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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In Figure 1, the block element 200 should be labeled with its description within its block element.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 14, it appears the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “power”. In line 17, the phrase “the mass flow rate” should be changed to -- a mass flow rate --. In line 18, the phrase “the flow” should be changed to -- a flow --.
In claim 2, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 8, line 4, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “determining”.
In claim 11, line 19, the phrase “the mass flow rate” should be changed to -- a mass flow rate --. In line 20, the phrase “the flow” should be changed to -- a flow --.
In claim 12, line 3, it appears the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “power”. In line 6, it appears the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “power”.
In claim 16, line 4, it appears the phrase “each of the first pressure sensor” should be changed to -- the first pressure sensor -- since there is only one first pressure sensor claimed beforehand.
In claim 17, line 22, the phrase “the mass flow rate” should be changed to -- a mass flow rate --. In line 23, the phrase “the flow” should be changed to -- a flow --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 11 and 17, the claims recite method of manufacturing in the preamble then claim in the body a calibrating of a device without any claimed steps to a manufacturing of a product. The claims are method claims with no manufacturing of a product cited. At the same time, the preamble in these claims recites a method of manufacturing which is unclear as the body of the claims are directed to a method of using a product. No manufacturing processing steps are claimed.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0241264 (Nagai) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0233412 (Gotoh et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Nagai discloses a diagnostic mechanism for fluid sensor comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-14, a method of manufacturing using a mass flow controller (MFC) 200 (e.g. mass flow controller; paragraph [0085]; Figures 1,7) comprising closing a valve 2 (e.g. flow rate control valve in closed state; paragraphs [0021],[0023],[0098]) installed in a flow path 1 (e.g. flow path; paragraph [0087]) of the MFC to prevent a fluid from flowing therein due to a closure of the flow path by the valve (e.g. paragraphs [0098],[0100]); determining that the fluid is not leaking based on a first pressure value P1 output by a first pressure sensor 31 (e.g. pressure sensor; paragraph [0130]; Figure 7) provided in the flow path and a second pressure value P2 output by a second pressure sensor 33 (e.g. pressure sensor; Figure 7) provided in the flow path; determining that the fluid is stabilized based on the first pressure value and the second pressure value (e.g. flow rate control is stable for a constant and uniform flow rate value; paragraphs [0098],[0120],[0150]); determining that the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are normal based on a difference between the first pressure value and the second pressure value (e.g. differential pressure; paragraphs [0012],[0093],[0100]); measuring the mass flow rate 34 (e.g. flow rate calculation part; paragraphs [0095],[0097],[0098],[0130]) through the flow path with the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor and adjusting the valve based on the mass flow rate to regulate the flow of the fluid to a manufacturing device (e.g. manufacture actual products in a semiconductor manufacturing process; paragraphs [0122],[0125]). (See, paragraphs [0045] to [0154]).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is calculating a first zero point calibration value for the first pressure sensor and a second zero point calibration value for the second pressure sensor, the calculating based on a first zero point of the first pressure sensor and a second zero point of the second pressure sensor, a time when power is supplied to the MFC, and a time when a flow is supplied to the MFC; and applying the first zero point calibration value to a zero point of the first pressure sensor and the second zero point calibration value to a zero point of the second pressure sensor.
Gotoh et al. discloses a mass flow rate controller comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-15, method of manufacturing (e.g. Figure 6) using a mass flow control device 40 (e.g. mass flow controller; paragraph [0053]) comprising closing a valve 42 (e.g. calibrating valve; paragraph [0056]) installed in a flow path 6 (e.g. path ; paragraph [0054]) of the mass flow control device to prevent a fluid from flowing therein due to a closure of the flow path (e.g. calibrated valve is closed; paragraph [0064]; determining, based on a pressure value measured using a pressure meter 46 (e.g. pressure sensor; paragraph [0064]) installed in the flow path such that the fluid has stopped flowing (e.g. paragraphs [00064],[0065]; Figures 3a-3b); determining that the fluid is stable (e.g. paragraphs [0031],[0064],[0065]); calculating a first zero point calibration value for the first pressure sensor and a second zero point calibration value for the second pressure sensor, the calculating based on a first zero point of the first pressure sensor and a second zero point of the second pressure sensor, a time when power is supplied to the MFC, and a time when a flow is supplied to the MFC (e.g. step S32; paragraphs [0057],[0060],[0064]-[0068],[0106]-[0107]); Figures 6-8); applying the first zero point calibration value to a zero point of the first pressure sensor and the second zero point calibration value to a zero point of the second pressure sensor (e.g. paragraphs [0055],[0096] to [0100],[0106]-[0107]; Figure 11). (See, paragraphs [0052] to [0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the concepts of calculating a first zero point calibration value for the first pressure sensor and a second zero point calibration value for the second pressure sensor, the calculating based on a first zero point of the first pressure sensor and a second zero point of the second pressure sensor, a time when power is supplied to the MFC, and a time when a flow is supplied to the MFC; and applying the first zero point calibration value to a zero point of the first pressure sensor and the second zero point calibration value to a zero point of the second pressure sensor as suggested by Gotoh et al. to the system of Nagai to have the ability to guarantee the accuracy of the measured mass flow rate in the flow path of the mass flow controller. (See, paragraphs [0060],[0107] of Gotoh et al.).
With regards to claim 2, Nagai further discloses the determining that the fluid is not leaking includes determining that a rate of change of the first pressure value over time and a rate of change of the second pressure value over time are less than a predetermined threshold value. (See, paragraphs [0102] to [0105]).
With regards to claim 3, Nagai further discloses the determining that the fluid is stabilized includes determining that a standard deviation of a first plurality of pressure values including the first pressure value and a standard deviation of a second plurality of pressure values include the second pressure value are less than a predetermined threshold value. (See, paragraphs [007],[0115]).
With regards toc alim 8, Nagai further discloses an initial determination is made that the fluid is leaking, the fluid is not stabilized, or an initial first pressure value and an initial second pressure value are beyond a normal range before determining that the fluid is not leaking (e.g. a very small amount of fluid leaks out; paragraph [0100])
With regards to claim 9, Gotoh et al. further discloses after the applying the zero point calibration value to the zero point of each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor, a zero point calibration is repeated from the determining whether the fluid is leaking. (See, paragraphs [0096]-[0100],[0106]-[0107]).
With regards to claim 10, Gotoh et al. further discloses after the applying the zero point calibration value to the zero point of each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor, in the applying the zero point calibration value, when a number of times the zero point calibration value has been applied to the zero point of each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor is N times or more (N is a natural number of 1 or more), the zero point calibration ends. (See, repeating step S32 until requirement is met in Figure 6; paragraphs [0082],[0096]-[0100],[0102],[0106]-[0107]).
With regards to claims 11-12, the claims are directed to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (e.g. semiconductor producing apparatus; paragraphs [0015],[0054]) using a mass flow controller and is commensurate in scope with the above method claims 1-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 are 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.
Claims 17-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the specific limitations of a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using a mass flow controller comprising calculating a respective zero point calibration value of each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor based on a respective zero point of each of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor, a time when power is supplied to the MFC, and a time when a flow is supplied to the MFC wherein the respective zero point calibration value is obtained by adding a value obtained by multiplying the time when the power is supplied to the MFC by a respective first coefficient to a value obtained by multiplying the time when the flow is supplied to the MFC by a respective second coefficient, in combination with the remaining claim elements in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Guan, Smirnov, Mendelson, Laverdiere and Takamoto, are related to mass flow controller includes at least one pressure sensor and temperature sensor for calibrating the flow of a fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights