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 Objections
Claims 1, , 4, 10, and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claim 1 recites a “particle prevention method in chamber configured to remove particle.” This should be “particle prevention method in a chamber configured to remove particles.” A similar change to “chamber” should be made in claim 10.
Further in Claim 1, in the “providing” step, the claims recited “and the bottom being is connected to the first side wall…” This should be “and the bottom
In Claim 4, “wherein the cover ring comprising:” should be “wherein the cover ring comprises:” A similar change should be made in claim 13.
Claim 10 recites, in reference to the “shielding ring portion” of the body, “the first side wall extends towards an upper portion of the accommodating space and connected to the reaction chamber; …” This should be: “the first side wall extends towards an upper portion of the accommodating space and is connected to the reaction chamber; …” Further in the same portion of Claim 10, it recites “and the bottom being is connected to the first side wall and the second side wall to form an annular groove area, …” This should be: “and the bottom
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “A particle prevention method in a chamber configured to remove particles in a reaction chamber.” However, this characterization, which implies using a reaction chamber to prevent particles, does not appear to properly reflect the recited method. Instead, the method appears directed to a method of constructing/assembling a particle prevention device in a reaction chamber. For clarity, the preamble and body of recited method should correspond to one another.
Claim 1 further recites in the “connecting” step of the claim body, “an upper portion of an accommodating space of the reaction chamber.” Accommodating space was previously recited thus making it unclear if this is the same space or not. Examiner assumes it is and Applicant should use antecedent language.
Claim 10 is directed to a particle prevention device “configured to be disposed in a reaction chamber; wherein a holder plate is disposed within an accommodating space of the reaction chamber.” This appear to suggest the reaction chamber, holder plate and accommodating space are separate from the particle prevention device being claimed, and thus not part of the claimed device, but only a recitation to the intended placement. However, the body of the claims specifically recites the shielding ring relative to the accommodating space and as “connected to the reaction chamber,” thus suggesting these aspects are part of the claimed device. It is thus unclear if the reaction chamber, holder plate, and accommodating space are positively claimed or not. Examiner assumes the must be because their existence seems essential to the description of the device. Examiner recommends amending such as: “A particle prevention device comprising:
a holder pate [[is]] disposed within an accommodating space of the reaction chamber;
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on as indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9, 10-12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. (US 2001/0014540) in view of Fink (US 2006/015114).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, Shan et al. teaches a particle prevention method in a reaction chamber, wherein a holder plate [30] is disposed within an accommodating space of the reaction chamber (See Fig. 1 and page 5, paragraph [0059], reciting a reaction chamber having a cathode electrode [30] for mounting a semiconductor, thus making is a holder plate as claimed wherein the internal portion of the reaction chamber having the cathode electrode [30] is an accommodating space); the method comprising:
providing a shielding ring [10],[12], wherein the shielding ring includes a first side wall [10], a second side wall [12], and a bottom [13], the second side wall [12] is parallel to the first side wall [10], and the bottom [13] is connected to the first side wall [10] and the second side wall [12] to form an annular groove area (See Fig. 1 and page 2, paragraph [0024], and page 3, paragraph [0032], wherein the shields are in a cylinder, i.e. shielding ring with circular walls, forming the walls and a bottom, clearly connected, form an annular passage that is an annular groove as claimed; note to exist as shown this structure must be “provided”); and the bottom [13] is provided with at least one flow aperture [51], and an inner side of the second side wall defines an opening to receive the holder plate (See Fig. 1 and page 3, paragraph [0037], wherein the bottom [13] has aperture [51] to emit exhaust and wall [12] clearly creates a ring the defines an opening for holding plate [30]);
connecting the first side wall [10] to the reaction chamber [20] with the first side wall [10] extending toward an upper portion of the accommodating space of the reaction chamber (See Fig. 1, clearly illustrating this connection, thus implying there must have been “connecting” to assemble it as such);
a first deflector [14] plate on the first side wall [10], wherein the first deflector plate extends such that the first deflector plate is located above the at least one flow aperture [51] of the bottom; and fixing a second deflector plate [16] to the second side wall [12], wherein the second deflector plate is located below the first deflector plate, wherein the first deflector plate contacting the bottom and the first side wall (See Fig. 1, wherein exhaust baffles [14],[16] are deflector plates as claimed).
