chamber/reaction chamber/deposition chamber 20, Fig. 1, col 4 line 57-58) comprising a controller (comprising control unit 10, Fig. 1) connected to the liquid mass flow meter (comprising 8, Fig. 1) and the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1), wherein the controller (comprising 10, Fig. 1) is configured to control the flowrate of the vaporized precursor through the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) by receiving an output signal from the liquid mass flow meter (comprising 8, Fig. 1) and sending a control signal to the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) (col 4 line 24-28, col 4 line 40-42, col 7 line 1-6, col 9 line 37-43). Nishizato teaches that such a configuration enables precise control of the flow the liquid material (col 9 line 37-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the liquid flow meter (Lei: comprising 180, Fig. 3A, para. [0037]) to be a liquid mass flow meter and to provide a controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve, wherein the controller is configured to control the flowrate of the vaporized precursor through the control valve by receiving an output signal from the liquid mass flow meter and sending a control signal to the control valve because Nishizato teaches that such a configuration enables precise control of the flow the liquid material (col 9 line 54-61).
Regarding independent claim 9, Lei teaches: a reactor system (comprising system 100, Fig. 1, para. [0025]) comprising: a process module comprising one or more reaction chambers (comprising first CVD chamber 116 and second CVD chamber, Fig. 1, para. [0029],[0034]) and one or more vaporizers (comprising 184, Fig. 3A, para. [0037]-[0038]) wherein each vaporizer is configured to convert a liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor (para. [0037]-[0039], [0050]-[0053]);
Wherein each vaporizer comprises a control valve (comprising control valve 52 and vaporization valve 54, Fig. 6-8, para. [0039], [0052]) configured to control a flow of the vaporized precursor (para. [0039], [0050]-[0053]);
a liquid delivery system apparatus, the liquid delivery system apparatus comprising: a precursor source comprising a vessel (comprising dual tank liquid refill (DTLR) module 104 including first tank 106 and second tank 108, Fig. 1 and 2) and a liquid-source precursor therein (para. [0026]-[0028]);
a fluid line (see annotated Fig. 1 and 3A below) comprising a first fluid line end and a second fluid line end, the first fluid line end coupled to the vessel (comprising 104, Fig. 1) coupled a vaporizer (comprising 184 in the gas panel 110, Fig. 3A) (see annotated Fig. 1 and 3A above) of the one or more vaporizers.
Lei does not clearly and explicitly teach a mass flow meter downstream of the control valve and a first pressure regulator connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator.
However, Lei does teach valves (comprising 176b-176c, 174, 182, Fig. 3A) connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end (para. [0037]).
Additionally, Winkler teaches providing a valve (comprising 11, Fig. 2) which is configured to control a pressure and flow of liquid flowing downstream from the liquid precursor source (comprising 3, Fig. 2) to the vaporizer (comprising 10, Fig. 2) (para. [0021]).
Further, Nolet teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising a first pressure regulator (comprising control means 24 including actuator 22 and valve 20, Fig. 1; comprising upstream pressure tap 26 and valve 42, Fig. 2; col 4 line 37-55, col 5 line 22-24, see claim 1) fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end (i.e. end connected to liquid reagent, Fig. 1 and 2) and the second fluid line end (i.e. end connected to vaporization chamber 46, Fig. 2), the first pressure regulator (comprising 24, Fig. 1; comprising 26 and 42, Fig. 2) configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator (col 4 line 37-55). Nolet teaches such a configuration enables preventing uncontrolled pressure variations and/or minimizing downstream pressure perturbances (col 4 line 37; claim 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a first pressure regulator fluidly connected within the fluid line between the first fluid line end and the second fluid line end, the first pressure regulator configured to control a pressure in the fluid line downstream of the first pressure regulator or configure at least one of the valves of Lei such that a pressure is controlled/regulated because Winkler teaches this is a known configuration for controlling/regulating the flow of liquid into the vaporizer (para. [0021]) and because Nolet teaches/suggests that providing a pressure regulator enables minimizing downstream pressure perturbances/variations (Nolet: col 4 line 37, claim 1).
Lei in view of Winkler and Nolet as applied above does not explicitly teach a mass flow meter downstream of the control valve.
However, Nishizato teaches a liquid delivery system apparatus for providing a liquid-source precursor to a reactor (comprising reaction furnace process chamber/reaction chamber/deposition chamber 20, Fig. 1, col 4 line 57-58) comprising a control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1) and a mass flow meter (comprising 18, Fig. 1) downstream of the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1)(co l8 line 17-20). Nishizato teaches that such a configuration enables high precision control of the flow the liquid material (col 4 line 47-55; col 9 line 54-61).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure add/provide a mass flow meter downstream of the control valve of the vaporizer because Nishizato teaches that such a configuration enables high precision control of the flow the liquid material (col 9 line 54-61).
Dependent claims rejections:
Regarding claim 2, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the vaporizer further comprises an open/close valve upstream of the control valve.
However, Lei teaches a pneumatic valve (comprising 182, Fig. 3A, para. [0037]) upstream of the control valve (comprising 54 in 184, Fig. 3A and 6-8).
Additionally, Nishizato further teaches wherein the vaporizer further comprises an open/close valve (comprising 11, Fig. 1, col 4 line 28-29) upstream of the control valve (comprising 1, Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide an open/close valve upstream of the control valve or alternatively to configure the valve 182 of Lei to be an open/close valve because Nishizato teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable flow configuration for providing liquid material into the vaporizer.
Regarding claim 4, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Lei further teaches a gas source (comprising gas supply system 114, Fig. 1) coupled to the vessel (comprising 104, Fig. 1) comprises inert carrier gas such as nitrogen or helium (para. [0027], [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Lei further teaches a carrier gas line (comprising 12, Fig. 7) connected to the control valve (comprising 54, Fig. 6-8) wherein the control valve is configured to mix the vaporized precursor with a carrier gas (para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as and further teaches wherein the fluid line comprises a plurality of downstream segments (see annotated Fig. 1 of Lei below), wherein the liquid delivery system apparatus comprises a plurality of pressure regulators (comprising the valves in each gas panel 110 for a respective CVD chamber), including the first pressure regulator, and wherein each pressure regulator of the plurality of pressure regulators is coupled to a respective downstream segment. Examiner explains that in claim 1 rejection above the valves in Lei were modified in view of Winkler and Nolet to be pressure regulators or alternatively a pressure regulator was added to the respective gas panel.
PNG
media_image4.png
860
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 and 13, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 9, respectively, as applied above and Lei further teaches a first manifold within the fluid line and between the first fluid line end and the first pressure regulator. See annotated Fig. 3A of Lei below.
PNG
media_image5.png
930
661
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 9 above and Lei further teaches wherein the reactor system comprises two reaction chambers (see Fig. 1 and para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 11 Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 9 above and Lei further teaches two process modules (comprising two CVD reaction chambers Fig. 1 and para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, as applied above and further teaches a plurality of pressure regulators (comprising valve in gas panel 110 to each respective CVD chamber, Fig. 1), including the first pressure regulator, wherein each pressure regulator of the plurality of pressure regulators is connected within the fluid line between the vessel (comprising 104, Fig. 1) and the respective process module of the two or more process modules (comprising CVD reaction chamber, Fig. 1). Examiner explains that in claim 1 rejection above the valves in Lei were modified in view of Winkler to be pressure regulators. See annotated Fig. 1 of Lei below.
PNG
media_image6.png
811
615
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Lei et al. (US 2003/0049933 A1 hereinafter “Lei”) in view of Winkler (US 2021/0002767 A1), Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”) and Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and further in view of Nagata et al. (US 2011/0100483 A1 hereinafter “Nagata”).
Regarding claim 3, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the flowrate of the vaporized precursor is less than 20000 sccm.
However, examiner notes the Lei teaches the precursors are suitable for use in semiconductor processing (para. [0010],[0054]).
Additionally, and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the flow rate of the vaporized precursor is a result-effective variable which would affect the processing of a substrate in the reactor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the apparatus such that the flow rate of the vaporized precursor less than 20000 sccm or alternatively to optimize the flow rate because Lei teaches/suggests a vaporized precursor suitable for use in the semiconductor industry and because Nagata teaches that such a flow rate is suitable for a precursor used in the semiconductor industry or alternatively because optimizing the flow rate would optimize substrate processing in the reactor.
