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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 6/8/26 in which claims 21 and 23-24 were amended.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 24, next to last line, recites "R is alkyl having 1 to about 4 carbon atoms" and it is unclear how many is about 4. Is it 3, 4 or 5, for example.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10-18 and 21-23 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2022/0282079) in view of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure.
For claims 10-11, 21 and 30, Mitchell et al teach a sealing article, an O-ring, that can be used in the semiconductor industry ([0001]), wherein the sealing article comprises a fluoroelastomer formed by polymerizing a reaction mixture that comprises vinyl-functionalized silica cages ([0004], [0041]), tetrafluoroethylene, a perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether ([0053]), a curative ([0076]), and a polymerization initiator ([0073]), and the fluoroelastomer would comprise the vinyl-functionalized silica cages dispersed throughout a polymer matrix.
Mitchell et al do not teach installing the sealing article within a plasma treatment chamber.
However, Applicant states that the following is well known in the art: integrated circuits are formed on a semiconductor wafer and plasma treatment is used for various applications in the integrated circuit production process ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure with those of Mitchell et al by installing the sealing article within a plasma treatment chamber of a plasma treatment system in order to effectively contain the plasma treatment.
For claims 12 and 23, Mitchell et al teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 phr of the reaction mixture ([0096]).
For claims 13-14, Mitchell et al teach the curative comprises up to 5 phr of the reaction mixture and the curative is triallyl isocyanurate ([0076]).
For claims 15, 17-18, 25 and 27-28, Mitchell et al teach the reaction mixture further comprises at least one filler; the at least one filler includes a first filler and a second filler ([0078]-[0079]) and SiO₂ is a well known filler so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one filler comprise it to increase strength of the polymer matrix.
For claims 16 and 26, though the previous combination does not teach the reaction mixture contains up to 20 phr of the filler, Mitchell et al do teach use of 1-100 phr of filler ([0078]) and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
For claim 22, though the previous combination does not teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; the tetrafluoroethylene comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; and the perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer, Mitchell et al do teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 phr of the reaction mixture as discussed above and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; the tetrafluoroethylene comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; and the perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the sealing article composition for desired performance characteristics. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claims 29 and 31, Mitchell et al teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages are formed by condensation of at least one vinyl-functionalized silane; or by grafting of at least one vinyl-functionalized silane to a silica cage ([0044]-[0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Mitchell never discloses polymerizing a reaction mixture containing the five recited ingredients of the present independent claims. Rather, the fluoropolymer and silsesquioxane polymer (corresponding to the recited silica cages) are separately made, then compounded together.
Examiner, however, points out that it would have been obvious to one to polymerize a reaction mixture containing the five recited ingredients since it has been held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results and new or unexpected results are not found to be claimed. Please see In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and MPEP 2144.04 IV(C) for details.
Applicant also asserts that plasma treatment is not required in every step of the integrated circuit production process, and so the Office Action does not show it would be obvious to use the sealing article of Mitchell within a plasma treatment chamber other than by impermissible use of the present disclosure.
Examiner, however, points out that since integrated circuits are formed on a semiconductor wafer and plasma treatment is used for various applications in the integrated circuit production process it would have been obvious to one to install the sealing article within a plasma treatment chamber of a plasma treatment system in order to effectively contain the plasma treatment.
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 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights