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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 4/22/2026. Claims 8 and 12 have been canceled and thus all rejections are withdrawn with respect to these claims. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant lays out the details and purpose of the instant invention precisely and with high details and contracts it with the precise details and purpose in Shan et al. (US 2001/0014540) and Fink (US 2006/0151114) (Note the initial rejection actually referred to Saigusa et al. (US 2004/0063333) in the body and mistakenly cited Fink in the heading, but the teaching and motivation in both is the same in both cases, i.e. angling baffles in exhaust pathways is well-known and trivial). The Examiner notes the claims themselves are much broader and less specific than the intended invention laid out in the specification and arguments, and it is noted that many of the specifies relied upon in Applicant’s arguments are not recited in the rejected claims and attempt to provide a more specific context that the instantly claimed invention requires. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, it is not always clear why the specific system and purposes laid out by the Applicant are relevant to the claims and the previous rejection of said claims.
As such, Applicant's arguments generally do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Instead, the argument generally refer to the detailed systems of the instant invention and the prior art without specifically refuting the specific arguments made in the non-final rejection mailed 1/26/2026 about why the prior art renders obvious the claimed system. Thus, while Applicant’s arguments clearly demonstrate how the intended invention is different from those in the cited prior art overall, they do not demonstrate why the claimed structure is so specific as to avoid the prior art structure and obvious alteration thereof.
For example, Applicant discussed the concept of backflow, which may not have been contemplated in the prior art references, but it is unclear how this relates to the previous rejection of the claims. The prior art need not contemplate backflow to teach a structure that reads on the instant claims. Likewise, the fact the purpose of the system in Shan et al. is completely different does not, by itself, prevent it from rendering obvious the claimed structure. The purpose of the claimed structure need not be the same as long as the prior art render obvious the structure as claimed. Thus, it is unclear why the different intended purposes of the instant invention and Shah matter in overcoming the previous obviousness rejection and Applicant has not made this clear since Applicant has not made clear why these differences prevent altering Shah as in the previous rejection. If Applicant is attempting to recite an unexpected advantage of an angled deflector plate not contemplated in the prior art, Applicant should have some support for this difference relative to the prior art structure. See Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (indicating mere conclusions the claim had an unexpectedly improvement do not satisfy Applicant’s burden to establish unexpected results of an angled deflector plate have improve function to a non-angled plate as in Shah et al.).
Shah teaches each and every eliminate claim except the first and second deflector plates are flipped and not obliquely angled down. Examiner has argued reversing elements is well-known and so is angled baffle plates thus indicated reversing the vertical position or the deflector plate or angling them slightly would have been considered trivial and obvious in view of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955) and Fink to achieve a functionally equivalent system to Shah with extended deflector plate contact therein wherein angling would allow a long deflector plate to further allowing depletion of the reactive species on the baffle plate. Applicant has not explicitly addressed this rationale or clear indicated why the baffle in Shah et al. cannot be angled downward.
Applicant arguments for Fink (and Saigusa et al) address are applied individually without acknowledging it merely provides supports to indicate angling baffles plates is a known common alteration in the prior art. It is noted one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Both Saigusa (See page 3, paragraph [0038]) and Fink (See page 2, paragraph [0031]) indicate angling baffle plates in the path of exhaust flow are well-known and trivial as an alteration to slightly alter flow. Examiner argued such angling of the plate in Shaw would have been suitable 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. Applicant has not addressed this specific reasoning or say why it is flaw other than to indicate Fink (and Saigusa) only teach one deflector plate, but without stating why this is relevant when applying the angling logic to Shah et al. Examiner notes Fink (and Saigusa) are only relied on to demonstrate angling deflector plates is known and trivial to implement in Shah et al.
Finally, with regard to the shielding ring, Applicant makes the same specific argument to purpose and materials even though such purpose is not apparent from the claimed structure and the structure of the cover ring [38] relative to the shielding ring [10],[12] would appear to possess all the structure claimed. Thus, as above, Applicant’s arguments do not make clear why the claimed combination does not read on the claimed invention. As such, the previous rejection is not overcome.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “wherein partially shielding the at least one flow aperture in a radial direction with the first deflector plate.” This is grammatically improper and should be amended to: “and partially shielding the at least one flow aperture in a radial direction with the first deflector plate.” or “wherein the first deflector plate is partially shields the at least one flow aperture in a radial direction
In Claim 10, “wherein a cover ring disposed above the shielding ring.” should be “wherein a cover ring is disposed above the shielding ring.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10-11, 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 Saigusa et al. (US 2004/0063333).
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.
Further regarding Claim 1 and also claims 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]).
Further regarding Claim 10 and also Claim 3, 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]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. and Saigua et al. 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 Saigua et al. teach the method of Claims 1 and 10 as described above. Shan et al. and Saigua et al. 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 4-6 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights