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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 has a typographical error in “purgegas exhaust”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0022] refers to “supports 30”, however, the supports are shown in the figure as being items 42, and element 30 is disclosed as being the connecting tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 17-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, 12, 17-18, and 20 recite “a/the input metal gas line” and/or “a/the output metal gas line”; While Examiner believes these terms are definite in context, the wording is nevertheless somewhat ambiguous as to whether the terms require ‘a/the metal line for gas’ or ‘a/the line for gaseous metal’; Applicant’s specification discusses the lines being made of metal, and doesn’t specifically discuss the use of gaseous metals, and accordingly, Examiner believes ‘metal’ is referring to the construction of the line itself, rather than the gas which is carried by the line; Thus, to remove such ambiguity, these terms should be amended to ‘a/the metal input gas line’ and/or ‘a/the metal input gas line’;
Claim 1 refers to “a compression clamp” and “a sealing gasket” twice; While Examiner believes the limitations are definite in context, these elements having the same name could lead to clarity issues; Examiner suggests amending to differentiate between the two, e.g. ‘first’ and ‘second’, ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’, ‘input end’ and ‘output end’, etc.;
Claim 12 recites “the process tool”; While Examiner believes this term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “a/the semiconductor processing tool”; Consistent terminology should be maintained throughout the claims;
Claim 18 recites similar wording as claim 1, and should be amended similarly.
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 9-12, 17, and 19 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 9 recites “a gas interface as set forth in claim 5”. Because of the wording ‘a gas interface’, it is unclear whether this is intended to require that claim 9 depend on claim 5. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. The claim subsequently refers to terms not having antecedent basis were claim 9 not to depend upon claim 5. Accordingly, Examiner believes that claim 9 is intended to refer back to claim 5, and thus, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the gas interface as set forth in claim 5’.
Claim 12 recites “performing at least one operation at the semiconductor processing tool”. It is unclear what would be required by an operation ‘at’ the semiconductor processing tool, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘performing at least one operation with/using the semiconductor processing tool’.
Claim 17 recites “the at least one operation performed at the ion implanter”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 12 above, and is interpreted similarly.
Claim 19 recites “the gas supply box”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and is thus rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the housing’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A) in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a gas interface (Title; [0001]) comprising:
a connecting tube which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0012]);
an input metal gas line (See Figs. 3-5, item 132; [0015]-[0017]; [0021]; Examiner notes item 14 could also reasonably read on the limitation, as item 14 is disclosed as being metal in [0016]);
an output metal gas line (See Figs. 3-5, item 142; [0015]-[0017]; [0021]; Examiner notes item 14 could also reasonably read on the limitation, as item 14 is disclosed as being metal in [0016]);
an input gas coupling providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the input metal gas line and a first end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
an output gas coupling providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the output metal gas line and a second end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
Cheng does not teach the input gas coupling including: a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the input metal gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the first end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including: a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the output metal gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the second end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Essentially, Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween.
However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art.
For example, such a gas coupling is commonly applied in tube furnace applications in which a gas feed tube is connected to a process tube (commonly formed of quartz) on one end, while a gas exhaust tube is connected to an opposite end of the process tube, wherein the gas coupling typically include the use of a gasket to ensure a gastight seal between the process tube and the gas feed tube via compression of the gasket. Similar functionality is found in the flange connections of various ultra-high vacuum chambers, in which flanges are bolted together to compress a seal/gasket therebetween in order to provide a leak-proof seal between the components of the vacuum system. Other common couplings which could read on the recited coupling include dresser couplings, VCR fittings, and standard flange clamps that utilize a gasket/seal. See, e.g. Swagelok, Dresser Utility Solutions, and Kurt J. Lesker for commercially available examples of such couplings.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to include the gas coupling of Peck to achieve the input gas coupling including: a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the input metal gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the first end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including: a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp including a first clamp piece engaging the end of the output metal gas line and a second clamp piece engaging the second end of the connecting tube, the first and second clamp pieces being secured together to compress the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 2.
Peck further teaches wherein the sealing gaskets of the input and output gas couplings comprise a material that is softer than sapphire ([0195]-[0196], Examiner notes that the cited Swagelok product pages referenced in Peck disclose the metal gaskets as being potentially formed of Ni, 316L Stainless Steen, or Cu, each of which has a lower Mohs hardness than sapphire).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches further comprising:
a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11; [0013]-[0017]), wherein the connecting tube, the input gas coupling, and the output gas coupling are disposed within the housing (See Figs. 3-5, item 11, that contains item 12 and the connections thereof to metal input and output gas lines; [0013]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 5.
Cheng further teaches wherein the housing includes a purge gas inlet and a purge gas outlet for flowing a purge gas through the housing (See Figs. 3-4, where items 15 and 16 connect to item 11; [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 5.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is secured to the housing to form an earthquake-resistant rigid assembly (See Figs. 1 and 3-5, items 11, 12, 13, 14; [0003]; [0009]; [0012]-[0013]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a straight tube (See Figs. 3-5, item 12)
Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the connecting tube is a straight tube having a length of at least 15 cm (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Cheng discloses the claimed invention except for a particular length for the connecting tube, and in particular Cheng discloses ([0021]-[0022]) the length being chosen so as to avoid electrical arcing, depending on the particular conditions of the system. This indicates that the length of the connecting tube isa result effective variable. Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure (e.g. [0027]) also indicates that the length of the connecting tube is a result effective variable, disclosing that the length is chosen for the same reason as that in Cheng, namely, to prevent arcing between the metal inlet gas line (which is maintained at ground potential) and the output inlet gas line (maintained at high voltage). The length of the connecting tube that prevents arcing will naturally depend on the respective voltages upstream and downstream of the connecting tube, and the gas pressure/conditions within the housing in which the connecting tube is disposed. Such a length can be readily determined via routine experimentation using the desired operating conditions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include the connecting tube having a length of at least 15 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Doing so would allow one to follow the teachings of Cheng to choose a proper length of the connecting tube that will prevent arcing between the downstream high voltages and the upstream grounded elements.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A) in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1) and Jackson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20240192114 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface of claim 2.
Cheng in view of Peck does not explicitly teach wherein the sealing gaskets of the input and output gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Cheng merely makes reference to PTFE as a potential insulating material for the electrical insulation box, and cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng in view of Peck to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve wherein the sealing gaskets of the input and output gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Claims 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olander (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130251913 A1) in view of Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A), further in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander teaches a semiconductor processing system (Abstract; [0002]) comprising:
a semiconductor processing tool configured to operate at a voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]; Examiner notes that the high voltage side of Cheng is also operated at at least 2 kV as disclosed in [0012]); and
([0105]-[0106]; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng teaches this limitation in [0015]) and the output metal gas line connects with the semiconductor processing tool ([0101]; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng discloses connecting the output line to a downstream ion implanter in [0011]).
Olander does not explicitly teach a gas interface as set forth in claim 5.
However, Cheng in view of Peck teaches the gas interface as set forth in claim 5, as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander to include the gas interface of Cheng as modified by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the semiconductor processing system of claim 9.
Cheng further teaches wherein the housing of the gas interface is gas-tight ([0014]-[0017]) and includes a purge gas inlet and a purge gas outlet for flowing a purge gas through the housing (See Figs. 3-4, where items 15 and 16 connect to item 11; [0028]), the semiconductor processing system further comprising:
an exhaust connected to receive the purge gas after passing through the purge gas outlet (See Figs. 3-4, item 16; [0018]); and
a gas monitoring system operatively coupled with the exhaust and configured to detect leakage of a toxic gas into the purge gas (See Figs. 3-4, items 16, and 33; [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the semiconductor processing system of claim 9.
Olander further teaches wherein the semiconductor processing tool comprises an ion implanter (Abstract; Examiner additionally notes that Cheng discloses the gas supply system as being used for ion implanter in [0002] and [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander teaches a method of operating a semiconductor processing tool, the method comprising:
flowing a process gas from an input metal gas line that is electrically grounded to an output metal gas line via a connecting tube which is electrically insulating (See Fig. 4, showing gas feed line 212, i.e., input gas line that is made of metal, flowing dopant source gas from cylinder 208 into inlet 214 (all of which are grounded) of insulating gas supply line 216, i.e., connecting tube that is electrically insulating, which is connected to ion source 228 via gas manifold 222 and delivery line 226, i.e., output gas line made of metal; [0101]-[0109]),
delivering the process gas to the semiconductor processing tool via the output metal gas line ([0101]-[0109]); and
performing at least one operation at the semiconductor processing tool that utilizes both the process gas delivered to the process tool via the output metal gas line and an electrical voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]; [0101]; Examiner notes that ‘high voltage’ in the context discussed in Olander would be understood to be at least 2 kV).
Olander does not teach wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings, each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube.
Cheng teaches wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]).
Cheng does not explicitly teach each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube.
Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween, However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art, as discussed above in regards to claim 1.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube, as taught by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander with Cheng in view of Peck to achieve wherein couplings between the metal gas lines and the connecting tube are sealed with gas couplings, each gas coupling including a sealing gasket and a clamp compressing the sealing gasket between an end of the respective metal gas line and a corresponding end of the connecting tube, as taught by the combination of Cheng and Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng, as modified, to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 13, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube and the gas couplings are disposed in a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11, that contains item 12 and the connections thereof to metal input and output gas lines; [0013]-[0017]), and the method further comprises:
flowing a purge gas through and out of the housing (See Figs. 3-4, flowing via 15 and 16, which connect to item 11; [0018]); and
monitoring the purge gas flowing out of the housing using a gas monitoring system configured to detect leakage of a toxic gas into the purge gas (See Figs. 3-4, items 16, and 33; [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Olander further teaches wherein the process gas includes at least one of phosphine and/or arsine ([0038]).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 12.
Olander further teaches wherein the semiconductor processing tool comprises an ion implanter (Abstract), and the at least one operation performed at the ion implanter includes:
performing ion implantation by ionizing the process gas delivered to the ion implanter via the output metal gas line into an ionized process gas ([0007]; [0101]-[0109]) and accelerating ions of the ionized process gas using an electrostatic accelerator ([0101]) operating at the electrical voltage of at least 2 kilovolts ([0052]; [0101]; Examiner notes that ‘high voltage’ in the context discussed in Olander would be understood to be at least 2 kV).
Regarding claim 18, Olander teaches an ion implantation system (Title; Abstract; [0002]) comprising:
an ion implanter connected to receive a process gas from an output metal gas line (See Fig. 4, ion source 228 connected via gas manifold 222 to delivery line 226, i.e., output gas line made of metal; [0101]-[0109]); and
a gas interface (See Fig. 4, items 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 220, 222)
Olander does not teach a gas interface including: a housing which is electrically insulating; a connecting tube which is electrically insulating and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing; an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas- tight seal between an end of an input metal gas line and a first end of the connecting tube, the input gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube; and an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas- tight seal between an end of the output metal gas line and a second end of the connecting tube, the output gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Cheng teaches teach a gas interface (Title; [0001]) including:
a housing which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 11; [0013]-[0017]);
a connecting tube which is electrically insulating (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0012]) and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing (See Figs. 3-5, item 12; [0014]);
an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of an input metal gas line and a first end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]),
an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas-tight seal between an end of the output metal gas line and a second end of the connecting tube (See Figs. 3-5; [0014]-[0016]), .
Cheng does not teach the input gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube.
