DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on June 17, 2026, claims 1 – 9 are pending. Claims 1, 9 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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
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, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toriya et al. US 2005/0115501 A1 (hereinafter “Toriya”) in view of Sugita et al. US 2020/0348704 A1 (hereinafter “Sugita’704”) and Sugita et al. US 2023/0021102 A1 (hereinafter “Sugita’102”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 9:
Toriya is directed to a film processing device using vaporized liquid sources and a method of operating the film processing device (Abstract). As depicted in Fig. 1, Toriya discloses that their apparatus comprises (Fig. 1; [0033] – [0041]):
a processing chamber 2;
a liquid source tank 11 [vaporizer] operatively connected to a helium gas supply unit for flowing supply gas to the liquid source tank;
a supply line 12 operatively connected from the liquid source tank to a mass flow controller (MFC) 15 downstream and then the processing chamber further downstream;
a flow rate controller either integrated within the MFC or separate ([0037]);
an exhaust line 25; and
a bypass line 18 [vent line] operatively connected to both the supply line and the exhaust line.
Toriya discloses a method of operating their apparatus for substrate processing comprising: supplying a PET vapor in helium gas [mixed gas] from the liquid source gas source towards the MFC 15 and then to the processing chamber via the supply line 12 ([0051] – [0052]). The MFC 15 controls flow to provide a predetermined amount.
Toriya does not expressly teach that the substrate processing method comprises the steps of (b) monitoring an opening degree of the flow rate control valve while supplying the mixed gas, and (c) adjusting the opening degree of the flow rate control valve used for processing a substrate based on the monitored opening degree of the flow rate control valve while supplying the mixed gas. Likewise Toriya does not teach a controller configured to control processes in such a way.
Sugita’704 is directed to flow rate control devices that comprise a control valve. (Abstract; [0002]). Sugita’704 discloses a piezoelectric element within the control valve that is used to define and control a degree of opening (Fig. 1, 2; [0039], [0047] – [0052]). Sugita’704 also discloses a strain sensor that is used for detecting the extension amount of the piezoelectric element, which defines the extent of the degree of opening ([0045] – [0046], [0061], [0067]). Sugita’704 discloses that during operation [mapping to situations where mixed gas, or any gas, is being supplied], the sensed strain is detected [0058] and that it can be difficult to determine valve opening solely by a driving voltage directing the valve ([0067]). The detection of strain by the strain sensor, and therefore measurement of the opening degree, allows for improved responsiveness of the flow rate control valve as it is feedback-controlled by the strain sensors [monitored values leading to adjustment of degree of opening] ([0076] – [0077]). As the mechanism a feedback mechanism, a control threshold is implied [meeting claim 2].
Sugita’102, also directed to flow meters, references Sugita’704. Sugita’102 discloses that as indicated by Sugita’704, using indicates that the use of strain sensors to detect displacement of the piezoelectric actuator avoids creep and allows for more responsive flow control ([0011] – [0015]).
Therefore, in view of the prior art as a whole it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Toriya to include MFCs having such displacement sensors and thus monitor an opening degree of the flow control rate valve and adjust as needed as part of a feedback loop because Sugita’102 discloses that such monitoring allows for the minimization of creep from occurring in gas delivery and because Sugita’704 teaches that such a technique as enabled by their strain sensors allow for more responsive control of flow rates.
Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have structured a controller to be configured to enable the recited steps for the same reason as above.
Regarding claims 6 – 7:
The recitation of claims 6 and 7 as further defining the flow rate controller as two flow rate controllers that operate in the same manner appears to be a duplication of the singular case flow controller. Absent of a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is mere duplication of parts and related methods. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 3, 8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toriya in view of Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US 2008/0241381 A1 (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 3:
Toriya in view of Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 does not expressly teach starting the processing of a substrate after the opening degree of flow rate control valves are adjusted.
Suzuki, directed to a method for pre-conditioning film precursor variation (Abstract), discloses a desire to stabilize the flow rate of precursor(s) and carrier gas prior to initiating a deposition process as the variations can affect repeatability of deposited film ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have allowed the flow rate of the precursor stream as taught in Toriya to be stabilized under feedback control as per the MFC as modified by Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 before initiating processing because Suzuki teaches that unstable gas flows affect resultant film properties.
Regarding claim 8:
The recitation of claim 8 as further defining the flow rate controller as two flow rate controllers that operate in the same manner appears to be a duplication of the singular case flow controller. Absent of a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is mere duplication of parts and related methods. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toriya in view of Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 above, and further in view of Gomi et al. US 5288325 A (hereinafter “Gomi”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, a vaporizer is connected to the supply line and configured to vaporize raw material and generate mixed gas.
Toriya in view of Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 does not expressly teach that the conductance between vent line and supply line is adjusted to stabilize vaporizer pressure.
Gomi, directed to chemical vapor deposition apparatus, discloses an apparatus comprising a bypass line 51 [vent line] and supply line 48 that connects the gas flow of bubbler 41 to reaction chamber 43 (Fig. 4; col 4 lines 5 – 60). Gomi discloses that preliminarily equalizing [adjusting] the conductance between the disclosed bypass line and the line to the reaction unit (and therefore supply line) helps to suppress pressure fluctuation in the bubbler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Toriya in view of Sugita’704 and Sugita’102 by adjusted the conductance between the vent line and supply line because Gomi teaches that doing so stabilizes film growth in CVD reactions (col 1 lines 34 – 45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Specifically, Sugita'704 and Sugita' 102 merely disclose feedback control of a piezoelectric element-driven valve using a strain sensor, but fail to teach or imply the specific process control of verifying the stabilization of the valve opening degree during a preflow state as in the claimed invention.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., stabilization of the valve opening degree during a preflow state) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, the Applicant argues that the supply of the mixed gas is directed to film formation and that the supply of the mixed gas is the same as preflow. However, the claimed methods are directed to substrate processing, not necessarily to film formation, which is a subset of all potential substrate processing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights