DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the claim should include “is” after controller. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 already requires 1 temperature sensor (claim 10 does not require more). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim refers to “the inlet hood” which is not support in claims 1 or 3.
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, 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 1-3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato (5,364,488) in view of Nozawa (2007/0163502) and Kamarehi (2002/007912).
Minato teaches a substrate processing (ashing) apparatus comprising:
- a substate reaction chamber to treatment substrates, see chamber 1, Fig. 3,
- a plasma unit, see plasma elements including generator 27,
- a cooling unit comprising:
- a fan configured to generate an airflow – see fan 9,
- a plurality of fins in front of the fan, see fins, 5,
- a plurality of cooling pipes, see pipes 6 with coils 8, wherein the cooling pipes are configured to cool the air from the fan (related text) – the teachings include all aspects of the claim except the teachings do not explicitly include a water tank and the system does not include a remote, but rather in situ, plasma unit.
Kamarehi teaches that it is useful to include a remote plasma system with an ashing system [0002]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the remote plasma of Kamarehi to the system of Minato as Kamarehi teaches that a remote plasma is useful for systems including ashing systems (such as taught by Minato) (it is noted that while as is specifically noted in both references and the rejection, the broader teaching of a remote plasma in any such processing system is arguable without a focus on the specifically noted process as any process is in case intended use and the chamber is reasonably outfitted for any similar process).
In regard to the tank, the system of Minato includes water/fluid inlet and outlet lines, but not specifically a tank. Nozawa teaches that in use with a cooling system, it is effective to include a tank for holing the fluid used for the chiller [0005]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to employ a tank for the water / cooling fluid of Nozawa in the apparatus of Minato as an operable manner of supplying the cooling water.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the area held within upper portion including the fan and water channels comprises an inlet and/or outlet hood as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the teachings include a temperature sensor (thermocouple) and controller to activate the fan when needed (col 2, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 11, air flow is directed into the reaction chamber as depicted.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nozawa and Kamarehi and Kuppurao (2007/0042117).
The teachings of Minato et al are described above. To the extent that the teachings do not have a cross-flow as depicted, the teachings of Kuppurao are described. Kuppurao teaches that it is useful to include a cooling air system to supply air at the top of a process chamber, see Figs. 1, 5, 8 and related text. Kuppurao teaches that it is useful to provide the air across the chamber in order to control the temperature. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Minato and Kuppurao – for example, to apply the cooling system of Minato including the fan, cooling coils and fins in a manner such as supplied by Kuppurao in order to provide cooling to a substrate processing apparatus. In doing so, the outlet hood (lower portion above chamber) provides the outlet across the inlet hood (per Kuppurao the top most portion of the hood above the process chamber)., thereby meeting the requirements of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the teachings do not explicitly include a fan in the exhaust, the teachings include multiple fans such as per Kuppurao (Fig. 8), adding other (exhaust) fans would have been further obvious as a routine duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Even though the additional fan is in a different portion, the intent of the fans is to move the air through the system and therefore duplication is obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, when combined with Kuppurao, there are two outlet hoods, with arguments above applied to claim 6 in regard to the fans.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nozawa and Kamarehi and Wei (2021/0225673).
The teachings of Minato are described above, including fins, a controller and thermocouple but not teaching movable fins that move to adjust the temperature. Wei teaches however in a process system it is useful to have a controller and fins that are adjustable according to a detected temperature [0032]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the movable fins of Wei that are moved when the temperature is at a certain point as it would further assist in the temperature control system of Minato.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712