DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (01/18/2024), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-18) were pending and examined in a Non-Final on 6/2/2026. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 8/25/2026. Claims were amended, so that claims, 1, 4-5 and 7-18 are being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments.
Applicant’s argument that integrated heater part is not disclosed is not persuasive since in the present office action, Sharma et al, Seo et al and Thanh Nguyen disclose integrated heater. Applicants’ other arguments attacking individual references is also not persuasive.
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 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, 4-5 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 20240234167) in view of Seo et al (KR 20070098266) and Thanh Nguyen (WO 2023097134 or US 20250003065).
Sharma et al disclose a process gas supply device (Fig 7A) comprising:
a gas distribution system where a plurality of gas lines branch from a common input (602) in order to transfer the supplied process gas to plurality of outputs (608).
Sharma et al further, disclose a heater part provided to surround the plurality of gas lines and the gas hub to heat the gas hub and the plurality of gas lines at the same time.
Gas hubs are provided in plurality to be stacked (Fig 8 and para 52).
Sharma et al disclose the fluid splitter being a unitary body (Para 54) which is heated by heater cartridge 624. Sharma et al describe heating of lines like (615) connected to the fluid splitter (Para 52) which corresponds to hub and gas lines as being integrated.
Since the block distributes heat uniformly (Para 58) it would have been obvious to have it made of good thermally conductive material.
Sharma et al do not explicitly disclose covering gas lines.
Seo et al shows an integrated heater (Fig 2) to heat gas lines (200-1 to 200-7) as well as connector (205-1 to 205-7). It is noted that these connectors correspond to hub of Hey and of the application. The enclosure block is of good thermally conductive material like aluminum (See the text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have an integrated heater for the gas distributor hub and connected gas lines to have temperature control of precursors.
Additionally, Thanh Nguyen discloses the hub and gas accommodation part for integrated heating of hub and gas lines (Fig 1A, 1C 2, 3A-3C) conforming to gas distribution lines including connections where lines are perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 4, both horizontal and vertical parts are disclosed in Sharma et al (Fig 5), Seo et al (Fig 3) and Thanh Nguyen (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5 accommodation part is interpreted as the integrated heater corresponding to horizontal part and vertical part. They would obviously appear different as disclosed above.
Moreover, it was held in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) that the shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. (Also see MPEP 2144.04(d)).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 stack splitters are disclosed in Fig 8. Each splitter includes dedicated lines and integrated heater conforming to the gas lines and hub or the connector part.
Regarding claim 9 gas lines are disposed symmetrically as disclosed in Hey et al (Fig 8) and Sharma et al (Fig 7A).
Regarding claim 10 as disclosed above integrated gas hub heater is disclosed to be of good thermal conductive material like aluminum (Seo et al).
In addition, the lower block 220 and the upper block 230 are made of a material having excellent thermal conductivity, and the material is preferably aluminum having high thermal conductivity and light weight.
Regarding claim 11, since the gas distribution splitter heats gases through heat cartridge the splitter should have good thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim, 12 temperature measurements to control temperature is disclosed more explicitly in Seo et al as noted below.
Furthermore, this effect can be achieved by adjusting the output of the heater, and the adjustment of the heater output is a method of controlling the strength of the power supplied to each heater connected to the power port by a separate power control device (not shown). May be employed. At this time, the temperature of the process gas flowing through the gas pipe located in the gas heating block can be measured by installing a temperature measuring device (not shown) at the required point in the gas heating block, the measurement result of the temperature measuring device is the output of the heater It is provided to the power controller for control (Fig 4 and description).
Regarding claims 13 and 14 insulating part for thermally conductive block is disclosed in Seo et al as below.
The gas heating block further comprises a case for accommodating the upper block and the lower block, the insulating material blocking the external transfer of heat emitted from the upper block and the lower block.
Regarding claim, 15 showerheads and substrate supports are disclosed in Sharma et al (Fig 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 16-18 each processing station 32 could be a sub-chamber with independent processing capability and choice of gas in view of plurality of hubs as disclosed in Sharma et al.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 20240234167) in view of Seo et al (KR 20070098266), Thanh Nguyen (WO 2023097134) and Hey et al (US 4987856).
Regarding claim 15, using gas distribution hub is disclosed for the purpose of a common gas source for distribution to multiple users, Hey et al disclose such an arrangement where this could be used (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date of this application to have an integrated heater for the gas distributor hub and connected gas lines to have temperature control of precursors in a system like that of Hey et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang et al (US 20030194493) discloses a gas distribution hub with plurality of gas lines (Fig 1).
Byoung Ho (US 20220165548) discloses a gas distribution hub (Fig 2, 200) and heater to heat the hub.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights