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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, line 2, is indefinite because “perfluoroalkanes (PFAS)” is unclear. PFAS cover per and polyfluoroalkyl substances not only “perfluoroalkanes”.
Claim 8, line 3, the phrase “fluorochlorocarbons (CFCs)” is unclear. Should this be chlorofluorocarbons?
Claim 8, line 3, is indefinite because “fluoropolymers (PTFE)” is unclear. PTFE covers polyflourotetraethylene.
Claim 8, line 4, is indefinite because “hydrofluorochlorocarbons (HCFCs)” is unclear. “hydrofluorochlorocarbons” should be “hydrochlorofluorocarbons”.
Claim 12, line 2, is indefinite because “alcohols” cover “fluoroalcohols”.
Claim 12, line 3, is indefinite because “ethers” cover fluoroethers”.
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.
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) 1-5, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai (JP 2005-187842) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0171426 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Mukai teaches an anti-deposition object for use in a vacuum environment at least comprising: a main structure having at least one surface; and a fluorine coating layer covering the surface of the main structure, wherein the anti-deposition object contacts with a manufacturing process substance used or discharged during a manufacturing process performed by a manufacturing process equipment in the vacuum environment. (Paragraphs 0006-0016; Figs. 1-13)
The difference between Mukai and claim 1 is that the fluorine coating layer has a water droplet contact angle with the manufacturing process substance higher than that of the surface of the main structure is not discussed, the fluorine coating layer has a hardness similar to or higher than that of the surface of the main structure is not discussed, and the fluorine coating layer has a roughness lower than that of the surface of the main structure is not discussed.
Chen et al. teach using a fluorine containing coating on a substrate for the purposes of water repellency and self-cleaning. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0004)
Chen et al. teach the fluorine coating layer has a water droplet contact angle with the manufacturing process substance higher than that of the surface of the main structure. (Paragraph 0048)
Chen et al. teach the fluorine coating layer has a hardness similar to or higher than that of the surface of the main structure. (Paragraph 0037 – hardness greater than above 3H)
Chen et al. teach the fluorine coating layer has a roughness lower than that of the surface of the main structure. (Paragraph 0041; Paragraph 0048 – roughness of 9 nm to 1 micron compared to roughness of 9.2 nm for example. (9.2 nm for example is lower in roughness than 1 micron))
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chen et al. is that it allows for providing a coating for the purpose of providing water repellency and self-cleaning. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0004)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Mukai by utilizing the features of Chen et al. because it allows for providing a coating for the purpose of providing water repellency and self-cleaning.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the main structure is an outlet pipe fitting of the manufacturing process equipment or a pipe fitting or a component of a peripheral equipment of the manufacturing process equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Mukai teaches utilizing as the main structure an outlet pipe fitting of a manufacturing process equipment or a pipe fitting or a component of a peripheral equipment of a manufacturing process equipment for receiving a fluorine coating. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the fluorine coating layer is located on the surface of a part of the main structure, and the part is an inclined part, a planar part or a curved part of the main structure.
Regarding claim 3, Mukai teaches utilizing a fluorine coating layer located on a surface of a part of the main structure, and the part is an inclined part, a planar part or a curved part of the main structure. (Paragraphs 0006-0016; Figs. 1-13)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the fluorine coating layer has an acid corrosion resistance and a plasma etching resistance higher than those of the surface of the main structure.
Regarding claim 4, Mukai teach utilizing a fluorine coating layer similar or the same as applicants. Where the composition of the coating layer is the same the properties would be the same. (See MPEP 2112.01 – II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES -"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the surface of the main structure is roughened to form rough surfaces with rough structures to increase a surface roughness.
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teach the main structure 11 has a roughened surface 111. (Paragraph 0041)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is where the water droplet contact angle of the fluorine coating layer ranges from 100 to 120 degrees.
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. teach the water droplet angle to be 115 degrees. (Paragraph 0048)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a temperature tolerance of the fluorine coating layer reaches 600 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 18, Mukai teach utilizing a fluorine coating layer similar or the same as applicants. Where the composition of the coating layer is the same the properties would be the same. (See MPEP 2112.01 – II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES -"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the hardness of the fluorine coating layer ranges from 8H to 9H.
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. teach that the “hard” layer can be greater than 3H. (Paragraph 0037) Overlapping ranges have been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 –
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an adhesion between the fluorine coating layer and the surface of the main structure ranges from 4B to 5B in a cross-cut test.
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al. teach an adhesion between the fluorine coating layer and the surface of the main structure ranges from 4B to 5B in a cross-cut test. (Paragraphs 0057 – good adhesion) Furthermore Mukai teach utilizing a fluorine coating layer similar or the same as applicants. Where the composition of the coating layer is the same the properties would be the same. (See MPEP 2112.01 – II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES -"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chen et al. is that it allows for providing a coating for the purpose of providing water repellency and self-cleaning. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0004)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Mukai by utilizing the features of Chen et al. because it allows for providing a coating for the purpose of providing water repellency and self-cleaning.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 17-20 above, and further in view of Shirai et al. (WO 2007/142312 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the surface of the main structure is roughened by pickling or sandblasting to increase surface roughness.
Regarding claim 6, Shirai et al. teach roughening by sandblasting to increase surface roughness then applying a fluororesin to improve durability. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shirai et al. is that it allows for improving durability. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Shirai et al. because it allows for improving durability.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 17-20 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0093367 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the manufacturing process performed by the manufacturing process equipment is an atomic layer deposition (ALD) manufacturing process, and the manufacturing process substance is titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka et al. teach the exhaust can be attached to an atomic layer deposition equipment and utilizes titanium tetrachloride. (Paragraphs 0055-0058)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the manufacturing process performed by the manufacturing process equipment is a metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) manufacturing process, and the manufacturing process substance is a process gas or a process exhaust gas.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka et al. teach the exhaust can be attached to a metal organic chemical vapor deposition apparatus. Gas is exhausted from the exhaust. (Paragraphs 0055-0058)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tanaka is that it allows depositing various films of materials on substrates. (Paragraphs 0055-0058)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Mukai by utilizing the features of Tanaka et al. because it allows for depositing various films of materials using various processes on substrates. In other words using the fluororesin film from the combination of Mukai and Chen et al. in the exhaust of Tanaka will allow for depositing various films of materials using various processes on substrates.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 17-20 above, and further in view of Du et al. (CN 1386894 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the manufacturing process performed by the manufacturing process equipment is an Al-pad manufacturing process, and the manufacturing process substance is a process gas reactant or a process exhaust gas.
Regarding 16, Du et al. teach wherein the manufacturing process performed by the manufacturing process equipment is an Al-pad manufacturing process, and the manufacturing process substance is a process gas reactant or a process exhaust gas. (Du et al. FIG. 2 is the vapor deposition crucible 10 applied to a vapor deposition device (evaporation apparatus) sectional view for representing an evaporation device with evaporation function, the evaporation equipment mainly comprises a plating treatment chamber 60 (the coating chamber) below the plating treatment chamber 60 is equipped with a stage 62 (Pedestal) for bearing substrate such as semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer) 50. the plating treatment chamber 60 is equipped with a container body 11 the crucible 10 for evaporating the evaporation crucible 10 placed with the coating material 40, gold, aluminium or tin-lead alloy, and at the same time, provided with a heating device 61 in the plating treatment chamber 60 (heater) such as resistance heater. a halogen lamp heater or an induction heater for heating the evaporation crucible coating material for 40 in the boiler 10, so that the heated evaporation is a deposition agent 41. In this embodiment, the evaporation apparatus further comprises a plasma generating device 63 (plasma generation) and a vacuum device 64. wherein the plasma generation device 63 formed in the plating treatment chamber 60 of a middle section, the wireless frequency of the antenna (antenna) 10 to 100 MHz for activation (ionization) between deposition agent 41. the deposition agent 41 having directivity and uniformly deposited on the semiconductor wafer substrate 50, and the vacuum device 64 provides during the evaporation process in the plating treatment chamber 60 with an appropriate operating pressure and background atmosphere (background at). from the above vapor deposition device, capable of stably attaching a light shade (not drawn) at the upper surface of the substrate of the semiconductor wafer 50, so as to make the surface of the substrate 50 to form gold or lead-tin bump (bumps) or aluminum pad (pad) of the deposited film 42 to achieve the deposition and work function of the device.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Du et al. is that it is allows for deposition of Al pads. (See Fig. 2; Machine translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Mukai by utilizing the features of Du et al. because it allows for depositing aluminum pads. In other words using the fluororesin film from the combination of Mukai and Chen et al. in the exhaust of Du et al. will allow for depositing aluminum pads.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/406,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-23 of Application No. 18/406,000 while varying in scope suggest the limitations of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
October 2, 2025