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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 04/29/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because claims 1 and 15 have that are improperly underlined and/or not underlined (In claim 1, “the first compression clamp” and “the first sealing gasket” should read ‘the first compression clamp’ and ‘the first sealing gasket’, and the punctuation at the end of the second to last clause and final clause are erroneously marked; In claim 15 “the gas tube coil, connecting tube and…” should read ‘the gas tube coil, connecting tube and…’. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on 04/29/2026 appears to be bona fide, in order to promote compact prosecution, and because scope of the amendments are clear apart from form issues, the amendments filed 04/29/2026 have nevertheless been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/04/2026, hereinafter NFOA0204.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some, but not all of the objections previously set forth in NFOA0204. While Applicant’s response is bona fide, previous issues remain in some claims, and Applicant’s amendments to the claims have resulted in at least one additional objectionable issue. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0204. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have resulted in an additional indefiniteness issue. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of NFOA0204. See claim mapping below for detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, as previously discussed in NFOA0204, has a consistency issue with the terminology, which has been amended, but not in a manner consistent with previous recitations, i.e., ‘process’ should read ‘processing’; This is believed to be a mere clerical error and is clear in context;
Claim 15 has been amended in a way that has grammatical/typographical issues, and should read ‘the gas tube coil, the connecting tube, and the gas couplings’; This is believed to be a mere clerical error and is clear in context;
Claim 18 has erroneously amended one instance of the placement of ‘metal’; in particular, the claim now reads “a metal output metal gas line”, which should read ‘a metal output gas line’, as in the other instances; This is believed to be a mere clerical error and is clear in context;
Claim 18 has been amended to include “a first gas coil line”, however, the claim subsequently requires “a second gas tube coil”; These terms are inconsistent, as they appear to both indicate the item referred to in the specification as ‘gas tube coil’, and thus Examiner believes this should read ‘a first gas tube coil’, because it would appear the phrasing ‘gas coil line’ is a clerical/typographical error, as this term does not appear in the specification, and would appear to require only a line to connect to a gas coil, rather than a gas coil itself, in apparent opposition to the disclosure;
Claim 20, similar to claim 18, has a remaining issue with the placement of ‘metal’, however, it appears in the case of claim 20 the claim has erroneously not been amended; This is believed to be a mere clerical error and is clear in context.
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 20 is 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.
Claims 20 recites “a gas bottle connected with the input metal gas line”, however, claim 18, on which claim 20 depends, has been amended to require “the second gas tube coil connected to a metal input gas line”. It is unclear, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, as viewed by an ordinarily skilled artisan, how the gas bottle can be connected to the metal input gas line when the metal input gas line is connected to the second gas tube coil. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. It would appear from Applicant’s disclosure that the gas bottle connects to the metal input gas line by way of the second gas tube coil. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a gas bottle connected with the metal input gas line via the second gas tube coil’.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A) in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a gas interface (Title; [0001]) comprising:
a connecting tube which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0012]);
a metal input gas line (See Figs. 3-5, item 132; [0015]-[0017]; [0021]; Examiner notes item 14 could also reasonably read on the limitation, as item 14 is disclosed as being metal in [0016]);
a metal output gas line (See Figs. 3-5, item 142; [0015]-[0017]; [0021]; Examiner notes item 14 could also reasonably read on the limitation, as item 14 is disclosed as being metal in [0016]);
an input gas coupling providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the metal input gas line and a first end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
an output gas coupling providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the metal output gas line and a second end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
one or both of a first gas tube coil operatively connected to the metal input gas line and a second gas tube coil operatively connected to the metal output gas line (See Figs. 2-5, items 13, 14, operatively coupled to items 132, 142; [0012]; [0015]-[0017]; Examiner notes that items 13, 14 are shown as coil shaped tubes in Figs. 2-5, and the cited portions disclose the flexible pipes as having ‘spring’ shape, and being formed into a 3D element, which is interpreted as reading on ‘gas tube coil’, as they transport gas therethrough in a coil shape).
Cheng does not teach the input gas coupling including: a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the metal input gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the first end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including: a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the metal output gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the second end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Essentially, Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween, but does disclose two gas couplings.
However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art.
For example, such a gas coupling is commonly applied in tube furnace applications in which a gas feed tube is connected to a process tube (commonly formed of quartz) on one end, while a gas exhaust tube is connected to an opposite end of the process tube, wherein the gas coupling typically include the use of a gasket to ensure a gastight seal between the process tube and the gas feed tube via compression of the gasket. Similar functionality is found in the flange connections of various ultra-high vacuum chambers, in which flanges are bolted together to compress a seal/gasket therebetween in order to provide a leak-proof seal between the components of the vacuum system. Other common couplings which could read on the recited coupling include dresser couplings, VCR fittings, and standard flange clamps that utilize a gasket/seal. See, e.g. Swagelok, Dresser Utility Solutions, and Kurt J. Lesker for commercially available examples of such couplings.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to include the disclosed gas coupling mechanism of Peck on each of Cheng’s disclosed gas couplings, respectively, to achieve the input gas coupling including: a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the metal input gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the first end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including: a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the metal output gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the second end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 2.
Peck further teaches wherein the first and second sealing gaskets comprise a material that is softer than sapphire ([0195]-[0196], Examiner notes that the cited Swagelok product pages referenced in Peck disclose the metal gaskets as being potentially formed of Ni, 316L Stainless Steen, or Cu, each of which has a lower Mohs hardness than sapphire).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches further comprising:
a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11; [0013]-[0017]), wherein the connecting tube, the input gas coupling, the output gas coupling, and one or both of the first gas tube coil and the second gas tube coil are disposed within the housing (See Figs. 3-5, item 11, that contains item 12 and the connections thereof to metal input and output gas lines, and connections to items 13, 14, which are shown as at least partially disposed in item 11 in Figs. 1-2; [0012]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 5.
Cheng further teaches wherein the housing includes a purge gas inlet and a purge gas outlet for flowing a purge gas through the housing (See Figs. 3-4, where items 15 and 16 connect to item 11; [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 5.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is secured to the housing to form an earthquake-resistant rigid assembly (See Figs. 1 and 3-5, items 11, 12, 13, 14; [0003]; [0009]; [0012]-[0013]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a straight tube (See Figs. 3-5, item 12)
Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the connecting tube is a straight tube having a length of at least 15 cm (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Cheng discloses the claimed invention except for a particular length for the connecting tube, and in particular Cheng discloses ([0021]-[0022]) the length being chosen so as to avoid electrical arcing, depending on the particular conditions of the system. This indicates that the length of the connecting tube isa result effective variable. Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure (e.g. [0027]) also indicates that the length of the connecting tube is a result effective variable, disclosing that the length is chosen for the same reason as that in Cheng, namely, to prevent arcing between the metal inlet gas line (which is maintained at ground potential) and the output inlet gas line (maintained at high voltage). The length of the connecting tube that prevents arcing will naturally depend on the respective voltages upstream and downstream of the connecting tube, and the gas pressure/conditions within the housing in which the connecting tube is disposed. Such a length can be readily determined via routine experimentation using the desired operating conditions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include the connecting tube having a length of at least 15 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Doing so would allow one to follow the teachings of Cheng to choose a proper length of the connecting tube that will prevent arcing between the downstream high voltages and the upstream grounded elements.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A) in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1) and Jackson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20240192114 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 2.
Cheng in view of Peck does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Cheng merely makes reference to PTFE as a potential insulating material for the electrical insulation box, and cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng in view of Peck to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve wherein the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Claims 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olander (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130251913 A1) in view of Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A), further in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Olander teaches a semiconductor processing system (Abstract; [0002]) comprising:
a semiconductor processing tool configured to operate at a voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]; Examiner notes that the high voltage side of Cheng is also operated at at least 2 kV as disclosed in [0012]); and
([0105]-[0106]; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng teaches this limitation in [0015]) and the metal output gas line connects with the semiconductor processing tool ([0101]; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng discloses connecting the output line to a downstream ion implanter in [0011]).
Olander does not explicitly teach a gas interface as set forth in claim 5.
However, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface as set forth in claim 5, as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander to include the gas interface of Cheng as modified by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 10, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the semiconductor processing system of claim 9.
Cheng further teaches wherein the housing of the gas interface is gas-tight ([0014]-[0017]) and includes a purge gas inlet and a purge gas outlet for flowing a purge gas through the housing (See Figs. 3-4, where items 15 and 16 connect to item 11; [0028]), the semiconductor processing system further comprising:
an exhaust connected to receive the purge gas after passing through the purge gas outlet (See Figs. 3-4, item 16; [0018]); and
a gas monitoring system operatively coupled with the exhaust and configured to detect leakage of a toxic gas into the purge gas (See Figs. 3-4, items 16, and 33; [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the semiconductor processing system of claim 9.
Olander further teaches wherein the semiconductor processing tool comprises an ion implanter (Abstract; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng discloses the gas supply system as being used for ion implanter in [0002] and [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Olander teaches a method of operating a semiconductor processing tool, the method comprising:
flowing a process gas (See Fig. 4, showing gas feed line 212, i.e., input gas line that is made of metal, flowing dopant source gas from cylinder 208 into inlet 214 (all of which are grounded) of insulating gas supply line 216, i.e., connecting tube that is electrically insulating, which is connected to ion source 228 via gas manifold 222 and delivery line 226, i.e., output gas line made of metal; [0101]-[0109]),
delivering the process gas to the semiconductor processing tool via the metal output gas line ([0101]-[0109]); and
performing at least one semiconductor fabrication operation using the semiconductor processing tool that utilizes both the process gas delivered to the semiconductor process tool via the metal output gas line and an electrical voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]-[0053]; [0101]; Examiner notes that ‘high voltage’ in the context discussed in Olander would be understood to be at least 2 kV).
Olander does not teach flowing a process gas from a gas tube coil through a metal input gas line (Emphasis added by Examiner) and wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings, each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube.
Cheng teaches flowing a process gas from a gas tube coil through a metal input gas line (See Figs 3-5, items 13, 132; [0012]-[0017]) and wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]).
Cheng does not explicitly teach each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube.
Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween, However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art, as discussed above in regards to claim 1.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube, as taught by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander with Cheng in view of Peck to achieve wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings, each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube, as taught by the combination of Cheng and Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng, as modified, to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 13, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Cheng further teaches wherein the gas tube coil, connecting tube and the gas couplings are disposed in a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11, that contains item 12 and the connections thereof to metal input and output gas lines; See Figs. 1-5, item 13, in particular, Figs. 1-2 showing disposal at least partially within the housing; [0013]-[0017]), and the method further comprises:
flowing a purge gas through and out of the housing (See Figs. 3-4, flowing via 15 and 16, which connect to item 11; [0018]); and
monitoring the purge gas flowing out of the housing using a gas monitoring system configured to detect leakage of a toxic gas into the purge gas (See Figs. 3-4, items 16, and 33; [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Olander further teaches wherein the process gas includes at least one of phosphine and/or arsine ([0038]).
Regarding claim 17, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Olander further teaches wherein the semiconductor processing tool comprises an ion implanter (Abstract), and the at least one semiconductor fabrication operation performed uses the ion implanter ([0101]), and the semiconductor fabrication operation includes:
performing ion implantation by ionizing the process gas delivered to the ion implanter via the metal output gas line into an ionized process gas ([0007]; [0101]-[0109]) and accelerating ions of the ionized process gas using an electrostatic accelerator ([0101]) operating at the electrical voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]; [0101]; Examiner notes that ‘high voltage’ in the context discussed in Olander would be understood to be at least 2 kV).
Regarding claim 18, Olander teaches an ion implantation system (Title; Abstract; [0002]) comprising:
an ion implanter connected to receive a process gas (See Fig. 4, ion source 228 connected via gas manifold 222 to delivery line 226, i.e., output gas line made of metal; [0101]-[0109]); and
a gas interface (See Fig. 4, items 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 220, 222)
Olander does not teach an ion implanter connected to receive a process gas from a first gas coil line connected to a metal output metal gas line and a gas interface including: a housing which is electrically insulating; a connecting tube which is electrically insulating and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing; a second gas tube coil disposed in the housing, the second gas tube coil connected to a metal input gas line; an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of an metal input gas line and a first end of the connecting tube, the input gas coupling including a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp compressing the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube; and an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the metal output gas line and a second end of the connecting tube, the output gas coupling including a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp compressing the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube (Emphases added by Examiner).
Cheng teaches an ion implanter connected to receive a process gas from a first gas coil line connected to a metal output metal gas line (See Figs 3-5, items 14, 142; [0012]-[0017]) and
a gas interface (Title; [0001]) including:
a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11; [0013]-[0017]);
a connecting tube which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0012]) and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0014]);
a second gas tube coil disposed in the housing, the second gas tube coil connected to a metal input gas line (See Figs 3-5, items 13, 132; [0012]-[0017]; See Figs. 1-2 for disposal);
an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of a metal input gas line and a first end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the metal output gas line and a second end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]), .
Cheng does not teach the input gas coupling including a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp compressing the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp compressing the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween, However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art, as discussed above in regards to claim 1.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include the input gas coupling including a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp compressing the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp compressing the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, as taught by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander with Cheng in view of Peck to achieve an ion implanter connected to receive a process gas from a first gas coil line connected to a metal output metal gas line; and a gas interface including: a housing which is electrically insulating; a connecting tube which is electrically insulating and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing; a second gas tube coil disposed in the housing, the second gas tube coil connected to a metal input gas line; an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of an metal input gas line and a first end of the connecting tube, the input gas coupling including a first sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a first compression clamp compressing the first sealing gasket between the end of the metal input gas line and the first end of the connecting tube; and an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the metal output gas line and a second end of the connecting tube, the output gas coupling including a second sealing gasket disposed between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a second compression clamp compressing the second sealing gasket between the end of the metal output gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, as taught by the combination of Cheng and Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng, as modified, to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the ion implantation system of claim 18.
Olander further teaches further comprising:
a gas bottle connected with the metal input gas line (See Fig. 4, items 208, 212), the gas bottle containing arsine or phosphine ([0038]; [0041]; [0063]; [0093]).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olander (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130251913 A1) in view of Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A), further in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1), and Jackson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20240192114 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 13.
Olander does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Olander discusses the use of PTFE, but similar to Cheng, as discussed above, with reference to insulating material for a supply line, and thus also cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve wherein the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Regarding claim 19, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the ion implantation system of claim 18.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube of the gas supply box is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]),
Cheng in view of Peck does not explicitly teach the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
As discussed previously, Olander and Cheng discuss the use of PTFE as a potential insulating material for other components of the systems, and cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng in view of Peck to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve the first and second sealing gaskets are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights