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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 13, 15-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. (JP 2001-164369) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2013-0101723 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Takamatsu et al. teach a degas system (11) comprising a container including a liquid inlet (1), a liquid outlet (2), a gas inlet (3), and a gas outlet (4) (Paragraphs 0017, Figs. 1-3); a gas permeable synthetic resin tube (5), wherein the gas permeable synthetic resin tube (5) is wound coil-wise and a first inert gas dissolved in the liquid is removed while the liquid flows through the gas permeable synthetic resin tube (5) (Paragraphs 0017-0019, Figs. 1 and 2); a supply line (12) for a second inert and an inert gas exhaust line (13)(Paragraphs 0031; Fig. 3)
The difference between claim 1 and Takamatsu et al. is that the first restricted orifice is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach an orifice 70 connected to an exhaust line from a degassing tank 60 for removing dissolved oxygen. (Paragraphs 0038, 0039; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
Regarding claim 13, Takamatsu et al. teach the gas bubble comprise an inert gas. (Paragraphs 0016, 0017)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Takamatsu et al. teach wherein the gas comprises an inert gas. (Paragraphs 0016, 0017)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Takamatsu et al. teach a liquid delivery system for a substrate processing system, comprising: the degas system of claim 1 (Paragraphs 0017-0019); a liquid container to store the liquid (8); a gas source to pressurize the liquid container (10); and a conduit fluidly connecting a liquid outlet of the liquid container to the liquid inlet of the housing (Fig. 3).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Takamatsu et al. teach a liquid mass flow controller including an inlet fluidly connected to the liquid outlet of the housing; and a vaporizer fluidly connected to an outlet of the liquid mass flow controller. (Paragraph 0031; Fig. 3; liquid flow controller 14 and a vaporizer 19).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Takamatsu et al. teach wherein the gas bubbles comprise helium (He). (Paragraph 0024)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Takamatsu et al. teach argon gas. (Paragraph 0024)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
Regarding claim 21, Takamatsu et al. teach wherein the housing is sealed from atmosphere and wherein the gas prevents the liquid from reacting with the atmosphere through the tube in the event of failure of the seal. (Figs. 1-3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Lee et al. is that it allows for removing dissolved gases. (Paragraphs 0038, 0039; Fig. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takamatsu et al. by utilizing the features of Lee et al. because it allows for removing dissolved gases.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Moriya et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,104,516).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply system includes: a gas source; and a second conduit and a second restricted orifice having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing.
Regarding claim 3, Moriya et al. teach a gas source; and a second conduit and a second restricted orifice having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
PNG
media_image1.png
404
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the gas source supplies gas at a first predetermined pressure; the second restricted orifice is sized to supply gas from the gas source at a predetermined flow rate; and the first restricted orifice is configured to maintain pressure in the housing at a second predetermined pressure.
Regarding claim 4, the configuration of Fig. 15 functionally capable of controlling the pressures. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply system includes: a gas source; and a pressure regulator having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing.
Regarding claim 6, Moriya et al. teach wherein the gas supply system includes: a gas source; and a pressure regulator having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
PNG
media_image2.png
511
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the gas source supplies gas at a first predetermined pressure; and the pressure regulator and the first restricted orifice are configured to maintain pressure in the housing at a second predetermined pressure.
Regarding claim 7, the configuration of Fig. 15 functionally capable of controlling the pressures. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply system includes: a gas source; a gas mass flow controller having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source; and a valve having an inlet connected to an outlet of the gas mass flow controller and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing.
Regarding claim 9, Moriya et al. teach wherein the gas supply system includes: a gas source; a gas mass flow controller having an inlet fluidly connected to the gas source; and a valve having an inlet connected to an outlet of the gas mass flow controller and an outlet fluidly connected to the gas inlet of the housing. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
PNG
media_image3.png
530
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the gas source supplies gas at a first predetermined pressure; and the gas mass flow controller, the valve, and the first restricted orifice are configured to maintain pressure in the housing at a second predetermined pressure.
Regarding claim 10, the configuration of Fig. 15 functionally capable of controlling the pressures. (See Fig. 15; Column 6 lines 1-18)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Moriya et al. is that it allows for controlling pressure when delivering gases. (Column 6 lines 1-18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Moriya et al. because it allows for controlling pressure when delivering gases.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims above, and further in view of Bong et al. (KR 10-0907466 B1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the liquid comprises an alkoxide of silicon.
Bong et al. teach wherein the liquid comprises an alkoxide of silicon. (Paragraph 0022)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the liquid comprises tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS).
Bong et la. teach wherein the liquid comprises tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS). (Paragraph 0022)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Bong et al. is that it allows for depositing TEOS films. (See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Bong et al. because it allows for depositing TEOS films.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed elements in combination with wherein the gas supply system and the first restricted orifice are configured to create a first predetermined pressure in the housing that is greater than a second predetermined pressure of an exhaust system and less than a third predetermined pressure of the gas bubbles in the liquid.
Claims 5, 8, 11 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein the system is configured to have the first predetermined pressure to be in the range of from 40 to 70 psig and the second predetermined pressure to be in the range of from 20 to 40 mTorr.
Claim 12 is indicated as being allowable because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein the first restricted orifice has a size in a range of from 300 to 550 micrometers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights