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 § 112(b)
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 8, 9, 11 and 12 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.
Claim 8 recites:
8. A method for preventing flooding of precursor liquid into an outlet line through monitoring the pressure of a carrier gas line leading to the carrier gas inlet in a precursor source system of claim 1. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “outlet line” and the “carrier gas line” are the same as the outlet line and carrier gas line described in claim 1. To overcome this rejection, claim 8 could be rewritten as:
8. A method for preventing flooding of precursor liquid into [[an]] the outlet line through monitoring the pressure of [[a]] the carrier gas line leading to the carrier gas inlet in a precursor source system of claim 1.
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are indefinite because they depend from claim 8.
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.
Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehlsen et al., US 2016/0333477 A1 in view of Isobe et al., US 2019/0211449 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nehlsen teaches a system for storing and delivering a precursor, which reads on the claimed “precursor source system.” See Nehlsen [0002]. The system comprises:
A container, which reads on the “source container.” See Nehlsen Fig. 1, [0105].
A carrier gas inlet nozzle 7, which reads on the “carrier gas line.” See Nehlsen Fig. 1, [0100]. The nozzle 7 comprising a “carrier gas inlet,” (the bottom of the nozzle) configured to discharge a carrier gas to a head space of the container, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 1, [0106].
A vapor outlet 2 (the claimed “outlet”) comprising an inlet 8 of the vapor outlet (the claimed “outlet opening”).
The bottom of the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 extends further into the container relative to the inlet 8 of the vapor outlet 2, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1.
The limitation indicating that the structure is intended to “prevent flooding of precursor liquid into the outlet line” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114, II (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
PNG
media_image1.png
861
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nehlsen differs from claim 1 because, while it teaches that the container is filled with precursor liquid in some way, it is not specific about the mechanism for filling the container. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach a filling line comprising a filling inlet configured for filling the source container during use, where the filling inlet extends further into the container relative to the inlet 8 of the vapor outlet 2, as claimed.
But Isobe teaches a liquid precursor container comprising a liquid supply pipe 754 (the “filling line”) with an inlet at the bottom of the pipe 754 (the “filling inlet”) for replenishing the container with liquid precursor. See Isobe Fig. 1, [0067]–[0069]. The container also comprises a pipe 310 for removing gas from the container with an outlet opening in the bottom of the pipe 310. Id. at Fig. 1, [0107]. The bottom of the liquid supply pipe 754 (the “filling inlet”) extends further into the container relative to the bottom of the pipe 310 (“the outlet opening”), as seen in Fig. 1. The supply pipe 754 is beneficial because it ensures that the container is replenished with precursor liquid. [0067]–[0069].
PNG
media_image2.png
664
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the supply pipe 754 of Isobe as the source of precursor liquid to the container of Nehlsen to ensure that the container can be replenished with precursor liquid. It also would have been obvious for the bottom of the liquid supply pipe 754 to extend further into the container relative to the inlet 8 of the vapor outlet 8 (the “outlet opening”) because this is a conventional configuration as seen in Fig. 1 of Isobe.
Regarding claim 2, Nehlsen as modified teaches that the supply pipe 754 (the “filling line”), the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 (the “carrier gas line”) and the outlet 2 (the “outlet line”) enter the container via a top part of the container. See Nehlsen Fig. 1; Isobe Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, Nehlsen teaches that the system is capable of providing indication of the level of precursor liquid inside the container when the level of precursor is over a predetermined maximum filling level, as claimed, because the system comprising a liquid level sensor to obtain information about the liquid level in the container. See Nehlsen [0088]; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the function).
Regarding claim 5, Nehlsen teaches a level sensor which is capable of determining a need for filling the container, as claimed. See Nehlsen [0081], [0088].
Regarding claim 6, Nehlsen teaches that the level sensor is an ultrasonic level sensor. See Nehlsen [0081].
Regarding claim 7, Nehlsen as modified teaches that the bottom of liquid supply pipe 754 (the “filling inlet”) extends further into the container relative to the inlet of vapor outlet 8 (the “outlet opening”), as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Nehlsen as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the bottom of liquid supply pipe 754 extending further into the container relative to the bottom of the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 (the “carrier gas inlet”).
But the nozzle can be spring loaded so that it moves up and down relative to the liquid level reported by a liquid level probe. See Nehlsen [0090]. It would have been obvious for the bottom of the liquid supply line 754 to extend further into the container relative to the bottom of the nozzle 7, at least in the situation where the nozzle 7 has moved up to its highest position, depending on the height required of the nozzle 7 to be above the liquid level, while having the bottom of the liquid supply line 754 to extend further into the container relative to the bottom of the nozzle 7 would merely represent obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, C.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehlsen et al., US 2016/0333477 A1 in view of Isobe et al., US 2019/0211449 A1 and in further view of Smaidris et al., US 2013/0145841 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Nehlsen as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Nehlsen as modified differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 (the “carrier gas line”) comprising a pressure sensor configured to measure pressure of the carrier gas line.
But Nehlsen teaches that the system comprises a liquid level sensor for determining liquid level within the container. See Nehlsen [0088]. Also, Smaidris teaches a liquid level determination system comprising a pressure sensing pipe end 50 in a pressure pipe 72 that supplies bubbled air to a container 70, with information from the pressure sensing pipe end 50 being used to determine liquid level in the container 70. See Smaidris Fig. 1, [0037]. The liquid level determination system of Smaidris is beneficial because it overcomes disadvantages of conventional systems, such as corrosion or deposits that can accumulate in float mechanisms. Id. at [0005]–[0006].
It would have been obvious to use the liquid level determination system of Smaidris, including the pressure sensing pipe end 50 in the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 of Nehlsen, to determine the liquid level in the container when determining overfilling, to provide advantages over conventional liquid level sensors.
With this modification, the pressure sensing pipe end 50 attached to the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 reads on the “carrier gas line comprises a pressure sensor configured to measure pressure of the carrier gas line.”
Claims 8–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehlsen et al., US 2016/0333477 A1 in view of Isobe et al., US 2019/0211449 A1 in view of Chandrasekharan et al., US 2023/0257878 A1 and in further view of Smaidris et al., US 2013/0145841 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Nehlsen as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Nehlsen differs from claims 8 and 9 because it is silent as to a method of using its system for preventing flooding of precursor liquid into the outlet 2 through monitoring the pressure in carrier gas inlet nozzle 7.
But Chandrasekharan teaches a method of operating a system comprising a precursor container where a chamber full sensor is relied on as a mechanism to prevent overfilling of the chamber. See Chandrasekharan [0124]. The method is beneficial because it prevents overfilling (i.e., flooding)
It would have been obvious to use a sensor to prevent overfilling of the container in Nehlsen in view of Chandrasekharan. This reads on the claimed step of preventing flooding of precursor liquid into the outlet 2 and detecting a risk of flooding of precursor liquid into the outlet 2 based on said monitoring, because overfilling of the container could result in fluid reaching the outlet 2.
Nehlsen as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the sensor utilizing monitoring of pressure of the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7.
But Smaidris teaches a liquid level determination system comprising a pressure sensing pipe end 50 in a pressure pipe 72 that supplies bubbled air to a container 70, with information from the pressure sensing pipe end 50 being used to determine liquid level in the container 70. See Smaidris Fig. 1, [0037]. The liquid level determination system of Smaidris is beneficial because it overcomes disadvantages of conventional systems, such as corrosion or deposits that can accumulate in float mechanisms. Id. at [0005]–[0006].
It would have been obvious to use the liquid level determination system of Smaidris, including the pressure sensing pipe end 50 with the carrier gas inlet nozzle 7 of Nehlsen, to determine the liquid level in the container when determining overfilling, to provide advantages over conventional liquid level sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Nehlsen teaches a semiconductor manufacturing system comprising the system. See Nehlsen [0003]. This reads on the claimed “semiconductor processing apparatus, comprising the precursor system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Nehlsen teaches a computer that conducts the function of the system (including the method of claim 8, as explained above). See Nehlsen [0064]. The computer reads on the claimed “apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the method according to claim 8.”
Regarding claim 12, Nehlsen teaches a computer that conducts the function of the system (including the method of claim 8, as explained above). The memory of the computer reads on the claimed “non-transitory computer readable medium having stored there on a computer program comprising computer executable program code which when executed by a processor causes an apparatus to perform the method according to claim 8.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marquardt, US 2022/0145454 A1 (apparatus for generating gas in a process chamber); Choi et al., US 2018/0250695 (apparatus for increasing fluid from an ampoule).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
