DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 11/05/2021, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9-13 and 15 are rejected.
Claims 1-22 are objected to.
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 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) 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):
(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) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1 recites “a sampling unit configured to selectively communicate an exhaust pipe for discharging the gas mixture including the gaseous phase materials from the chamber to sample the gas mixture from the exhaust pipe as much as a predetermined time or a predetermined volume”. The corresponding structure in the instant specification includes “an inlet 101 through which the gas mixture 6 enters, an outlet 102 through which the gas mixture 6 exits, as recited in [0054] and a valve as recited in [0072].
Claim 1 recites “a detection unit configured to separate and detect the gaseous phase materials included in the gas mixture sampled by the sampling unit into substances”. The corresponding structure in the instant specification includes “a concentration module 200 to extract the gaseous phase materials 60 included in the gas mixture 6 sampled by the sampling unit 11 and concentrate and store the gaseous phase materials 60, a separation module 300 to separate the gaseous phase materials 60 concentrated in the concentration module 20 into substances, and a sensor module 400 to detect the gaseous phase materials 60 from the separation module 300” as recited in [0060] and “the concentration module 200 includes a concentration chamber 210’ as recited in [0105]-[0106] and “the separation module 300 includes the elongated separation path 310”, as recited in [0121].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a sampling unit configured to selectively communicate an exhaust pipe”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘sampling unit configured to selectively fluidically communicate with an exhaust pipe’.
Claim 1 recites “to sample the gas mixture from the exhaust pipe as much as a predetermined time or a predetermined volume”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘to sample a predetermined volume of the gas mixture from the exhaust pipe for a predetermined time’.
Claim 2 recites “the exhaust pipe is connected to a bypass pipe which branches off from the exhaust pipe and connects to the exhaust pipe again, and
wherein the sampling unit selectively communicates the bypass pipe and selectively communicates the exhaust pipe”. For the sake clarity, consider rephrasing to the exhaust pipe connects to a bypass pipe branching off from the exhaust pipe at a first branch point and reconnects to the exhaust pipe at a second branch point, and
wherein the sampling unit is configured to selectively fluidically communicate with the bypass pipe and to selectively fluidically communicate with the exhaust pipe’.
Claim 3 recites “a sampling shutoff operation to directly communicate the upstream bypass pipe with the downstream bypass pipe, and discommunicate the bypass pipe from the sampling unit”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘a sampling shutoff operation enabling the upstream bypass pipe to fluidically communicate with the downstream bypass pipe, and to enable the bypass pipe to fluidically disconnect from the sampling unit’.
Claim 9 recites “the sampling unit includes a sampler module to store the gas mixture as much as the predetermined volume”. For the sake of clarity consider rephrasing to ‘the sampling unit includes a sampler module configured to store the predetermined volume of the gas mixture’.
Claim 10 recites “a separation module to separate the gaseous phase materials included in the gas mixture into substances; and a sensor module to detect the gaseous phase materials from the separation module”. According to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the detection unit of claim 1 includes the separation module and the sensor module as recited in claim 10. According to 35 U.S.C. §112 a dependent claim must further limit the subject matter of the base claim from which the dependent claim depends. How does claim 10 further limit the subject matter of claim 1?
Claim 16 recites “wherein the concentration module is disposed in one of the sampling unit and the detection unit”. According to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the concentration module is part of the detection unit, as a result for the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to “further comprising a second concentration module disposed in the sampling unit’.
Claim 19 recites “the concentration module, the separation module and the sensor module are incorporated into a single portable device’. The concentration module, the separation module and the sensor module are part of the detection unit according to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) invoked. As a result for the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘the detection unit is portable’.
Claim 3 recites “to shut off the direct communication between the upstream bypass pipe and the downstream bypass pipe”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘to shut off fluid communication between the upstream bypass pipe and the downstream bypass pipe’.
Claim 14 recites “the corresponding gaseous phase materials”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘the gaseous phase materials’.
Claim 22 recites “the component is a semiconductor component, and wherein the treatment apparatus is a semiconductor treatment apparatus for etching or cleaning the semiconductor component”. Is the component a material worked upon the measurement system or part of the measurement system? is the treatment apparatus part of the measurement system or part of separate system? Under 35 U.S.C. §112 a dependent claim must further limit the claimed subject matter of the claim it depends on, therefore for the sake of clarity if the treatment system is part of a separate system, consider rephrasing claim 22 to ‘a system comprising the measurement system of claim 1 and the treatment apparatus wherein the treatment apparatus is a semiconductor treatment apparatus for etching or cleaning the component wherein the component is a semiconductor component.
Claims dependent on an objected claim are objected to because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2004340685A cited in the IDS filed 5/16/2023) over Park (US6216548).
As to claims 1, 10 and 15, Nakamura (JP2004340685A) teaches a measurement system (see Figs. 3-4) for measuring a status of a process of a treatment apparatus (sample semiconductor wafer piece holding jig body 1 in Fig. 2) for treating a component (sample conductor wafer piece 2 in Fig 3) in a chamber (chamber 6 in Fig. 3) to generate a gas mixture (contaminant gas) including gaseous phase materials (contaminants for each component) (see [0006], which recites “conductor wafer placed in a chamber is heated entirely by a heater, and contaminant gas desorbed from the surface of the semiconductor wafer is captured by an adsorbent”), the measurement system comprising:
a detection unit including a concentration module (concentrator 14), separation module (gas chromatography 15) to separate the gaseous phase materials included in the gas mixture into substances and a sensor module (mass spectrometer 16) to detect the gaseous phase materials from the separation module (gas chromatography 15), the detection unit (which correspond to concentrator 14, gas chromatography 15 and mass spectrometer 16) configured to separate and detect the gaseous phase materials (contaminants for each component) included in the gas mixture (contaminant gas) sampled by the sampling unit (collection tube 11 illustrated in Fig. 3) into substances (see [0018], which recites “a concentrating unit, 15 is a gas chromatography for separating contaminants for each component, and 16 is a mass spectrometer for performing qualitative or quantitative analysis”), wherein the measurement system comprises a concentration module (concentrator 14) is configured to extract the gaseous phase materials included in the gas mixture sampled by the sampling unit (collection tube 1) and concentrate and store the gaseous phase materials (the concentration 14 can concentrate and store the gaseous phase materials).
Nakamura doesn’t teach a sampling unit configured to selectively communicate an exhaust pipe for discharging the gas mixture including the gaseous phase materials from the chamber to sample the gas mixture from the exhaust pipe as much as a predetermined time or a predetermined volume.
In the analogous art of providing measurement systems, Park (US6216548) teaches a sampling unit (particle sampler 10 illustrated in Fig. 2) configured to selectively communicate an exhaust pipe (discharge line 64 in Fig. 2) for discharging the gas mixture including the gaseous phase materials from the chamber to sample the gas mixture from the exhaust pipe as much as a predetermined time or a predetermined volume (see column 4, which recites “the basic flow path for gas during particle sampling starts at the sampling port 24 (connecting to a processing chamber), passes via the sampling line 60 through a particle sampler 10 and into an isolation valve 22, passes via the pumping line 62 into a pumping device 20, and passes via the discharge line 64 into a discharge port 28”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system disclosed by Nakamura by incorporating the sampling unit disclosed by Park with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively monitoring of airborne contaminants in real time, enabling quick identification and removal of contamination sources, preventing defects on sensitive wafer surfaces, and ensuring the storage environment meets strict cleanliness standards, thereby reducing cost.
As to claim 9, Nakamura in view of Park the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the sampling unit (particle sampler 10) includes a sampler module (bypass line 68 see Fig. 2 of Park) to store the gas mixture as much as the predetermined volume (the sampler module of Park is capable of storing gas mixture as much as the predetermined volume).
As to claim 11, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 10, wherein the separation module (gas chromatography 15 of Nakamura) includes a separation path (see Fig. 4) in which the gaseous phase materials move at different movement speeds according to substances, to separate the gaseous phase materials into substances and discharge at time intervals (the separation path of Nakamura is capable of separating the gaseous phase materials into substance by moving the gaseous materials at different movement speeds according to substances and of discharging the gaseous phase materials at time intervals) , and
wherein the sensor module (mass spectrometer 16) is configured to measure a time and concentration at which the gaseous phase materials from the separation path are detected (see [0024] of Nakamura, which recites “measurement was performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometers 15 and 16. The measurement result (total ion chromatogram chart) is shown in the upper chart (a) of FIG. Here, the horizontal axis of the chart is the holding time, and the vertical axis is the peak intensity”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2004340685A) over Park (US6216548) as applied to claim 11 further in view of Seo (US20130186174).
As to claim 12, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 11.
Nakamura in view of Park doesn’t teach that the separation path has a shape of a column bent in a maze pattern within a set space.
In the analogous art of providing measurement systems, Seo (US20130186174) teaches separation path (microcolumn 24 in [0038]) having a shape of a column bent in a maze pattern within a set space (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system disclosed by Nakamura in view of Path such that the separation path has shape of a column bent in a maze pattern within a set space as disclosed by Seo with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively preparing a vapor sample for separation and detection (see [0038], which recites a vapor sample may be thermally desorbed (or otherwise removed from the device) using an integral heater and transferred, for example via a valve 27 and pump 28 arrangement, to a focuser 22 for injection downstream to a microcolumn 24 ultimately for the separation and detection by an array of sensors and/or micro sensors 26”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2004340685A) over Park (US6216548) in view of Seo (US20130186174) as applied to claim 12 further in view of Suzuki (US20110132196).
As to claim 13, Nakamura in view of Park in view of Seo teaches the measurement system according to claim 12.
Nakamura in view of Park in view of Seo doesn’t teach a porous material is coated on an inner surface of the separation path, and wherein the gaseous phase materials repeatedly attach to and separate from the porous material while flowing along the separation path.
In the analogous art of providing measurement systems, Suzuki (US20110132196A1) teaches a porous material (porous layer 3 in [0056]) in is coated on an inner surface of the separation path, and wherein the gaseous phase materials repeatedly attach to and separate from the porous material while flowing along the separation path (see [0056], which recites “When the porous layer 3 is not formed in the substrate 2, the gas passing through a region located close to the substrate 2 flows out of the column more rapidly. However, when the porous layer 3 is formed in the substrate 2, the flowing speed of the gas becomes more uniform as compared with the foregoing case, and the absorptive property at the time of absorption and the time taken for absorption become constant (substantially constant) or variations thereof are reduced more effectively than the case where the porous layer 3 is formed only in the groove of the silicon substrate 1. Hence, the formation of the porous layer 3 not only in the silicon substrate 1 but also in the substrate 2 is advantageous in enabling a reduction in broadening of a separation peak in chromatography”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system disclosed by Nakamura in view of Path such that the separation path is coated with a porous material as disclosed by Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively enabling a reduction in broadening of a separation peak in chromatography (see [0056] of Suzuki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 14 and 16-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 2, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the exhaust pipe (discharge 64) is connected to a bypass pipe (purge-pump line 65) which branches off from the exhaust pipe (discharge line 64 in Fig. 2).
Nakamura in view of Park doesn’t teach that the bypass pipe connects to the exhaust pipe again wherein the sampling unit selectively communicates the bypass pipe.
As to claim 8, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 1.
Nakamura in view of Park doesn’t teach that the exhaust pipe includes an upstream exhaust pipe and a downstream exhaust pipe connected through a multi-port valve, and
wherein the multi-port valve is configured to:
perform a sampling connection operation to shut off the direct communication between the upstream exhaust pipe and the downstream exhaust pipe, and to communicate the upstream exhaust pipe with an inlet of the sampling unit and the downstream exhaust pipe with an outlet of the sampling unit, and
perform a sampling shutoff operation to directly communicate the upstream exhaust pipe with the downstream exhaust pipe, and discommunicate the exhaust pipe from the sampling unit.
As to claim 14, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 10.
Nakamrua doesn’t teach that the sensor module is configured to detect a concentration of the gaseous phase materials by measuring a voltage change by electrons released from the corresponding gaseous phase materials by applying UV to the gaseous phase materials from the separation module.
As to claim 16, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 15, wherein the concentration module (concentrator 14) is disposed in one of the sampling unit and the detection unit (which correspond to concentrator 14, gas chromatography 15 and mass spectrometer 16).
As to claim 17, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 15, wherein the concentration module (concentrator 14) includes:
a concentration chamber (concentration 14 of Nakamura).
Nakamura in view of Park doesn’t teach an adsorbent to trap the gaseous phase materials filled in the concentration chamber.
As to claim 19, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 15, wherein the concentration module, the separation module and the sensor module are incorporated into a single portable device (the measurement system of Nakamura in view of Park is portable, see Figure 4).
As to claim 20, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the exhaust pipe (discharge line 64) is connected to a pump (pumping device 20, see Fig. 2 of Park) to form a pressure for discharging the gas mixture from the chamber (chamber 6 of Nakamura).
Nakamura in view of Park teaches doesn’t teach an inlet and an outlet of the sampling unit selectively communicate the exhaust pipe between the chamber and the pump.
As to claim 21, Nakamura in view of Park teaches the measurement system according to claim 2 wherein the exhaust pipe (discharge line 64) is connected to a pump (pumping device 20, see Fig. 2 of Park) to form a pressure for discharging the gas mixture from the chamber (chamber 6 of Nakamura).
Nakamura in view of Park doesn’t teach that the bypass pipe has an entry and an exit connected to the exhaust pipe between the chamber and the pump.
As to claim 22, the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the component (sample conductor wafer piece 2) is a semiconductor component (sample conductor wafer piece 2) , and
wherein the treatment apparatus (sample semiconductor wafer piece holding jig body 1 in Fig. 2) is a semiconductor treatment apparatus (sample semiconductor wafer piece holding jig body 1) for etching or cleaning the semiconductor component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797