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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/23/24. Examiner acknowledged that claims 4-6, 8, 10-14 are amended. Currently, claims 1-15 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 10/23/24, 11/03/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brashear (US 2017/0370763).
Regarding Claim 1, Brashear teaches a fluid routing module (Fig. 1) for a vacuum pumping system, the fluid routing module comprising: a first fluid inlet (Fig. 1: 102); a first fluid outlet (Fig. 1; 122); a first fluid line (Fig. 1; 101) coupled between the first fluid inlet and the fluid outlet; and a restrictor module (Fig. 1: 116-120_106-110) disposed along the first fluid line between the first fluid inlet and the first fluid outlet, the restrictor module being configured to variably restrict a flow of fluid (Fig. [0066] “116 have high flow…120 have the lowest flow”) between the first fluid inlet and the first fluid outlet.
Regarding Claim 2, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 1, wherein: the restrictor module comprises a plurality of restrictors (Fig. 1: 116, 117, 118, 119, 120) disposed along the first fluid line between the first fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, the plurality of restrictors being arranged in parallel with each other, each restrictor of the plurality of restrictors being configured to restrict a flow of fluid therethrough; and the fluid routing module further comprises means (Fig. 1: 106-110) configured to selectably direct a fluid flow through a selected one or more restrictors of the plurality of restrictors while preventing the flow of fluid through the other restrictors of the plurality of restrictors.
Regarding Claim 3, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 2, wherein the means configured to selectably direct a fluid flow through a selected one or more restrictors comprises a plurality of valves (Fig. 1; 106-110 are valves), each valve in the plurality of valves being arranged in series with a respective restrictor of the plurality of restrictors.
Regarding Claim 4, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 2, further comprising: a bypass line (Fig. 1: 123) arranged in parallel with the restrictor module whereby to allow a flow of fluid to bypass the plurality of restrictors; and one or more further valves (Fig. 1: 105) configured to selectably direct a fluid flow through either the bypass line or the plurality of restrictors.
Regarding Claim 5, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 3, further comprising a valve controller (Fig. 1; 124) configured to control operation of a valve.
Regarding Claim 6, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 2, wherein each restrictor of the plurality of restrictors is configured to restrict a flow of fluid therethrough to a different extent (Fig. [0066] “116 have high flow…120 have the lowest flow”).
Regarding Claim 11, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 1 except a system comprising: a semiconductor processing tool comprising a processing chamber; wherein the first fluid inlet is fluidly coupled; to the processing chamber; and a vacuum pump operatively coupled to the first fluid outlet. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Fig. 5 to understand Brashear teaches a processing chamber (Fig. 5: 570); wherein the first fluid inlet is fluidly coupled (Fig. 5: first fluid inlet is coupled to chamber via valve 573) to the processing chamber; and a vacuum pump (Fig. 5: 565) operatively coupled to the first fluid outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brashear in order to understand vacuum pump and fluid inlet/outlet are used to cool a processing chamber since this is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, Brashear teaches a method for routing a fluid through a fluid routing module, the fluid routing module being in accordance with claim 1, the method comprising: receiving a flow of a fluid at the first fluid inlet (Fig. 1: 102); variably restricting (Fig. 1: 116-120), by the restrictor module, the fluid through the restrictor module; and thereafter, the fluid flowing out of the first fluid outlet (Fig. 1: 122).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brashear.
Regarding Claim 7, Brashear teaches the fluid routing module of claim 6, except wherein each restrictor of the plurality of restrictors comprises a flow restricting orifice having a different respective diameter. However, [0004] teaches “each one of the plurality of differently-sized flow restrictors coupled in series with the inlet and a respective one of the plurality of isolation valves”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brashear in order to understand that differently sized flow restrictors would have restricting orifice with different diameter since the sizing would be the component that restricting the flow of the liquid.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brashear as applied to claim 11 in view of Shiokawa (US 2017/0200622).
Regarding Claim 12, Brashear teaches the system of claim 11, except wherein: the semiconductor processing tool further comprises one or more further processing chambers; the system further comprises one or more further fluid routing modules, each further fluid routing module being a fluid routing module in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first fluid inlets of each further fluid routing module are fluidly coupled to a respective further processing chamber; the system further comprises a fluid line manifold, wherein the first fluid outlets of the fluid routing module and each of the further fluid routing modules are fluidly coupled to the fluid line manifold; and the vacuum pump is operatively coupled to the fluid line manifold.
Shiokawa is in the field of semiconductor processing (abstract) and teaches the semiconductor processing tool further comprises one or more further processing chambers (Fig. 1: 1); the system further comprises one or more further fluid routing modules (Fig. 1; 5), each further fluid routing module being a fluid routing module in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first fluid inlets of each further fluid routing module are fluidly coupled to a respective further processing chamber; the system further comprises a fluid line manifold (Fig. 1: 22), wherein the first fluid outlets of the fluid routing module and each of the further fluid routing modules are fluidly coupled to the fluid line manifold; and the vacuum pump (Fig. 1: 8) is operatively coupled to the fluid line manifold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Brashear with the corresponding chambers and fluid routing modules as taught by Shiokawa in order to evacuate processed gas from a plurality of chambers since a plurality of chambers and be evacuate quickly with a plurality of pumps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-10, 13 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
