DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 “a chamber”, “a substrate processing system”;
Claims 2, 14 and 16 “a processing chamber”, “a factory interface”, “a load lock”;
Additionally, figure 3 does not include the numerals 330 and 342 for the mounting openings and the gas stick respectively as discussed in ph 0057. Appropriate correction is required (the figure appears incompletely illustrated.)
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burkhart (US 2017/0204989);
Claim(s) 3, 11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burkhart, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
Burkhart discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A gas delivery system (assembly for semiconductor processing including a gas box ph 0053) comprising: a substrate (122a-d figure 1 is a substrate) comprising: a first substrate portion (3002a-d) of a first gas stick (100 a-d is a gas stick per ph 0055-0063 where multiple gas sticks may be arranged side by side in a linear fashion, taken as herein (a-d) for purposes of discussion), the first substrate portion comprising a first inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a first gas (a first process gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example), wherein the first gas stick is to control first flow of the first gas (via MFC 118 a-d); and a second substrate portion (3002a-d) of a second gas stick (100a-d), the second substrate portion comprising a second inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a second gas (a second process gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example), wherein the second gas stick is to control second flow (via 118a-d) of the second gas separate from the first flow of the first gas, and wherein the gas delivery system is to provide the first gas and the second gas to a chamber of a substrate processing system (per ph 0053);
if it could be persuasively argued that Burkhart does not explicitly disclose: first and second (or for that matter more than one gas stick with substate and substrate portion) considering that Burkhart teaches: it is standard to align multiple gas sticks on a manifold block for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, (ph 0055); and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider four or more a multiplicity;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Burkart as taught and/or suggested therein with four or more gas sticks each with substrate and substrate portion as aligned on a manifold block, all for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, especially since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960.)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 2 and 14: The gas delivery system of claim 1, wherein the chamber is a processing chamber, a factory interface, or a load lock (ph 0053, a semiconductor gas processing chamber, the use of “or” considered an indication of alternative grouping under MPEP 2131.)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 3 and 11: The gas delivery system of claim 1, Burkart figure 1 does not disclose, although Burkhart teaches in ph 0074: the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion [may be] additively manufactured as an integral substrate (for the purpose of providing a higher functioning and more compact less expensive device.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Burkhart ph 0074 for the embodiment of Burkhart Fig.1, the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are additively manufactured as an integral substrate, as taught in Burkhart ph 0074, and for the purpose of providing a higher functioning and more compact less expensive device.
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The gas delivery system of claim 1, wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion form a plurality of integral flow paths between the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion (via 102a-d, 124, 126 etc...)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The gas delivery system of claim 4, wherein a first flow path (102a-d) of the plurality of integral flow paths is disposed above a second flow path (124/126) of the plurality of integral flow paths.
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The gas delivery system of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of components ((104/106/108/110/112/114/116/118/120)a-d) comprising one or more of a check valve, filter, nozzle, regulator, shut-off valve, pneumatic valve, check valve, mass flow controller, or manual valve (ph 0057-0059 the use of “or” considered an indication of alternative grouping under MPEP 2131), wherein one or more of the plurality of components are mounted on the first substrate portion (3002a-d).
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The gas delivery system of claim 6, wherein a base portion (at 3004a-d) of at least one of the plurality of components is integral to the first substrate portion, wherein the base portion comprises a component inlet and a component outlet (each of the plurality of components has an inlet and outlet (for example at 3006a-d and 3008a-d for 118a-d) in the respective base portion integral to the first substrate portion.)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The gas delivery system of claim 1 further comprising: a first outlet (at 3010a-d)of the first substrate portion of the first gas stick, the first outlet configured to provide the first gas to the chamber of the substrate processing system (as necessarily the case per ph 0053.)
Burkhart discloses in claim 9: A gas delivery system (assembly for semiconductor processing including a gas box ph 0053) comprising: a substrate (122a-d figure 1 is a substrate) comprising: a first substrate portion (3002a-d) of a first gas stick (100 a-d is a gas stick per ph 0055-0063 where multiple gas sticks may be arranged side by side in a linear fashion, taken as herein (a-d) for purposes of discussion), the first substrate portion comprising: a first inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a first gas (a first gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example); and a first base portion (at 3004a-d) of a first component (118a-d), the first base portion comprising a first component inlet (3006a-d) and a first component outlet (3008a-d); and a first upper portion (at 3012a-d) of the first component, the first upper portion being disposed on the first base portion, wherein the first upper portion is configured to control first flow of the first gas to a chamber of a substrate processing system (118a-d is a MFC – mass flow controller, per ph 0059.)
if it could be persuasively argued that Burkhart does not explicitly disclose: first and second (or for that matter more than one gas stick with substate and substrate portion) considering that Burkhart teaches: it is standard to align multiple gas sticks on a manifold block for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, (ph 0055); and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider four or more a multiplicity;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Burkart as taught and/or suggested therein with four or more gas sticks each with substrate and substrate portion as aligned on a manifold block, all for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, especially since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960.)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The gas delivery system of claim 9, wherein the substrate further comprises: a second substrate portion (3002a-d) of a second gas stick (100a-d), the second substrate portion comprising: a second inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a second gas (a second process gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example); and a second base portion (at 3004a-d) of a second component (118a-d), the second base portion comprising a second component inlet (3006a-d) and a second component outlet (3008a-d), wherein the gas delivery system further comprises a second upper portion (3012a-d) of the second component, the second upper portion being disposed on the second base portion (as shown), wherein the second upper portion is configured to control second flow of the second gas (118a-d is a MFC – mass flow controller, per ph 0059.)
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The gas delivery system of claim 10, wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion form a plurality of integral flow paths between the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion (via 102a-d, 124, 126 etc...), and wherein a first flow path (102a-d) of the plurality of integral flow paths is disposed above a second flow path (124/126) of the plurality of integral flow paths.
Burkhart discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The gas delivery system of claim 9, wherein the first component comprises one or more of a check valve, filter, nozzle, regulator, shut-off valve, pneumatic valve, check valve, mass flow controller, or manual valve (((104/106/108/110/112/114/116/118/120) a-d) and see ph 0057-0059 the use of “or” considered an indication of alternative grouping under MPEP 2131.)
Burkhart discloses in claim 15: A gas delivery system (assembly for semiconductor processing including a gas box ph 0053) comprising: [a] manufactured substrate (122a-d figure 1 is a substrate) comprising: a first substrate portion (3002a-d) of a first gas stick (100 a-d is a gas stick per ph 0055-0063 where multiple gas sticks may be arranged side by side in a linear fashion, taken as herein (a-d) for purposes of discussion), the first substrate portion comprising a first inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a first gas (a first process gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example), the first substrate portion forming one or more first flow paths (via 102a-d,124/126/3010a-d) configured to route the first gas; and a second substrate portion (3002a-d) of a second gas stick (100a-d), the second substrate portion comprising a second inlet (102a-d) configured to receive a second gas (a second process gas per ph 0053 for 102a-d for example), the second substrate portion forming one or more second flow paths (via 102a-d/124/126/3010a-d)configured to route at least one of the first gas or the second gas to a chamber of a substrate processing system (to 3010a-d and as necessarily discussed in ph 0053.) Burkart figure 1 does not disclose, although Burkhart ph 0074 teaches: the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion additively manufactured as an integral substrate (for the purpose of providing a higher functioning and more compact less expensive device.)
if it could be persuasively argued that Burkhart does not explicitly disclose: first and second (or for that matter more than one gas stick with substate and substrate portion) considering that Burkhart teaches: it is standard to align multiple gas sticks on a manifold block for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, (ph 0055); and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider four or more a multiplicity;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Burkhart ph 0074 for the embodiment of Burkhart Fig.1, the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are additively manufactured as an integral substrate, as taught in Burkhart ph 0074, and for the purpose of providing a higher functioning and more compact less expensive device;
it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Burkart as taught and/or suggested therein with four or more gas sticks each with substrate and substrate portion as aligned on a manifold block, all for the purpose of controlling multiple fluids to a chamber, especially since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960.)
Burkhart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 16: The gas delivery system of claim 15, wherein the chamber is a processing chamber, a factory interface, or a load lock (ph 0053, a semiconductor gas processing chamber, the use of “or” considered an indication of alternative grouping under MPEP 2131.)
Burkhart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 17: The gas delivery system of claim 15, wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion form a plurality of integral flow paths (via 102a-d/124/126/3010a-d) between the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion, and wherein a first flow path (102a-d) of the plurality of integral flow paths is disposed above (124/126) a second flow path of the plurality of integral flow paths (as shown.)
Burkhart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 18: The gas delivery system of claim 15 further comprising a plurality of components ((104/106/108/110/112/114/116/118/120)a-d) comprising one or more of a check valve, filter, nozzle, regulator, shut-off valve, pneumatic valve, check valve, mass flow controller, or manual valve (ph 0057-0059 the use of “or” considered an indication of alternative grouping under MPEP 2131), wherein one or more of the plurality of components are mounted on the first substrate portion (3002a-d.)
Burkhart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 19: The gas delivery system of claim 18, wherein a base portion (3004a-d) of at least one of the plurality of components is integral to the first substrate portion, wherein the base portion comprises a component inlet (3006a-d) and a component outlet (3008a-d.)
Burkhart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 20: The gas delivery system of claim 15 further comprising: a first outlet (3010a-d) of the first substrate portion of the first gas stick, the first outlet configured to provide the first gas to the chamber (as necessarily the case per ph 0053.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753