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 § 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) 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22, 27, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawasai et al. discloses a system (100; fig. 1), comprising: a vacuum chamber (10) to provide an ultra-high vacuum (c. 2, ll. 34-40); a moveable component (substrate support 20 is rotated, raised, and lowered; c. 2, ll. 47-52), disposed in the vacuum chamber (10), that heats up during operation (as plasma is generated in chamber 10 to cause sputtering film formation, substrate support 20 would heat up during operation; c. 3, ll. 13-18); a cooling line (51, 52, G, and lines between medium 35 and outer cylinder 63), mechanically coupled to the component (heat transfer material 90 mechanically couples channels 51 and 52 to substrate support 20; fig. 1), to circulate coolant to cool the component during operation (c. 4, ll. 19-23), wherein the cooling line (51, 52, G, and lines between medium 35 and outer cylinder 63) contains the coolant (c. 4, ll. 12-17).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawasai et al. discloses a chiller (31) to chill the coolant in the cooling line (c. 4, ll. 5-7), wherein: the chiller (31) is disposed outside of the vacuum chamber (10); and the cooling line (G, 51, 52, 35, 63) extends out of the vacuum chamber (10), through the chiller (31), and back into the vacuum chamber (coolant channels G, 51, 52, and between medium 35 and outer cylinder 63, extend out of chamber 10, through chiller 31, and back into chamber 10).
Regarding claim 19, Nakagawasai et al. discloses a method, comprising: providing an ultra-high vacuum in a vacuum chamber (10; c. 2, ll. 34-40); operating a component (20) disposed in the vacuum chamber (10; fig. 1), wherein operating the component (20) comprises moving the component and causes heating (substrate support 20 is rotated, raised, and lowered and as plasma is generated in chamber 10 to cause sputtering film formation, substrate support 20 would heat up; c. 2, ll. 47-52 and c. 3, ll. 13-18); circulating coolant through a cooling line (51, 52, G, and lines between medium 35 and outer cylinder 63) mechanically coupled to the component (heat transfer material 90 mechanically couples channels 51 and 52 to substrate support 20; fig. 1), to cool the component (c. 4, ll. 12-23).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Nakagawasai et al. discloses wherein the cooling line (G, 51, 52, 35, 63) comprises a coolant manifold (G) in the vacuum chamber (chamber of gap G branches into coolant channels 51, 52, a path at through-hole 26 and into a path between cold heat medium 35 and cylindrical portion 61 and is therefore a manifold in chamber 10; fig. 1; c. 4, ll. 42-47 and c. 7, ll. 23-40).
Nakagawasai et al. is silent on a vacuum gauge to measure the total pressure in the vacuum chamber.
However, Nakagawasai et al. teaches that a controller (80) achieves ultra-high vacuum pressure in the vacuum chamber (10) by operation of a gas exhaust device (c. 3, ll. 4-7 and c. 9, ll. 24-30) and control information used by the controller (80) includes information of pressure in the vacuum chamber (c. 9, ll. 34-35). Further, it is well known in the art of measuring and testing devices to measure vacuum pressure with a vacuum gauge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. to use a vacuum gauge to measure the total pressure in the vacuum chamber to provide more accurate pressure information for controlling the system.
Additionally, Nakagawasai et al. are silent on the coolant including a marker species and an analyzer to measure a partial pressure of the marker species.
Matsunari teaches a system (fig. 1) with a vacuum chamber (12), a cooling line (40, 42; fig. 2) to circulate coolant (FIT Machine Translation, ll. 283-285 and 292-294), wherein the cooling line (40, 42) contains the coolant and further contains a marker species (heavy water) to circulate along with the coolant (cooling water) in the cooling line (ll. 302-308); and an analyzer (45) to measure a partial pressure in the vacuum chamber (12) of the marker species (detection device 45 ionizes gas molecules in chamber 12 and detects the partial pressure of deuterium of the heavy water; ll. 341-344 and 348-350); based on the partial pressure, determining whether the cooling line (40, 42) has a leak (ll. 439-446).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. with the marker species and its detection taught in Matsunari to prevent contamination of a process chamber by effective leak detection of coolant (Matsunari, ll. 439-446).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 21, and 22, Nakagawasai et al. are further silent on the coolant comprising ordinary water and the marker species comprising heavy water.
Matsunari teaches the coolant comprises ordinary water (cooling water; ll. 273-276); wherein the marker species is heavy water (heavy water is added to the cooling water; ll. 302-308).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. with the coolant and marker species taught in Matsunari to prevent contamination of a process chamber by effective leak detection of coolant (Matsunari, ll. 439-446).
Regarding claim 12, although Nakagawasai et al. teach leak detection in a vacuum apparatus used semiconductor manufacturing, they are silent on the apparatus comprising EUV optics.
Matsunari teaches the system (fig. 1) comprising extreme ultraviolet (EUV) optics disposed within the vacuum chamber (exposure apparatus 11 may be an EUV exposure apparatus; ll. 531-534).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. with the EUV device of Matsunari to provide leak detection of coolant in high heat systems, such as in EUV exposure devices.
Regarding claims 16 and 27, Nakagawasai et al. are further silent on measuring the partial pressure of the marker species using mass spectrometry.
Matsunari teaches the analyzer (45) comprises a mass spectrometer (ll. 341-344); wherein measuring the partial pressure comprises performing mass spectrometry (ll. 341-344).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. with the marker species detection using mass spectrometry as taught in Matsunari to prevent contamination of a process chamber by effective leak detection of coolant (Matsunari, ll. 439-446).
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A), and further, in view of Flynn et al. (US 7,811,688 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari disclose the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 3, 5, 19, and 21.
Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari are silent on the marker species corresponding to 1-propanol.
Flynn et al. teach leak detection (c. 1, l. 66 – c. 2, l. 4) using a marker species corresponding to 1-propanol (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari with propanol as a marker species as taught by Flynn et al. to provide an additional leak safeguard by using marker species that is detectable by the human nose (Flynn et al., c. 6, ll. 66-67).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A), and further, in view of Sogard et al. (US 8,767,174 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari disclose the invention as set forth above.
Although Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari teach leak detection in a vacuum apparatus used semiconductor manufacturing, they are silent on the apparatus being a scanning electron microscope.
Sogard teaches wherein the vacuum chamber (902) is a vacuum chamber in a scanning electron microscope (c. 20, ll. 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari to be used in an electron microscope as taught by Sogard to provide leak detection in high heat systems having coolant channels.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A), and further, in view of Besen et al. (US 11,183,356 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari et al. discloses the invention as set forth above.
Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari are silent on the semiconductor apparatus comprising electron optics with a magnetic lens.
Besen et al. teach electron optics (2; fig. 1), wherein the electron optics (2) comprises a magnetic lens (4; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari to detect leaks in the electron optics device of Besen et al. to provide for leak detection in a heat generating device that uses cooling channels.
Claim(s) 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A), and further, in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2020/0294820 A1)
Regarding claims 17 and 28, Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari disclose the invention as set forth above.
Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari are silent on the analyzer being an infrared spectrometer.
Shimizu et al. teach an analyzer (40) comprises an infrared spectrometer (non-dispersive infrared spectroscopy; ¶ [0035]); wherein measuring a partial pressure comprises performing infrared spectroscopy (NDIR measures a partial pressure of a source gas; ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari with the infrared spectrometer of Shimizu et al. to provide highly accurate concentration detection to determine leakage (Shimuzu et al., Abstract).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (US 11,532,784 B2) in view of Matsunari (JP 2010-087364 A), and further, in view of Cader et al. (US 9,713,285 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari disclose the invention as set forth above.
Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari are silent on the cooling line comprising flexible plastic.
Cader et al. teach a cooling apparatus (fig. 1) wherein a cooling line (120) comprises flexible plastic (c. 9, ll. 14-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. in view of Matsunari with the flexible plastic cooling lines of Cader et al. to provide a cooling system adaptable to an orientation of a movable component while enabling sufficient heat removal (Cader et al., c. 9, ll. 16-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the Office action sent 3 September 2025 asserts that “Nakagawasai teaches ‘that control information includes pressure information (c. 9, ll. 34-35),’” but then Applicant goes on to argue that pressure detected by pressure sensor 83 is “not the claimed ‘total pressure in the vacuum chamber,’ because a ‘cooling gas’ flows through the gap G in which the pressure is detected.” Response, page 7. This argument is not understood because the Office action does not interpret pressure sensor 83 of Nakagawasai as the claimed “vacuum gauge to measure a total pressure in the vacuum chamber,” but instead, the Office action asserts that Nakagawasai teaches controlling the pressure of vacuum chamber 10 to reach an ultra-high vacuum pressure (c. 3, ll. 4-7) and uses pressure in vacuum chamber 10 as control information (c. 9, ll. 34-39). As Nakagawasai clearly teaches knowing pressure information of vacuum chamber 10, and vacuum gauges are well-known in the art of measuring and testing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai et al. to use a vacuum gauge to measure the total pressure in the vacuum chamber to provide more accurate pressure information for controlling the system.
Applicant further appears to disagree with the assertion in the Office action that vacuum gauges are well-known in the measuring and testing art and argues that “[t]he Examiner does not provide any citation to support this assertion.” Response, page 9. However, Nakagawasai teaches knowing the pressure of vacuum chamber 10 (c. 9, ll. 35-36) and that a vacuum pump is operated to reduce the pressure in vacuum chamber 10 to an ultra-high vacuum pressure (c. 3, ll. 4-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that to determine the pressure of vacuum chamber 10 for control information, a sensor, or vacuum gauge, may be used to directly measure the pressure.
With regard to dependent claims 7 and 23, Applicant again argues the combination of Nakagawasai in view of Matsunari, and further in view of Flynn. Applicant asserts that “Flynn provides ‘a method of selecting a proper odorant for hydrogen’ and ‘a method for detecting hydrogen gas leak from a container.’” Thus, Applicant concludes that “[a]dding 1-propanol as an odorant to ‘hydrogen fuel’ in a ‘container’ so that leaks can be detected by ‘smell’ does not teach or suggest circulating a ‘marker species [that] corresponds to 1-proponal’ ‘along with the coolant in the cooling line’ of a vacuum chamber.” Response, p. 10. However, Matsunari is cited for its teaching of providing a marker species (heavy water) to coolant to detect a leak (ll. 439-446) and Flynn is cited for teaching a marker species to detect a leak (Flynn, c. 1, l. 66 – x. 2, l. 4), the marker species including 1-propanol (Table 1). It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai with the coolant and marker species of Matsunari to prevent contamination of a process chamber by effective leak detection (Matsunari, ll. 439-446). Additionally, it would have been obvious to further modify the apparatus of Nakagawasai in view of Matsunari with 1-propanal as the marker species as taught in Flynn to provide an additional safeguard for leak detection by providing a marker species detectable by a human nose (Flynn, c. 6, ll. 66-67). Lastly, Applicant argues that “the fact that 1-propanal has an odor does not provide a motivation for using 1-proponal as the claimed marker species, since the claims do not involve smelling the marker species.” Response, p. 11. However, MPEP 2145 C states: A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references that is found in the prior art is an appropriate rationale for determining obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852