Examiner notes the deflector plates [14], [16] in Shan et al. are meant to direct the flow of gas in a sinuous path and create more surface area contact on which particles in the gas can attach/react so as to prevent deposits within the area of the vacuum pumps after exiting aperture [51] and also quench the plasma over a longer path (See pages 7-8, paragraphs [0091]-0098]). Although the second plate [16] is below the first plate [14] in Shan et al., it would have been apparent the reversal of plate location would have predictably created a similar sinuous flow pattern that create a similar effect of trapping particles prior to aperture [51]. According to In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955), the mere reversal of a system is generally not adequate for patentability (See e.g. id. holding that a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel is a mere reversal of such movement and an obvious expedient). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the plate [16] above plate [14] because doing so would have predictably created a similar forced sinuous flow and longer path as desired without and articulable negative effect. As such, reversing the upward and downward positioning would have predictably been an equivalent way to create a sinuous, longer path to accomplished the desired advantage of capturing particles and quenching the plasma.
Shan et al. illustrates the plate as protruding perpendicularly to the walls, not obliquely downward. However, similar annular baffle plates in plasma system such as in Shan et al. are well-known to extend perpendicularly or at angles as desired (See, for example, Saigusa et al., Abstract, Fig. 1 and, page 2, paragraph [0028] page 3, paragraph [0038], teaching the baffle plate in a plasma system may protrude from the shielding cover [14] of the reaction chamber, equivalent to wall [10] in Shan et al., at 90 degrees, or preferably at downward angles). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the baffle plates to angle the baffle plates [12], [14] downward in Shaw et al. Such angling is known to be suitable in similar system and would have predictably allowed extension of the plates while allowing the same passage gap, thus creating a larger surface connection and sinuous flow path as desired.
Further, although Shan et al. does not teach the formation process of the deflector plates [14],[16] relative to the walls, and thus is silent as to whether they are integrally form (i.e. not attached in fixing) or formed separately and fixed. However, Examiner notes forming separately and fixing as in Claim 1 is a known way to secure baffle plates (See, for example, Saigua et al., Fig. 1, clearly illustrating a separate baffle plate [64] fixed to wall [14]). Further, the distinction between integrally forming or forming and fixing are generally not considered patentable and is considered an obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to fix the deflector plates [14] and [16] to the respective walls in Shan et al. to form an identical system wherein the plates [14],[16] are separately attached/welded, rather than integrally formed.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Shan et al. teaches a cover ring [38] on the shielding ring [10],[12], implying is was disposed as such (See Fig. 1 and page 2, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18, Shan et al. teach the plates [14],[16], which are annular, necessarily overlap, thus causing the upper to shield the lower, and shield the aperture (See pages 7-8, paragraphs [0092] and [0095]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. and Fink as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Fink (US 2006/0151114, hereinafter “Fink2”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Shan et al. and Fink teach the method of Claims 1 and 10 as described above. Shan et al. and Fink don’t teach connection portions. However, known methods of connecting baffles to walls in plasma system would have predictably been suitable to connect the baffles to walls [10] and [12] in Shan et al. Further, it is known baffles may extend and protrude from a connection ring the is directly secured to the system, thus making the baffle itself indirectly fixed (See, for example, Fink2, Fig. 4B and page 2, paragraph [0030], wherein the extending baffle [118],[120] is attached to a baffle carrier ring [116] that forms attachment between baffle and wall). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize connection portions for each of baffles [14] and [16] in Shan et al., such as by using a carrier ring secured to walls [10] and [12] respectively. Doing so would have predictably been a known and suitable method of securing an extending annular baffle, such as those in Shan et al., to a wall in a plasma system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no reason given in the prior art to implement and orient the cover ring as recited within the specified system having the deflector plates and shielding ring as claimed wherein a horizontal portion is disposed around a window and a vertical portion is between the two walls.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller et al. (US 2008/0110860); and Mayata et al. (US 2016/0172217), each teach extending plates in a shielding ring in a reaction chamber; and Chung et al. (US 6,171,453), teaching a annular grooved shielding ring having a cover ring with a horizontal portion around the holder and a vertical portion in the groove of the ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746