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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claim 1-8, in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/13/2026.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao (US 2004/0182423).
Regarding claim 1:
Nakao teaches a piping that exhausts a process gas from a processing chamber of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the piping comprising: a first pipe part (horizontally extending section 31b/41) having a first end (16) connected to a processing chamber (reaction chamber, 10) and a second end (41) connected to another piping (evacuation conduit, 33) [fig 4 & 0037]; a second pipe part (protective gas conduit, 26b) connected to the first pipe (horizontally extending section 31b/41) between the first end (16) and the second end (41) [fig 4 & 0036-0037]; a valve (43) provided between the second pipe part (33) and the second end (41) [fig 4 & 0036-0037]; and a metal film (protective coat, 50, may be nickel plating) coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part (inner wall of 31b/41) [fig 4 & 0007, 0038].
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 2-3:
Nakao teaches the metal film (protective coat, 50) includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, Ni, and Fe (may be nickel plating) [fig 4 & 0007, 0038].
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:
Nakao teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (semiconductor manufacturing apparatus) [fig 4 & 0036], comprising: a processing chamber (reaction chamber, 10) [fig 4 & 0037]; a first pipe part (horizontally extending section 31b/41) having a first end (16) connected to a processing chamber (reaction chamber, 10) and a second end (41) connected to a piping (evacuation conduit, 33) [fig 4 & 0037]; a second pipe part (protective gas conduit, 26b) connected to the first pipe (horizontally extending section 31b/41) between the first end (16) and the second end (41) [fig 4 & 0036-0037]; a valve (43) provided between the second pipe part (33) and the second end (41) [fig 4 & 0036-0037]; and a metal film (protective coat, 50, may be nickel plating) coated on an inner wall of the first pipe part (inner wall of 31b/41) [fig 4 & 0007, 0038].
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 claims 6-7:
Nakao teaches the metal film (protective coat, 50) includes a single layer of any one of ruthenium (Rh), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), and iron (Fe), or a stacked film of two or more kinds of Rh, Pd, Pt, Ni, and Fe (may be nickel plating) [fig 4 & 0007, 0038].
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 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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Upham (US 2005/0011445).
Regarding claim 5:
Upham teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 2) [fig 2 & 0025], comprising: a processing chamber (200) for processing a substrate (semiconductor wafer) with a process gas (reactant gas) [fig 2 & 0028]; a first pipe part (horizontal pipe upstream of 213) having a first end connected to the processing chamber (200) and a second end connected to a piping (pipe downstream of 213) [fig 2 & 0031]; a second pipe part (pipe housing 217) connected to the first pipe part (horizontal pipe upstream of 213) between the first end and the second end (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0031]; a valve (throttle valve, 213) provided between the second pipe part (pipe housing 217) and the second end [fig 2 & 0031]; and a radical generator (remote RF source may be upstream of 217) connected to the second pipe part (pipe housing 217) [fig 2 & 0035].
The claim limitations “configured to exhaust the process gas from the processing chamber”, “configured to supply hydrogen gas 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dando et al (US 6,858,264), Pokharna et al (US 2003/0017087), and Hooshdaran et al (US 2010/0258510) teach a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus [fig 1 of each].
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