DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,2,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins(4915880).
Jenkins in figure 1 teaches a chemical supply device for use in a semiconductor manufacturing process, the chemical supply device comprising a bubbler(bubbler assembly 10) , wherein the bubbler comprises a lower support surface(bottom 15) comprising a lower concave portion(noting concave pocket 25 in figure 1) formed to be concave toward the bubbler, a side surface(side wall 14) smoothly connected to the lower support surface through a corner curved portion(noting curved annulus 26 in figure 1), an upper surface (top 16) extended from the side surface, an inlet(carrier gas delivery tube 17) extended from an outside of the upper surface to an inside of the bubbler, and configured to inject an output gas(N2 carrier gas) for causing a chemical solution(liquid chemical 12) contained in the bubbler to evaporate, and an outlet(outlet tube 20) configured to transmit the chemical solution evaporated in the bubbler, wherein the lower concave portion as a radius of center curvature. Jenkins is silent as to a radius of center curvature that is greater than or equal to 28% of a diameter of the lower support surface and is less than 48% of the diameter of the lower support surface in order to increase a flow velocity of the output gas sprayed from the inlet.
Examiner notes that the concave pocket of Jenkins includes a radius of curvature that extends into the bubbler assembly, and examiner notes that a review of the current specification provides support in only paragraphs (0006) and (0122), wherein the specification does not provide unexpected results for the specific claimed range for the radius of center curvature. Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to provide a radius of center curvature that is greater than or equal to 28% of a diameter of the lower support surface and is less than 48% of the diameter of the lower support surface in order to provide for the carrier gas delivery tube to be located at an outlet location closer to the concave pocket(25) than to a location of the annulus(26). Examiner respectfully submits that a radius of center curvature represents a result effective variable, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would modify a result effective variable such as a radius of center curvature to obtain a desired result. See MPEP 2144.05 (B) for a discussion of result effective variable, wherein for a result effective variable, an “obvious to try” line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. Examiner respectfully submits that the limitations “in order to increase a flow velocity of the output gas sprayed from the inlet” represent a function of the claimed lower concave portion and are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein patentability is based solely on a prior art reference mapping structural limitations of an apparatus claim. Examiner also notes column 2 lines 35-36 of Jenkins recites “it is well known that an indented bottom improves the strength characteristics of the container”, wherein examiner respectfully submits that optimization of a radius of curvature of the concave pocket of Jenkins does not need to match the same function of “in order to increase a flow velocity of the output gas sprayed from the inlet”.
With regards to claim 2, Jenkins further teaches wherein the bubbler is a quartz bubbler, and wherein the corner curved portion has a curvature. Jenkins is silent as to wherein the corner curved portion has a curvature that is less than or equal to 23% of the diameter of the lower support surface. Examiner notes that the corner curved portion(annulus 26) of Jenkins includes a curvature that is a percentage of a diameter of the lower support surface, and examiner notes that a review of the current specification provides support in only a single paragraph (0123), wherein the specification does not provide unexpected results for the specific claimed curvature of the corner curved portion. Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to provide a corner curved portion having a curvature that is less than or equal to 23% of the diameter of the lower support surface in order to provide a curved corner to provide for smooth transition of the carrier gas from the delivery tube(17) into the container(13). Examiner respectfully submits that a curvature percentage represents a result effective variable, wherein someone of ordinary skill in the art would modify a result effective variable such as a curvature to obtain a desired result. See MPEP 2144.05 (B) for a discussion of result effective variable, wherein for a result effective variable, an “obvious to try” line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection.
With regards to claim 9, Jenkins further teaches wherein the evaporated chemical solution is transmitted to a diffusion furnace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the inlet is disposed to have a predetermined angle with respect to the lower support surface to increase the flow velocity of the output gas, and wherein the predetermined angle is 60 degrees to 80 degrees inclusive.”. Jenkins teaches an inlet(17) for transmission of carrier gas into a bubbler assembly, however Jenkins does not teach or suggest “wherein the inlet is disposed to have a predetermined angle with respect to the lower support surface to increase the flow velocity of the output gas, and wherein the predetermined angle is 60 degrees to 80 degrees inclusive. Claims 4-8 depend on claim 3 and would also be allowable upon incorporation of claims 3 and 2 into claim 1.
Claim 10 is allowed.
Claim 10 recites “a chemical supply device for use in a semiconductor manufacturing process, the chemical supply device comprising a bubbler , wherein the bubbler comprises a lower support surface comprising a lower concave portion formed to be concave toward the bubbler, a side surface smoothly connected to the lower support surface through a corner curved portion, an upper surface extended from the side surface, an inlet extended from an outside of the upper surface to an inside of the bubbler, and configured to inject an output gas for causing a chemical solution contained in the bubbler to evaporate, and an outlet configured to transmit the chemical solution evaporated in the bubbler, wherein in order to increase a flow velocity of the output gas sprayed from the inlet, the lower concave portion has a radius of curvature that is greater than or equal to 48% and less than 49% of a diameter of the lower support surface, the corner curved portion has a radius of curvature that is greater than or equal to 22% and less than 23% of the diameter of the lower support surface, and the inlet is disposed to have an angle of 60 degrees with respect to the lower support surface.”.
Jenkins in figure 1 teaches a chemical supply device for use in a semiconductor manufacturing process, the chemical supply device comprising a bubbler(bubbler assembly 10) , wherein the bubbler comprises a lower support surface(bottom 15) comprising a lower concave portion(noting concave pocket 25 in figure 1) formed to be concave toward the bubbler, a side surface(side wall 14) smoothly connected to the lower support surface through a corner curved portion(noting curved annulus 26 in figure 1), an upper surface (top 16) extended from the side surface, an inlet(carrier gas delivery tube 17) extended from an outside of the upper surface to an inside of the bubbler, and configured to inject an output gas(N2 carrier gas) for causing a chemical solution(liquid chemical 12) contained in the bubbler to evaporate, and an outlet(outlet tube 20) configured to transmit the chemical solution evaporated in the bubbler, wherein the lower concave portion as a radius of center curvature. Examiner also respectfully submits, consistent with the result effective variable analysis of claims 1 and 2, that someone of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adjust the radius of center curvature of the lower concave portion, and the radius of curvature of the corner curved portion, to the claimed ranges.
Jenkins teaches an inlet(17) for transmission of carrier gas into a bubbler assembly, however Jenkins does not teach or suggest the inlet is disposed to have an angle of 60 degrees with respect to the lower support surface.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
February 12, 2026