DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on June 25, 2026. Claims 9-11 and 21 are amended.
The applicant contends that the feature of the holder has been more precisely defined, with claim 9 now reciting an overhang “positioned relative to the retained portion so as to hold the rotatable shaft in place,” as well as a “linear section extending outward from an exterior surface of the chamber wall” (p. 7). Conversely, Deak does not disclose a feature having the aforementioned configurations. For example, Deak’s flange (140) only contacts the rotatable shaft (310) rather than holding it in place, and feature 22d cannot serve as the claimed holder either, as this portion lacks a linear section and does not extend outwardly from the chamber wall (pp. 7-8).
In response, the examiner understands Deak to anticipate the metes of the new material of claim 9. With regard to the interaction between the holder and rotatable shaft, the examiner believes that Deak satisfies the claimed arrangement in at least two ways. First, the holder may be construed as the structure comprising features 112, 114, and 140. The circular flange (112) may be taken as the linear section “extending outward” from the chamber wall (22c), the hub (114) may be taken as a portion of the “overhang disposed at an end of the linear section and extending radially inward,” and the flange (140) may be taken as the portion of the overhang whose diameter is “smaller than the diameter of the retained portion” and that “hold[s] the rotatable shaft in place.” Although the magnitude of the force applied by the flange (140) to the rotatable shaft (310) is undefined, it is also non-zero, and Applicant’s disclosure does not quantify this magnitude. As such, it is unclear how an unquantified magnitude can disqualify the prior art disclosure of a non-zero magnitude.
According to a second interpretation, Deak embeds an undesignated annular portion within the chamber wall (22c) so that it surrounds the left hemisphere of the rotatable shaft (310). (With regard to Figure 2, reference character 320 comes closest to indicating the aforesaid annular portion. With regard to Figure 2A, the annular portion contains features 22f and 322.) This annular portion has a horizontal extent which extends outwardly from the chamber wall (22c), whereby this extent may be taken as the “linear section.” Further, because the annular portion tapers to mirror the spherical curvature of the rotatable shaft, there is a portion which extends radially inward from linear section. This satisfies the claim requirement of an “overhang disposed at an end of the linear section and extending radially inward, such that…a diameter of the overhang is smaller than the diameter of the retained portion.” (Note: the “extended portion” of Deak’s rotatable shaft (310) is the section whose horizontal extent opposes the horizontal extent of the chamber wall (22c), and the “retained portion” is the section whose horizontal extent opposes the horizontal extent of the annular portion.) Lastly, regarding the new material stipulating that the overhang must “hold the rotatable shaft in place,” the examiner observes that the tapered portion of the Deak’s holder will necessarily constrain the lateral movement of the rotatable shaft given a contingency where such movement transpires. (For purposes of clarity, the examiner has annotated Figure 2 of Deak in accordance with the nomenclature of the second interpretation, below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
543
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11, 14, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deak, IV, US 2006/0027763.
Claim 9: Deak discloses an apparatus to allow rotation of a component within a chamber, comprising:
A chamber wall (22c) defining the chamber (22) and having an opening ([0036]; Fig. 2);
A rotatable shaft (310) having:
An extended portion (~312) extending into the opening of the chamber wall;
A retained portion (~311) disposed adjacent to the extended portion and outside the chamber;
A component (250) disposed in a feedthrough in the rotatable shaft to extend through the opening and configured to rotate with the rotatable shaft [0012];
A first vacuum seal (320) disposed between the extended portion and the chamber wall [0055].
Apropos of the recitation of the “holder,” the examiner observes that the outstanding amendments have removed those limitations yoking the feature not just to mechanically related structures, like the rotatable shaft, but also to its functional purpose. As such, the holder may be construed broadly as nearly any feature: for instance, the holder may be taken as one of the robotic arms (44) shown by Figure 1, whereby any two portions of said arm may be taken as the “overhang” and “linear section,” with the scope of each arbitrarily circumscribed such that the diameter of the latter is greater than the retained portion and the diameter of the former is smaller than the retained portion, as claim 9 requires.
Claim 10: Deak provides an interface component (404) disposed at a proximal end of the component (250) and adjacent to an outer surface of the rotatable shaft configured to emit electrical signals to the component ([0060]; Fig. 2). Further, a second vacuum seal (340) is disposed between an outer surface of the rotatable shaft and a back surface of the interface component [0054].
Claims 11, 21: Deak provides an EMI gasket (112) disposed between the rotatable shaft and the back surface of the interface component, where its presence will necessarily alter the distribution of an electromagnetic field.
Claim 14: Deak discloses the broader structure of an ion implanter, comprising an ion source (12) and a linear accelerator, whereby the component (~24) is disposed within a cavity (22) of the linear accelerator (Fig. 1).
Claim 22: The rotatable shaft is spherical in its configuration. As such, the section immediately external to the chamber sidewall may be construed as the “retained portion,” whereby the outermost section may be taken as the “exterior portion.” Again, due to the spherical nature of the component, the exterior portion has a smaller diameter than the retained portion.
Claim 23: The rejection of claim 22, above, substantially addresses this limitation. In addition, the interface component (110) is adjacent to the exterior portion.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deak in view of DiMarco et al., US 2014/0238159.
Deak is silent regarding the claimed configuration of a coaxial connector. In supplementation, DiMarco provides a coaxial rotary shaft feedthrough, in which an interface component (100) comprises inner (5) and outer (7) connectors (Fig. 1B). The outer connector (7) couples to a rotary shaft, and the inner connector (5) couples to a component (6) in order to achieve independent rotation [0036-39]. It would have been obvious to configure Deak’s rotary mechanism as an coaxial orientation, since applying an known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deak in view of Biloiu et al., US 2023/0124350.
Deak’s component is not constituted as an antenna, but it is known to affix an antenna to a means of rotation within the context of ion implantation. Biloiu, for example, attaches an antenna (16) to a rotatable shaft (20) which inserts within a linear accelerator of an ion implantation device ([0027-30]; Fig. 1A). The antenna (16) regulates magnetic flux and, by changing its orientation via rotation and linear actuation, this act of regulation can be precisely controlled [0037]. It would have been obvious avail Deak’s rotary instruments to orient an antenna, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Nogami et al., US 5,003,183. As shown by Figure 2, Nogami discloses an ion implanter comprising a chamber wall, a rotatable shaft (124) disposed within an opening of the chamber wall, a component (~134) coupled to the rotatable shaft, and a first vacuum seal (122) disposed between the rotatable shaft and the chamber wall (4, 20ff).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights