DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/2/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 31 and 33-38 are pending.
Claims 1-30, 32, and 39-40 are cancelled.
Claim 31 is currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner notes the following:
A PHOSITA would recognize that commercially available resistors commonly utilize some sort of coating to protect the core/resistive layer from damage (usually epoxy or similar material – see Wutz 2,933,709 as an evidentiary reference).
Claim 31 recites both coated and “non-coated” resistors, with support presumably based upon the drawing in instant Fig. 1 (Applicant did not cite any particular part of the disclosure as support for the limitation).
As can be seen in instant Fig. 1, resistive elements #110, #114, and #116 appear to be lacking any additional coating, whereas element #112 does have an additional coating #115.
In accordance, the Examiner submits the only way to interpret claim 31 to comply with §112(a) and (b) is that a “non-coated” resistor is a normal resistor without any additional coatings (i.e. it may comprise a coating as part of its base structure, but without a second coating).
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.
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.
Claims 31, 35-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (US Pub. 2010/0327873) in view of Chen (US Pub. 2010/0264439), McNally (US Patent 4,313,907), and Nelson (US Patent 4,028,057).
Regarding claim 31, Dorf teaches a plasma processing tool ([0016] and Fig. 1, cluster tool #100), comprising a chamber ([0016] and Fig. 1, any of processing chambers #140, #150 or #160); and a sensor device in the chamber ([0018] and Fig. 1, multi-diagnostic device #130, device #300 in Fig 3, or device #400 in Fig. 4), wherein the sensor device comprises a plurality of sensors ([0022]: comprises an array of sensors).
Dorf does not teach wherein the sensors are integrated with a silicon substrate (Dorf teaches a printed circuit board – [0022]).
However, Chen teaches wherein printed circuit boards and silicon substrates are art-recognized equivalent articles (Chen – [0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to substitute a silicon substrate for the PCB of Dorf as a matter of obvious substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose (Chen – [0028]). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Modified Dorf does not teach wherein each of the sensors comprises a first resistor comprising a first catalytic wire; a second resistor comprising a second catalytic wire, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor, wherein the first resistor and the first catalytic wire are coated with a non-catalytic material, and wherein the second resistor and the second catalytic wire are non-coated, the third resistor is non-coated, and the fourth resistor is non-coated, and wherein the first, second, third, and fourth resistors are in a ring architecture.
However, McNally teaches wherein a sensor comprises a first resistor (McNally – C2, L39 and Fig. 1, resistor #28) comprising a first catalytic wire (McNally – C2, L40); a second resistor (McNally – C2, L47 and Fig. 1, resistor #36) comprising a second catalytic wire (McNally – C2, L48: platinum wire), a third resistor (McNally – C2, L33 and Fig. 1, resistor #12), and a fourth resistor (McNally – C2, L33 and Fig. 1, resistor #14), wherein the first resistor and the first catalytic wire are coated with a non-catalytic material (McNally – C2, L49-50: alumina coated with lead borate), the third resistor is non-coated (McNally – Fig. 1, no coated shown or described for #12), and the fourth resistor is non-coated (McNally – Fig. 1, no coated shown or described for #14), and wherein the first, second, third, and fourth resistors are in a ring architecture (see Fig. 1, Abstract – Wheatstone bridge circuit).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to comprise the sensor of McNally in order to avoid generation of spurious signals (McNally – C1, L49-51).
Modified Dorf does not teach wherein the second resistor and the second catalytic wire are non-coated.
However, Nelson teaches a circuit with three “non-coated” resistors and one coated resistor (Nelson – C3, L41-62 and Fig. 1, only Ra has a catalyst).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to the 3:1 architecture of Nelson (see McNally) in order to reduce power requirements of the sensor which enables lower cost, size, and weight of the sensor (Nelson – C6, L60-65).
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that modifying the McNally structure to the 3:1 uncoated/coated architecture of Nelson constitutes an obvious substitution of one known element for another (coated versus uncoated resistor in a Wheatstone bridge-based gas sensor) to obtain predictable results.
Both McNally and Nelson deal with gas sensors utilizing a Wheatstone bridge. Both disclosures discuss similar operational aspects of the Wheatstone bridge such that a PHOSITA would recognize that either architecture (or combination thereof) would yield predictable results- namely those as specifically disclosed by McNally and/or Nelson.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple technical disciplines. For this and the other reasons set forth above, the modification as proposed by the Examiner would be obvious to a PHOSITA without any benefit of the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 35, Dorf modified by Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, McNally teaches wherein the first catalytic wire and the second catalytic wire comprise platinum (McNally – C2, L38-48: #28 and #36 are platinum wires).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to comprise the sensor of McNally in order to avoid generation of spurious signals (McNally – C1, L49-51).
Regarding claim 36, Dorf modified by Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, McNally teaches wherein a catalytic surface comprises nickel (McNally – C1, L51-60: nickel oxide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the platinum-based sensors of modified Dorf with the nickel-based sensors of McNally in order to avoid generation of spurious signals (McNally – C1, L49-51).
Additionally, the courts have held that selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 38, Dorf modified by Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, McNally teaches wherein the non-catalytic material comprises aluminum and oxygen (McNally – C2, L49: alumina layer #38 over #36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to comprise the sensor of McNally in order to avoid generation of spurious signals (McNally – C1, L49-51).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (US Pub. 2010/0327873), Chen (US 2010/0264439), McNally (US Patent 4,313,907), and Nelson (US Patent 4,028,057), as applied to claims 31, 35-36, and 38 above, further in view of Chiu (US 2019/0170715).
The limitations of claims 31, 35-36, and 38 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 33, modified Dorf does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chiu teaches wherein a second sensor is in an exhaust line coupled between the chamber and a vacuum pump ([0082] and Fig. 4, sensor #324 on exhaust conduit #318).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to comprise a sensor in an exhaust line in order to minimize variation in formulation/control processes and prevent damage to the apparatus (Chiu – [0003]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Dorf does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chiu teaches a remote plasma source ([0081] and Fig. 4, radical gas generator #312), wherein a second sensor is located within the remote plasma source ([0081] and Fig. 4, sensor #322 along conduit #314 in the same way as #600C depicted in instant Fig. 6B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Dorf apparatus to comprise a sensor in a remote plasma source in order to minimize variation in formulation/control processes and prevent damage to the apparatus (Chiu – [0003]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (US Pub. 2010/0327873), Chen (US 2010/0264439), McNally (US Patent 4,313,907), and Nelson (US Patent 4,028,057), as applied to claims 31, 35-36, and 38 above, further in view of Wang (US 2003/0180445).
The limitations of claims 31, 35-36, and 38 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 37, modified Dorf does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Wang teaches wherein the non-catalytic material comprises silicon and oxygen (Wang – [0027]: silica).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the second sensor of modified Dorf to comprise the second surface sensor material of Wang in order to improve stability and reliability of the sensor (Wang – [0020]-[0024]).
Additionally, the courts have held that selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718