Cheng does not disclose the specific coupling mechanisms between the input and output gas lines and respective ends of the connecting pipe situated therebetween, However, the use of a clamping mechanism to clamp two flanged pipes together with a compressed seal/gasket therebetween is well represented across various technology areas in the prior art, as discussed above in regards to claim 1.
Nevertheless, Peck teaches a gas coupling (See Figs. 4-6), having a sealing gasket (See item 120) disposed between two pipes (See items 100 and 110), and having a compression clamp formed of first and second clamp pieces (See items 130 and 140), wherein the first and second clamp pieces engage the respective ends of the two pipes by compressing the seal therebetween ([0194]-[0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to explicitly include the input gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube and the output gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, as taught by Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional coupling mechanisms/techniques to ensure a gas-tight seal between the rigid pipe 12 of Cheng and the pipes connected thereto (i.e., 13, 14, 132, 142).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander with Cheng in view of Peck to achieve a gas interface including: a housing which is electrically insulating; a connecting tube which is electrically insulating and which is disposed in the housing and secured to the housing; an input gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas- tight seal between an end of an input metal gas line and a first end of the connecting tube, the input gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the input metal gas line and the first end of the connecting tube; and an output gas coupling disposed in the housing and providing a gas- tight seal between an end of the output metal gas line and a second end of the connecting tube, the output gas coupling including a sealing gasket disposed between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, and a compression clamp compressing the sealing gasket between the end of the output metal gas line and the second end of the connecting tube, as taught by the combination of Cheng and Peck.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods and would allow one to use the alternative gas interface disclosed in Cheng, as modified, to the ion implantation system of Olander to achieve the benefits of the gas interface of Cheng, namely to provide earthquake isolation and prevent arcing between the high voltage and ground ends of the gas interfacing system.
Regarding claim 20, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the ion implantation system of claim 18.
Olander further teaches further comprising:
a gas bottle connected with the input metal gas line (See Fig. 4, items 208, 212), the gas bottle containing arsine or phosphine ([0038]; [0041]; [0063]; [0093]).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olander (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130251913 A1) in view of Cheng (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20210137376 A), further in view of Peck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090255466 A1), and Jackson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20240192114 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the method of claim 13.
Olander does not explicitly teach wherein the sealing gaskets of the gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Olander discusses the use of PTFE, but similar to Cheng, as discussed above, with reference to insulating material for a supply line, and thus also cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve wherein the sealing gaskets of the gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Olander in view of Cheng, further in view of Peck, teaches the ion implantation system of claim 18.
Cheng further teaches wherein the connecting tube of the gas supply box is a sapphire connecting tube ([0014]),
Cheng in view of Peck does not explicitly teach the gaskets of the input and output gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
As discussed previously, Olander and Cheng discuss the use of PTFE as a potential insulating material for other components of the systems, and cannot serve to teach sealing gaskets being made of PTFE.
However, the use of PTFE (i.e., Teflon) gaskets is well represented across various technological environments in the prior art, and in particular in gas/fluid flow control applications and in vacuum system applications, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of PTFE gaskets, and more generally the use of PTFE to provide gas-tight seals (such as with Teflon tape).
Nevertheless, Jackson teaches the use of sealing gaskets for a gas coupling as being formed of PTFE ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng in view of Peck to include the use of PTFE sealing gaskets to achieve the gaskets of the input and output gas couplings are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing gaskets.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a common, inexpensive, commercially-available gasket material to ensure a gas-tight seal in a typical manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pertaining primarily to the use of PTFE seals:
Denton (US 4089550 A);
Mathur (US 5983734 A);
Cracauer (US 20020142454 A1);
Pertaining to a gas pipe coupling:
Lester (US 3707452 A);
Raoux (US 6045618 A);
Pertaining to ion implantation systems using similar toxic gases:
Rzeszut (US 6515290 B1);
Jones (US 20120252195 A1);
Horsky (US 20060272776 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881