DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 06/08/2026.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended.
6. Claims 2, 6, and 9 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the first pipe” [line 5]. It appears that this line should recite “the first pipe part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “ruthenium (Rh)”. The symbol for ruthenium is Ru and NOT Rh. The symbol for Rhodium is Rh. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “ruthenium (Rh)”. The symbol for ruthenium is Ru and NOT Rh. The symbol for Rhodium is Rh. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “a hydrogen supply unit storing hydrogen and supplying hydrogen gas into the second pipe part”. Nothing in the specification at the time of filing indicates that the piping comprises a hydrogen supply unit. The hydrogen supply unit is part of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 1 [0020].
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected at least based on its dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upham (US 2005/0011445) in view of Kubo et al (JP 2015195386A) and Stahl (US 4,000,335).
Regarding claim 1:
Upham teaches a piping (112-116) that exhausts a process gas from a processing chamber of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus [fig 1B & 0022-0024], the piping (112-116) comprising: a first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) having a first end (top of 112) connected to a processing chamber (reaction chamber, 100) and a second end (bottom of 115) connected to another piping (to vacuum pump) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a second pipe part (116) connected to the first pipe (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) between the first end (top of 112) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases) storing cleaning gas and supplying cleaning gas into the second pipe part (116) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a valve (113) provided between the second pipe part (116) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; one end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115), the other end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases), the second pipe part (116) is closer to the first end than the second end (see fig 1B), and the valve (113) is closer to the second pipe part than the second end (see fig 1B) [fig 1B & 0022-0024].
Upham does not specifically teach the cleaning gas supply unit being a hydrogen gas supply unit storing hydrogen and supplying hydrogen gas into the second pipe part.
Kubo teaches a hydrogen gas supply unit (source of hydrogen (H2) gas) storing hydrogen (hydrogen (H2) gas) and supplying hydrogen gas (hydrogen (H2) gas) into the second pipe part (16) [fig 4 & 0059].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning gas supply unit of Upham to store and supply hydrogen, as in Kubo, because such is a gas used for cleaning [Kubo – 0059]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Upham modified by Kubo does not specifically teach a metal film coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part, wherein the metal film includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, and Fe.
Stahl teaches a metal film (coating) coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part (adjoining side tubulations), wherein the metal film (coating) includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, and Fe (preferably consists of noble metals such as platinum) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 51-4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pipe part of modified Upham to include a metal film coated on an inner wall thereof, as in Stahl, to prevent the diffusion of contaminants into the supposedly super-clean, ultra-high vacuum chamber [Stahl - col 2-3, lines 51-4].
The claim limitations “configured to supply hydrogen gas or hydrogen radicals into the first pipe part” and “configured to open and close the first pipe part” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing 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 structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 3 and 7:
The claim limitations “wherein the metal film is made of a material that hydrogenates radicals” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Specifically, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01]. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4:
Upham teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 1B), comprising: a processing chamber (100) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) having a first end (top of 112) connected to the processing chamber (reaction chamber, 100) and a second end (bottom of 115) connected to a piping (to vacuum pump) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a second pipe part (116) connected to the first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) between the first end (top of 112) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases) storing cleaning gas and supplying cleaning gas into the second pipe part (116) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a valve (113) provided between the second pipe part (116) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; one end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115), the other end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases), the second pipe part (116) is closer to the first end than the second end (see fig 1B), and the valve (113) is closer to the second pipe part than the second end (see fig 1B) [fig 1B & 0022-0024].
Upham does not specifically teach the cleaning gas supply unit being a hydrogen gas supply unit storing hydrogen and supplying hydrogen gas into the second pipe part.
Kubo teaches a hydrogen gas supply unit (source of hydrogen (H2) gas) storing hydrogen (hydrogen (H2) gas) and supplying hydrogen gas (hydrogen (H2) gas) into the second pipe part (16) [fig 4 & 0059].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning gas supply unit of Upham to store and supply hydrogen, as in Kubo, because such is a gas used for cleaning [Kubo – 0059]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Upham modified by Kubo does not specifically teach a metal film coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part, wherein the metal film includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, and Fe.
Stahl teaches a metal film (coating) coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part (adjoining side tubulations), wherein the metal film (coating) includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, and Fe (preferably consists of noble metals such as platinum) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 51-4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pipe part of modified Upham to include a metal film coated on an inner wall thereof, as in Stahl, to prevent the diffusion of contaminants into the supposedly super-clean, ultra-high vacuum chamber [Stahl - col 2-3, lines 51-4].
The claim limitations “for processing a substrate with a process gas”, “configured to exhaust the process gas from the processing chamber”, “configured to supply hydrogen gas into the first pipe part”, and “configured to open and close the first pipe part” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing 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 structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 8:
The claim limitations “wherein a flow rate of the hydrogen gas supplied from the second pipe part is higher than a flow rate of the process gas” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing 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 structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
11. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upham (US 2005/0011445) in view of Hooshdaran et al (US 2010/0258510).
Regarding claim 5:
Upham teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 1B), comprising: a processing chamber (100) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) having a first end (top of 112) connected to the processing chamber (reaction chamber, 100) and a second end (bottom of 115) connected to a piping (to vacuum pump) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a second pipe part (116) connected to the first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115) between the first end (top of 112) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases) storing cleaning gas and supplying cleaning gas into the second pipe part (116) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a valve (113) provided between the second pipe part (116) and the second end (bottom of 115) [fig 1B & 0022-0024]; a radical generator (remote RF source may be upstream of 117/217) connected to the second pipe part (116/pipe housing 217), the radical generator having a coil (inductive plasma system may be employed) [fig 1B, 2 & 0022-0024, 0035], wherein one end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the first pipe part (piping spanning top of 112 to bottom of 115), the other end of the second pipe part (116) is connected to the cleaning gas supply unit (source of cleaning gases), the second pipe part (116) is closer to the first end than the second end (see fig 1B), the valve (113) is closer to the second pipe part than the second end (see fig 1B), and the radical generator is provided between the one end of the second pipe part and the other end of the second pipe part (plasma gas may be ignited in cleaning gas pipe 116) [fig 1B, 2 & 0022-0024, 0035].
Upham does not specifically teach the cleaning gas supply unit being a hydrogen gas supply unit storing hydrogen and supplying hydrogen gas into the second pipe part.
Hooshdaran teaches a hydrogen gas supply unit (source of hydrogen, H2) storing hydrogen (hydrogen, H2) and supplying hydrogen gas (hydrogen, H2) into the second pipe part (pipe connecting 108 to 104 between 102 and 110) [fig 1 & 0022, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning gas supply unit of Upham to store and supply hydrogen, as in Hooshdaran, because hydrogen radicals may convert the effluent into a desirable form suitable for exhausting into the environment [Hooshdaran – 0029].
The claim limitations “for processing a substrate with a process gas”, “configured to exhaust the process gas from the processing chamber”, “configured to supply hydrogen radicals into the first pipe part”, “configured to open and close the first pipe part”, and “configured to generate hydrogen radicals from hydrogen gas” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing 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 structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights