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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (KR 20220087031 A).
As to claim 1, Son discloses a precursor delivery system for depositing a thin film in a deposition chamber (figure 1: precursor source gas ‘SG’ to chamber 110, background section paragraph 1: deposition system chamber) comprising:
A precursor delivery line comprising a selective filtration portion to flow a precursor through (figure 1: delivery line through branch ‘B1’ to filter 147);
The selective filtration portion is configured to capture particles contained within the precursor and bypass other gases flowing therethrough (figure 1: branch B1 with downstream control valves V1 and V3 to filter 147 and bypass 142 respectively with control 170 for bypass valve V4).
As to claim 2, Son discloses two parallel branches splitting from an inlet and remerging to an outlet connected to the deposition chamber, with only one branch having a particle filtration zone (figure 1: branch B1 to split to parallel channels with filter 147 on one branch and unfiltered bypass 142, and remerge point B2 to inlet line 141 to chamber 110).
As to claim 3, Son discloses two parallel branches, as discussed above, and valves and a control system with source precursor and inert gases (figure 1, figure 2: details with precursor liquid/gas conversion (SL/SG) and inert gas (IG) source). Therefore, Son would necessarily be capable of allowing the desired gas to pass through the desired channel by use of the valves and control system mechanism. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 6, Son discloses a precursor delivery system for depositing a thin film in a deposition chamber (figure 1: precursor source gas ‘SG’ to chamber 110, background section paragraph 1: deposition system chamber) comprising:
A precursor delivery line comprising a selective filtration portion to flow a precursor through (figure 1: delivery line through branch ‘B1’ to filter 147);
The selective filtration portion is configured to capture particles contained within the precursor and bypass other gases flowing therethrough (figure 1: branch B1 with downstream control valves V1 and V3 to filter 147 and bypass 142 respectively with control 170 for bypass valve V4);
two parallel branches splitting from an inlet and remerging to an outlet connected to the deposition chamber, with only one branch having a particle filtration zone (figure 1: branch B1 to split to parallel channels with filter 147 on one branch and unfiltered bypass 142, and remerge point B2 to inlet line 141 to chamber 110).
As to claim 7-8, Son discloses two parallel branches with one containing a filter, as discussed above, and valves and a control system with source precursor and inert gases (figure 1, figure 2: details with precursor liquid/gas conversion (SL/SG) and inert gas (IG) source). Therefore, Son would necessarily be capable of allowing the desired gas to pass through the desired channel by use of the valves and control system mechanism. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 11, Son discloses a precursor delivery system for depositing a thin film in a deposition chamber (figure 1: precursor source gas ‘SG’ to chamber 110, background section paragraph 1: deposition system chamber) comprising:
A precursor delivery line comprising a selective filtration portion to flow a precursor through (figure 1: delivery line through branch ‘B1’ to filter 147);
two parallel branches splitting from an inlet and remerging to an outlet connected to the deposition chamber (figure 1: branch B1 to split to parallel channels with filter 147 on one branch and unfiltered bypass 142, and remerge point B2 to inlet line 141 to chamber 110).
Son discloses two parallel branches with one containing a filter, as discussed above, and valves and a control system with source precursor and inert gases (figure 1, figure 2: details with precursor liquid/gas conversion (SL/SG) and inert gas (IG) source). Therefore, Son would necessarily be capable of allowing the desired gas to pass through the desired channel by use of the valves and control system mechanism. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 12, Son discloses two parallel branches with one containing a filter, as discussed above, and valves and a control system with source precursor and inert gases (figure 1, figure 2: details with precursor liquid/gas conversion (SL/SG) and inert gas (IG) source). Therefore, Son would necessarily be capable of allowing the desired gas to pass through the desired channel by use of the valves and control system mechanism. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 13, Son discloses two parallel branches splitting from an inlet and remerging to an outlet connected to the deposition chamber, with only one branch having a particle filtration zone (figure 1: branch B1 to split to parallel channels with filter 147 on one branch and unfiltered bypass 142, and remerge point B2 to inlet line 141 to chamber 110).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claim 2, 6, 11 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 20230151484).
As to claim 4, 9, 14, Son discloses a gas source and filter mechanism capable of capturing particles for a deposition chamber, but is silent as to a reverse flow purge gas system to remove the particles.
Cheng discloses a deposition chamber in which a particle filter is provided (abstract; paragraph 61) and knowledge in the art of cleaning the filter by mechanisms including a reverse flow of gas through the filter to prevent drops in pressure from filter clogging (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reverse flowing gas source [a purge gas, only differing in terminology describing the gas], as disclosed by Cheng, in the system of Son, because this allows for cleaning the filter to prevent pressure drops in the supply.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Naito (US 20080066621).
As to claims 5, 10, 15, Son discloses a filter for a gas source, as discussed above, but is silent as to heating the filter.
Naito discloses a particle filter for a gas stream, the filter being heated to allow for trapped particles to be burned off and removed to prevent clogging (abstract, paragraph 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heating mechanism for a filter, as disclosed by Naito, in the system of Son, because this allows for particle removal to prevent clogging.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cheng.
As to claim 16, Son discloses a precursor delivery system for depositing a thin film in a deposition chamber (figure 1: precursor source gas ‘SG’ to chamber 110, background section paragraph 1: deposition system chamber) comprising:
A precursor delivery line comprising a selective filtration portion to flow a precursor through (figure 1: delivery line through branch ‘B1’ to filter 147);
The selective filtration portion is configured to capture particles contained within the precursor and bypass other gases flowing therethrough (figure 1: branch B1 with downstream control valves V1 and V3 to filter 147 and bypass 142 respectively with control 170 for bypass valve V4).
Cheng discloses a deposition chamber in which a particle filter is provided (abstract; paragraph 61) and knowledge in the art of cleaning the filter by mechanisms including a reverse flow of gas through the filter to prevent drops in pressure from filter clogging (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reverse flowing gas source [a purge gas, only differing in terminology describing the gas], as disclosed by Cheng, in the system of Son, because this allows for cleaning the filter to prevent pressure drops in the supply.
As to claim 17, 19, Son discloses two parallel branches, as discussed above, and valves and a control system with source precursor and inert gases (figure 1, figure 2: details with precursor liquid/gas conversion (SL/SG) and inert gas (IG) source). Therefore, Son would necessarily be capable of allowing the desired gas to pass through the desired channel by use of the valves and control system mechanism. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 18, Son discloses two parallel branches splitting from an inlet and remerging to an outlet connected to the deposition chamber, with only one branch having a particle filtration zone (figure 1: branch B1 to split to parallel channels with filter 147 on one branch and unfiltered bypass 142, and remerge point B2 to inlet line 141 to chamber 110).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cheng as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Naito.
As to claim 20, Son discloses a filter for a gas source, as discussed above, but is silent as to heating the filter.
Naito discloses a particle filter for a gas stream, the filter being heated to allow for trapped particles to be burned off and removed to prevent clogging (abstract, paragraph 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heating mechanism for a filter, as disclosed by Naito, in the system of Son, because this allows for particle removal to prevent clogging.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights