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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the particle filter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not introduce a particle filter. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “a particle filter”.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2024/0279801), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 216655638, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: Jiang teaches a system comprising a precursor source (Fig. 5, element 201), a process chamber (element 102), a precursor line (element 245), and a cleaning device [0046]; the precursor source comprising a precursor vessel; and the precursor line fluidly connecting the precursor source to the process chamber.
Jiang does not expressly disclose the cleaning device comprises a vortex tube having a hot end and a cold end as claimed. However, Zhang teaches a system including a cleaning device for a chemical pipeline, the cleaning device comprising a vortex tube having a hot end and a cold end, the hot end being operationally connected to the chemical pipeline to execute a cleaning in the pipeline (see abstract, claim 1, and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang by substituting the cleaning device of Jiang with a cleaning device comprising the vortex tube to efficiently clean the pipeline, as in Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Zhang further teaches that the cleaning device is configured to clean the line with a hot gas steam emanating from the hot end of the vortex tube (pg. 4, first full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further teaches that the system is caused to alternatingly execute a plurality of depositions [0032] and the precursor line clean [0046], wherein the ones from the plurality of depositions comprise at least one of ALD and CVD [0032]. Though Jiang does not expressly disclose a controller being constructed and arranged causing the system to do so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to provide a controller in order to automate the method, providing enhanced accuracy and control.
Regarding Claim 4: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang, in view of Zhang further teaches a particle filter (element 207) disposed downstream from the vortex tube. Jiang does not expressly disclose the filter upstream from the precursor line. Jiang does teach that the filter is provided to filter the precursor gas before reaching the deposition chamber [0044]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang and Zhang with the filter upstream of the precursor line to filter the precursor gas prior to delivery.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang, in view of Zhang, further teaches a check valve (element 213) disposed downstream from the vortex tube and upstream from the precursor line.
Regarding Claim 6: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 5 as discussed above. Jiang does not expressly disclose the valve is disposed downstream from a particle filter. Jiang does teach that a filter (element 207) is provided to filter the precursor gas before reaching the deposition chamber [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang and Zhang with a filter upstream the valve to filter the precursor gas.
Regarding Claim 8: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. It is noted that 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 (see MPEP 2114). The system of Jiang, having a vortex tube to produce the hot gas stream, is fully capable of providing the stream at the claimed temperatures.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above. Jiang further teaches a cleaning exhaust valve (element 220) adjacent the process chamber (element 102) and positioned downstream from the vortex tube [0047].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2024/0279801) and Zhang et al. (CN 216655638, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Nomura (US 2011/0218659).
Regarding Claim 11: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose a substrate detector. Nomura teaches a substrate processing system comprising a substrate detector for sensing the presence of a wafer in a process chamber for determining which actions to perform in the chamber [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang and Zhang with a substrate detector for detecting the presence of the substrate for determining which actions to perform in the chamber, as taught by Nomura.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2024/0279801), Zhang et al. (CN 216655638, machine translation referenced herein), and Nomura (US 2011/0218659) as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0147482).
Regarding Claim 12: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose that the controller is arranged for causing the system to execute a precursor line clean when the substrate detector detects the absence of the substrate. Kang teaches that it is known to execute cleaning of a chamber processing system when no substrate is present I the reaction chamber [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art system to provide the controller to be arranged to cause the system to execute the cleaning when the substrate detector detects the absence of the substrate so that cleaning is performed after the substrate has been removed, as suggested by Kang.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2024/0279801), Zhang et al. (CN 216655638, machine translation referenced herein) and Nomura (US 2011/0218659) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Selvamanickam (US 2006/0062900).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14: Jiang and Zhang teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Jiang does not expressly disclose a heater jacket arranged around the precursor line. However, Selvamanickam teaches a deposition system comprising a precursor delivery line (Fig. 6, element 79) with a heater jacket arranged around the precursor line to heat the precursor line [0060]. The heater jacket is arranged and constructed for creating an increasing temperature gradient from the precursor source to the process chamber [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang with a heater jacket to heat the precursor material, as taught by Selvamanickam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights