DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 2022/0285141);
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayumi (US 2011/0168674);
Claim(s) 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 9257314);
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christianson (US 5251663);
Mizuno discloses in claim 1: A gas management assembly (1 figure 1) for a substrate processing apparatus (ph 0003 etc…), the gas management assembly comprising: an exhaust module (at 30 including 32/33/35A/35B/37/39) including a basic exhaust line (32/34B) that is formed to exhaust a chamber gas (in 10/31) containing a process gas (via 201 to 10) supplied to a chamber (of 10) of the substrate processing apparatus to a discharge system (of 43) including a scrubber (see 39); a recovery connection module (at 37) including a recovery exhaust line (36A) upstream of the scrubber (37) that is branched (via 34A) from the basic exhaust line (32) and formed to exhaust the chamber gas to a recovery system (via 37 and “Recovery Container”); and a control module (at 40) configured to perform automatic switching of an exhaust path (of 31 via MFC and change over valve 33 and see ph 0020) of the chamber gas from one of the basic exhaust line (of 34B) and the recovery exhaust line (of 34A) to the other based on at least one of an operation mode of the substrate processing apparatus (as discussed in ph 0020), a pressure of the chamber (i.e. chamber pressure in 10), or (the use of “or” considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a pressure of the recovery exhaust line (via MFC of 33 ph 0020), wherein the operation mode is at least one of a process start mode, a processing mode (the operation via he processing recipe, ph 0020-0021), a process end mode, or a process abort mode.
Mizuno discloses in claim 2: The gas management assembly of claim 1, wherein the exhaust module includes a gas exhauster (pump 35B) installed in the basic exhaust line and formed to adjust an exhaust amount (as discussed above) of the chamber gas; Mizuno does not disclose, although Mayumi teaches: a basic line valve (62) installed downstream of the gas exhauster (i.e. in concert there) in the basic exhaust line and formed to control a flow of the chamber gas to the discharge system (at 64), the recovery connection module includes a recovery line valve (52) installed in the recovery exhaust line in such a way as to be positioned downstream of the gas exhauster (i.e. 52 is downstream of 34 and also branched downstream of 60 as the gases separate and divide through 4) and formed to control (via controller 70 as discussed above) a flow of the chamber gas to the recovery exhaust line, and the control module controls opening and closing of the basic line valve and the recovery line valve for the automatic switching (as discussed based on the pressure differentials from atmospheric pressure levels, and provided for the purpose of gas flow process control through the various lines)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mizuno as taught in Mayumi with a basic line valve that can be installed downstream of the gas exhauster of Mizuno as taught in Mayumi as located in the basic exhaust line and formed to control a flow of the chamber gas to the discharge system as taught in Mayumi, where the recovery connection module can also include a recovery line valve as taught in Mayumi and can be installed in the recovery exhaust line of Mizuno in such a way as to be positioned downstream of the gas exhauster as taught in Mayumi and thus formed to control via the controller a flow of the chamber gas to the recovery exhaust line, and also provide for the control module to control opening and closing of the basic line valve and the recovery line valve for the automatic switching, as taught in both Mizuno and Mayumi, and as discussed based on the pressure differentials from atmospheric pressure levels, and provided for example for the purpose of gas flow process control through the various lines.
Mizuno discloses in claim 3: The gas management assembly of claim 1, wherein the control module switches the exhaust path to the basic exhaust line in a case where the operation mode is at least one of a process start mode, a process end mode, or a process abort mode (this happens in all cases during control mode of 40/43.)
Mizuno discloses in claim 4: The gas management assembly of claim 1, wherein the control module switches the exhaust path to the recovery exhaust line but Mizuno does not disclose, although Mayumi teaches: switching the exhaust path to the recovery exhaust line in a case where the operation mode is a processing mode and the pressure of the chamber is equal to or higher than a minimum switching pressure (in ph 0140 where the flow rate and pressure at the mass flow controller from the chamber versus the recovery and exhaust gases are maintained at a pressure via control of the control valves 52/62 to provide a certain rate of recovery);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide during operation of Mizuno as taught in Mayumi, providing the switching of the exhaust path to the recovery exhaust line when the operation mode is in a processing mode and the pressure of the chamber is equal to or higher than a minimum switching pressure as taught in Mayumi, and where the flow rate and pressure at the mass flow controller from the chamber versus the recovery and exhaust gases are maintained at a pressure via control of the control valves all for the purpose of to providing a certain rate of recovery.
Mizuno discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The gas management assembly of claim 4, wherein the minimum switching pressure is higher than atmospheric pressure (4.4kpa ph 0140 Mayumi.)
Mizuno discloses in claim 7: The gas management assembly of claim 1, wherein the control module performs the automatic switching to the recovery exhaust line only when the recovery system is ready for operation (as is necessarily the case.)
Mizuno discloses in claim 8: The gas management assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose, although Rivera teaches: the chamber gas contains deuterium (Col 9 ln 28-63, provided for the purpose of improving the annealing process of the wafer);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mizuno as taught in Rivera, with a chamber gas that contains deuterium as taught in Rivera, all provided for the purpose of improving the annealing process of the wafer.
Mizuno discloses in claim 9: The gas management assembly of claim 1, wherein the control module opens both of the basic exhaust line and the recovery exhaust line (as a three way valve for directional control to either the exhaust or recovery): but Mizuno does not disclose, although Christianson teaches: the basic (first) (at 13) and recovery (second) (at 14) exhaust lines open together (figure 4) during a delay time in a case where the automatic switching is performed (i.e. a rotary three way valve (10) with switching between the first exhaust line and the second exhaust line, where a time for switching requires both lines to be partially open during transition between lines, for the purpose of reducing hammer effect of the high pressure gas line and a smooth transition between flow paths, so as to avoid combustion from particulate interference during transition Col 2 ln 15-32.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide the three way valve of Mizuno as taught in Christianson with the basic and recovery exhaust lines open together as taught in Christianson during a delay (transition) time in a case where the automatic switching is performed as taught in Christianson where the rotary three way valve can switch between the first exhaust line and the second exhaust line, with a necessary time for switching between the lines providing them to be partially open during transition, all for the purpose of reducing hammer effect of the high pressure gas line and a smooth transition between flow paths, so as to avoid combustion from particulate interference during transition.
Mizuno discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The gas management assembly of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose: the delay time is within a few seconds; but considering the above teaching in Christianson of avoiding combustion due to small particulate, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a slower time of transition between ports so as to avoid undue turbulence where a slow time of 1 to 5 seconds would be sufficient depending upon the fluid flow characterization, and
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mizuno/Christianson with a transition time as arguably taught and/or suggested in Christianson, of about 1 to 5 seconds depending upon the flow rate and fluid flow characterization, all for the purpose of avoiding turbulence and combustion due to small particulate debris as taught in Christianson.
Mizuno discloses in claim 11: The gas management assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a housing (the demarcation of 10 is equivalent to that of the housing 110 in the instant application at figure 1) having an internal space (the insides of 10/31 including the line 32 for exhaust, separation etc…) that [connects to] the exhaust module and the recovery connection module (30 as discussed above); and a charging module (20) configured to charge the internal space with a protective gas (nitrogen) at a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing ( i.e. as is necessary to provide positive pressure); although Mizuno does not explicitly disclose a housing that accommodates the exhaust and recovery modules; Rivera teaches: a housing (201) that accommodates the exhaust (208) and recovery (214) modules (as shown, and provided for the purpose of for example temperature regulation and air contamination prevention;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Rivera for that of Mizuno, a housing that can accommodate the exhaust and recovery modules of Mizuno as taught in Rivera, all provided for the purpose of for example temperature regulation and air contamination prevention.
Mizuno discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The gas management assembly of claim 11, wherein the housing includes a main housing (10) accommodating at least a part of the exhaust module (the structure maintaining 30), and an auxiliary housing (201 as taught and modified by Rivera above) accommodating the recovery connection module (30.)
Mizuno discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The gas management assembly of claim 12, wherein the main housing and the auxiliary housing communicate with each other (via 31 as modified for the reasons discussed above), and the charging module (20) communicates with only one of the main housing and the auxiliary housing (that of 10.)
Mizuno discloses in claim 14: The gas management assembly of claim 1, further comprising a gas supply module (20) formed to supply the process gas to the chamber (10) at a pressure higher than [the exhaust] pressure (the pressure for the gases A-C and Kr), wherein the substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate at a pressure higher than the exhaust pressure to provide for gas flow ph 0020 where etching uses gas pressure); Mizuno does not explicitly disclose, although Mayumi teaches: the chamber gas pressure higher than atmospheric for switching to exhaust purposes (ph 0140);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide during operation of Mizuno as taught in Mayumi, providing the switching of the exhaust path to the recovery exhaust line when the operation mode is in a processing mode and the pressure of the chamber is equal to or higher than a minimum switching above atmospheric pressure as taught in Mayumi, and where the flow rate and pressure at the mass flow controller from the chamber versus the recovery and exhaust gases are maintained at a pressure via control of the control valves all for the purpose of to providing a certain rate of recovery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are allowed for the reasons discussed below. Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claims 6 and 15 “the control module switches the exhaust path to the basic exhaust line in a case where the operation mode is the processing mode and the pressure of the chamber exceeds a maximum switching pressure, and the maximum switching pressure is higher than the minimum switching pressure” in combination with the other limitations set forth above for the dependent claim 6 and in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753