Claim(s) 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2003/0049933 A1 hereinafter “Lei”) in view of Winkler (US 2021/0002767 A1), Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”) and Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”) as applied above in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is and further in view of Horii et al. (US 2009/0061648 A1 hereinafter “Horii”).
Regarding claim 8 and 14, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 9, respectively, above but does not explicitly teach a second manifold in the fluid line and interposed between the first pressure regulator and the second fluid line end.
However, Horii teaches a liquid delivery system (Fig. 8) including a fluid line (comprising 211t and 211, Fig. 8) having a second end coupled to a vaporizer (comprising vaporization chamber 20t, Fig. 8), a pressure regulator (comprising liquid flow controller 221t, Fig. 8) on the fluid line (comprising 211t and 21t, Fig. 8), and a second manifold (comprising branching lines at vt7, vt1, vt2 on line 21t, Fig. 8) in the fluid line and interposed between the pressure regulator (comprising 221t, Fig. 8) and the second fluid line end (para. [0136]-[0142]). Horii teaches that such a configuration enables providing mixing of a solvent and a liquid precursor to the vaporizer to create a gas mixture (para. [0141]-[0142]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second manifold in the fluid line and interposed between the first pressure regulator and the second fluid line end because Horii teaches that such a configuration can enable creating a gas mixture for use in the processing/reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2003/0049933 A1 hereinafter “Lei”) in view of Winkler (US 2021/0002767 A1), Nolet et al. (US 5,098,741 hereinafter “Nolet”) and Nishizato et al. (US 6,752,387 B1 hereinafter “Nishizato”) as applied above in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is and further in view of Loan et al. (US 6,136,725 hereinafter “Loan”).
Regarding claim 15, Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet, and Nishizato teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 9 above but does not teach the vaporizer is configured to vaporize the liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor without a carrier gas.
However, Loan teaches a vaporizer (comprising vaporization system 12 including vaporizer 28, Fig 1A and 2) configured to vaporize the liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor without a carrier gas (col 5 line 15-col 6 line 33; col 3 line 51-55; claim 1; abstract). Loan teaches that such a configuration increases the efficiency of use of precursors over standard systems utilizing a carrier gas (col 3 line 51-55).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the vaporizer to vaporize the liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor without a carrier gas because Loan teaches that such a configuration increases the efficiency of use of precursors over standard systems utilizing a carrier gas (Loan: col 3 line 51-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 6) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim1 that Botelho does not teach the vaporizer comprises a control valve as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Botelho is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Botelho are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1 that Nagata fails to teach or suggest a liquid mass flow meter or a controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve of the vaporizer as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Nagata is no longer cited in the current rejections to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Nagata and claim 1 are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 that Nagata and Wang whether alone or in combination fail to teach a liquid mass flow meter or controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve of the vaporizer as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Nagata is no longer cited in the current rejections to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. Wang is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Nagata and claim 1 are moot; additionally, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Wang are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C.103 rejection of independent claim 1, Lei and Winkler whether alone or in combination fail to teach a controller connected to the liquid mass flow meter and the control valve of the vaporizer as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim 1 is currently rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato in view of Nolet and additionally as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato. Examiner notes that Nishizato is cited to teach a liquid mass flow meter and both Lei and Nishizato teach control valves, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C.103 rejection of independent claim 9, Lei and Winkler whether alone or in combination fail to teach each vaporizer is configured to convert a liquid-source precursor into a vaporized precursor, wherein each vaporizer comprising a control valve configured to control a flow of the vaporized precursor and a mass flow meter downstream of the control valve as currently claimed in amended claim 9.
Examiner responds claim 9 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim 9 is currently rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Winkler, Nolet and Nishizato. Examiner notes that Nishizato is cited to teach a liquid mass flow meter and both Lei and Nishizato teach control valves, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 9, the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sivaramakrishnan et al. (US 2004/0188866 A1) teaches a liquid delivery apparatus comprising a liquid flow meter (comprising 14, Fig. 1) upstream of a control valve (para. [0022]-[0023]) of the vaporizer (comprising 12, Fig. 1, 2A-2D, para. [0022]) (para. [0014]-[0036]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716