DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-8 and 19-20, in the reply filed on June 30, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al., US 2019/0332129, in view of Kobrin et al., US 2006/0213441.
Claim 1: Rice discloses a gas reservoir (120) connected to and in fluid communication with a processing chamber (101) via a fast-switching valve (174) and a gas reservoir line (140) ([0022]; Fig. 1). Because Rice depicts the processing chamber (101) schematically, the reference cannot address those limitations directing to the its construction. In supplementation, Kobrin discloses a processing chamber (102) having a lid, sidewalls, and a bottom, wherein various gas reservoirs (122, 134, 146) connect to the lid via respective valves (126, 138, 150) ([0033-35]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to structure Rice’s process chamber in accordance with the Kobrin’s archetype, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 2: For purposes of clarity, Rice simply depicts the gas plumbing corresponding to a single source and, therefore, does not show two reservoirs. Even so, Kobrin avails multiple gas sources for processing within a given chamber and provides dedicated supply paths for each source (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to supplement Rice’s design with additional gas sources and their corresponding gas plumbing in order to supply chemistries of varying permutation to the processing chamber.
Claim 3: This limitation is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the claimed function – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). The operator can simply provide two different etchant sources and deliver them to the two gas reservoirs, respectively.
Claim 4: The operator can simply charge a gas cylinder with a mixture of reactant and carrier gas, whereby this mixture is then delivered to the gas reservoir.
Claim 5: Kobrin suggests a reservoir volume of up to 1,000 cc [0036].
Claim 6: The claimed standard of “constant high level etchant flow” can be defined arbitrarily to encompass whatever type of flow is yielded by the composite prior art apparatus.
Claim 8: Kobrin shows at least three different gas sources, whereby any one of these sources and its corresponding plumbing may be taken as the claimed “gas box,” whereby the remaining sources may be considered a “reservoir line.”
Claim 19: The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6, collectively, address these limitations. In addition, there is necessarily an aperture to permit the introduction of gas to the process chamber, whereby this aperture may be deemed the “process gas inlet.”
Claim 20: Rice provides a controller (190) configured to control the flow of gas through entirety of the gas plumbing [0032-33].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Kobrin, and in further view of Kofuji et al., US 2010/0167426.
Rice is silent regarding the length of the gas reservoir line, yet Kofuji discloses an etching system which optimizes the response of gas flow rate by shortening the length of the fluid conduit coupling to the chamber to as small as 20 mm [0058]. Figure 4 proceeds to compare the flow rate corresponding to various pipe lengths, clearly establishing this feature as a result effective variable. It would have been obvious, through routine experimentation, to shorten Rice’s gas reservoir line to within the claimed range in view of Kofuji’s disclosure, as 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)).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hasegawa et al., US 5,795,399. Hasegawa discloses a processing chamber (2) having a lid, sidewalls, and a bottom, whereby a gas reservoir (42) is connected to the lid via a valve (44) and a gas reservoir line (4, 62ff; Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights