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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that there is a fundamental different between the instant aerodynamic lens and the flappers of Kobayashi.
Examiner’s position is that the structure & effect of Kobayashi is the same as the structure & effect of the applicant’s invention, and therefore the structure of Kobayashi reads on the claimed limitations even in the absence of Kobayashi using the terms “aerodynamic lens” and “focal point”.
With reference to instant Figure 1, the instant specification paragraph 0044 (United States Patent Application Publication paragraph numbering) shows element 123 (“butterfly valve”) is the primary structure of “combined throttling element particle detector 132”, and paragraph 0050 recites “the throttling feature serving as an aerodynamic lens” indicating that the butterfly valve creates an aerodynamic lens.
With reference to instant Figure 4, the instant specification paragraph 0060 teaches that an “adjustable aperture 401 generates an aerodynamic lens 403 with a focal point 211”, and paragraph 0061 teaches “Any suitable aerodynamic aperture or valve (for example, adjustable iris FIG. 3A) can be used” indicating that a rectangular gate or an iris valve create an aerodynamic lens.
With reference to instant Figure 8, the instant specification paragraph 0078 describes “Exemplary aerodynamic lens 805 has vanes spring biased by springs 801 fixed to the pipe wall 800. The exemplary channel flaps 802 cause a rectangular opening” indicating that flaps forming a rectangular opening create an aerodynamic lens.
With regards to the definition of an aerodynamic lens, the instant specification paragraph 0054 teaches “one or a plurality of aerodynamic apertures can shape and focus the path of the process gas carrying the particles 135 into a region 211 or light scattering zone 211, located within the housing 127 to optimize the collection of scattered light 208 by the optical receiver 200.” and paragraph 0060 teaches “The adjustable aperture 401 generates an aerodynamic lens 403 with a focal point 211 proximal to the rectangular light path 118 emanating from the optical transmitter 109. The spatial intersection between the aerodynamic lens 403 near its focal point 211 produces a scattering zone that, by design, improves the collection of light scattered by particles 135 traversing the aperture formed by the adjustable aperture 401 and entering the scatter zone near the aerodynamic leans focal point 211.” From this the examiner’s understanding is that an aerodynamic lens creates a zone or “focal point” (Figure 4, element 403) in which a flow of gas containing particles is concentrated, with the effect of an increased probability of light scattering from the particles, and that this is done with an adjustable opening (e.g. a butterfly valve, iris valve, vanes creating a rectangular opening) that is capable of changing the region of concentrated particles.
Google’s AI definition recites “An aerodynamic lens is a scientific device that uses gas dynamics and particle inertia to focus airborne particles or nanoparticles from ambient air into a tightly collimated beam”, which corresponds to the examiner’s understanding obtained from the instant specification.
Examiner’s position is that while Kobayashi does not use the term “aerodynamic lens”, it is inherent that the same structure would produce the same effect, i.e. the flappers of Kobayashi correspond to the vanes of instant Figure 8 and would also create an aerodynamic lens that possesses a focal point. Kobayashi paragraph 0053 teaches “there is a high probability that the foreign particles pass through the laser light 110 passing immediately beneath the gap between the flappers 87” and “Specifically, the laser light is irradiated onto a potential area where the foreign particles pass, so that the detection efficiency of the foreign particles is enhanced.” indicating that the laser placement is done to take advantage of a noticed effect (that is, they saw an increased particle flow so they decided to put the laser there), corresponding to the applicant’s placement of the light at the focal point of the aerodynamic lens.
As the structure (Kobayashi Figure 2B and instant Figure 4), the effect of the structure on the particle flow (create a stream of more concentrated particles) and the placement of the laser (deliberately within the concentrated stream to increase scattering) all correspond to the structure, effect and placement of the instant application, Kobayashi is deemed applicable to the claims.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that the claimed steps are ordered by logic and grammar, and that the combination of Kobayashi and Trainer does not read on the claimed order of steps.
Examiner’s position is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the numbering of the steps is that it is merely an indication that there are five steps to be performed (i.e. a “to do” list), and absent an explicit recitation (e.g. “after fully opening an adjustable throttle, record a background measurement”) the listed steps may be performed in any order. While it might seem obvious that step ii (take a background measurement) would happen after either step i (fully open throttle) or step iii (partially open throttle), it is possible to take a background measurement at any time regardless of the throttle position, and there is no inherent need for step ii to occur after step i.
Examiner acknowledges that a step that explicitly depends on another step must happen afterwards, but the only explicit sequence in the claims is that step v (subtract the background from the particle measurement) must come after steps ii (measure the background) and iv (make a particle measurement).
As the instant specification does not teach the claimed steps in the numbered order, nor the criticality of the claimed order, combining the invention of Kobayashi that teaches measurements at multiple throttle positions and Trainer’s teachings of background measurement & subtraction is deemed applicable to the claim as a whole.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13 that Hurlburt is non-analgous to Kobayashi.
Examiner’s position is that Kobayashi uses flappers to regulate the flow of a particle stream, and Hurlburt uses an adjustable opening to regulate the flow of a particle stream. While the nature of the particle stream is different, one searching to improve the invention of Kobayashi would obviously search for flow regulation and encounter the Hurlburt reference. As such the combination is deemed proper.
Regarding the applicant’s argument directed to the purpose of the three-dimensional iris valve, such a limitation does not appear in claim 12.
Applicant argues, on page 13, regarding claim 15 that Abram is non-analgous to Kobayashi.
Examiner’s position is that Kobayashi uses a variable aperture as a pressure-adjusting valve (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “pressure-adjusting valve unit 43”) and that Abram is directed to a variable aperture (Figure 1, element 18 is a movable vane) that operates to open more in the presence of higher pressure (paragraph 0021 “the vane 18 is pivoted toward the open position to minimize blockage of the exhaust gas flow path 16 in response to pressure exerted against the vane 18 by exhaust gases.”). One searching to improve the invention of Kobayashi would obviously search for pressure regulation and encounter the Abram reference. As such the combination is deemed proper.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14, regarding claim 15, that Abram fails to teach intentionally leaving an aerodynamic passage when closed.
Examiner’s position is that the teachings of Abram brought to the invention of Kobayashi are directed towards the concept of spring-loading the flappers so that they open more to a higher pressure and automatically close in lower pressure. This does not alter the performance of the flappers of Kobayashi to create an aerodynamic aperture. While Kobayashi does not explicitly teach leaving flow when the flappers are closed, Kobayashi teaches that the flappers, Figure 1, element 43, are described as pressure-adjusting and that the adjacent element 44 is called a “main valve”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one uses a “valve” when one wants to completely shut off the flow, and a pressure-adjuster when one wants to have some but not all of the flow, indicating that the invention of Kobayashi as modified by Abram would read on the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-15, with respect to the rejections of claims 4, 11, 15-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-12, regarding claims 4 & 11 that Kim is not appropriate to modify Kobayashi.
Examiner acknowledges that if the position is taken that Kobayashi creates an aerodynamic lens as a function of the structure and not a design choice made by Kobayashi, then would be improper to argue the obviousness of a reference directed to an aerodynamic lens (i.e. Kim) to improve the aerodynamic lens of Kobayashi. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn and the Kim reference is no longer used to teach the claimed limitations. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of claim 4 in view of Moriya (US 20080170226). The invention of Moriya is directed to particle monitoring in an exhaust line from a substrate processing chamber (Abstract and Figure 1, element 20) that is analogous to the invention of Kobayashi (see the respective Figure 1’s). As such it is deemed proper to use an aspect of Moriya (namely the concept of a plurality of apertures to better focus the particle flow onto a beam of light, see Figures 3-4, 6) to improve a corresponding aspect of the invention of Kobayashi.
Similarly, a new rejection of claim 11 is made in view of Beeman (US 4094492), where Beeman is directed to pressure control and would be an obvious improvement to the pressure-adjusting valve 43 of Kobayashi.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that the existing rejection of claim 16 does not identify a flow path in series with a different main process valve.
Examiner’s position is that upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new reference Moriya who teaches a valve 19 that is in series with particle detector 20.
Applicant argues, on page 15 that the existing rejection of claim 17 does not teach the claimed particle detector in a bypass pipe around a main throttling element.
Examiner acknowledges that Nakata does not teach a bypass around a claimed main throttling element. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new art Pursifull (US 20190040823).
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 1, 7, 17, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 19, the terms “proximal or adjacent to” in claim 1, the term “about proximal to” in claim 7 and the term “proximal to” in claim 19 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, examiner reads the terms as “at”, as shown in instant Figure 4 where the light 118 is at the focal point 211.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation " the primary throttling element " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner reads the limitation as “a primary throttling element” as shown by element 123 in instant Figure 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is indefinite because it appears to introduce a new throttle with two different names, but could introduce two new throttles, and it is impossible precisely determine the scope of the claim.
The examiner presumes the claim is in relation to Figure 7, which shows a bypass pipe containing the particle detector of claim 1 (the presence of the detector of Figure 4 is indicated by those two little flaps above element 117), and butterfly valve 123 acting as a throttle in the large flow pipe.
The claim recites a particle detector in a gas flow that is parallel with a “primary throttling element”. This is interpreted as the bypass pipe, placed in parallel with the main flow channel, containing the particle detector of claim 1, with butterfly valve 123 as the “primary throttling element”. However, the claim continues and recites the particle detector is disposed in a bypass pipe going around a “different main process throttling element” which could indicate that element 123 is the “different main process throttling element”, or that there is a third throttle. Since it is impossible to determine which interpretation is correct, the claim is rendered indefinite.
For purposes of examination, examiner reads the claim with “primary throttling element” and “different main process throttling element” as both referring to the same butterfly valve 123, as shown in Figure 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(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 1-2, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20110146908).
As to claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a combined throttling element particle detector (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “pressure-adjusting valve unit 43” and paragraph 0051 “the laser light is irradiated immediately beneath a gap between flappers, and scattered light (photon) scattered by particles is measured by the CCD camera 103”) comprising:
at least one throttling element (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “pressure-adjusting valve unit 43”) comprising an adjustable flow-restrictive valve being moveable between fully open and partially closed positions to regulate process-gas flow and to maintain chamber pressure (paragraph 0050 “ in order to adjust the pressure of the inside of the processing chamber, a pressure-adjusting valve unit 43 is provided”, and paragraph 0048 recites “(when valve is not fully open)” indicating the valve can be both fully open and partially closed) while simultaneously defining an aerodynamic aperture (Figures 2A (top view) & 2B (side view), paragraph 0053 “The laser light passes immediately beneath a gap between two flappers of the pressure-adjusting valve 43 (butterfly valve)”) and generating an aerodynamic lens with a focal point (while Kobayashi does not use the term “aerodynamic lens”, it is inherent that the same structure would produce the same effect, i.e. the flappers of Kobayashi would create an aerodynamic lens with a focal point corresponding to instant Figure 4. Kobayashi paragraph 0053 teaches “there is a high probability that the foreign particles pass through the laser light 110 passing immediately beneath the gap between the flappers 87” and “Specifically, the laser light is irradiated onto a potential area where the foreign particles pass, so that the detection efficiency of the foreign particles is enhanced.”, which corresponds to the applicant’s placement of the light at the focal point, see the ‘response to applicant’s arguments pages 7-8’, above);
a light source configured to illuminate a light scatter zone proximal or adjacent to the focal point of the aerodynamic lens (Figure 2B, paragraph 0053 “laser light 110 passing immediately beneath the gap between the flappers 87” and “the laser light is irradiated onto a potential area where the foreign particles pass, so that the detection efficiency of the foreign particles is enhanced,” which is proximal to the focal point of the aperture, see applicant’s Figure 4, element 403); and
a detector configured to receive a light scattered from one or more particles which traverse said aerodynamic aperture (Figure 2A, paragraph 0053 “A part of scattered light 118 generated due to a foreign particle 80 traversing laser light 110 enters a light collecting optical system 117, and is detected by the I-CCD camera 103.”).
As to claim 2, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition a section of pipe (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “the main exhaust line and the bypass exhaust line are collectively defined as an exhaust system of the processing chamber.”), said at least one throttling element disposed within said section of pipe (paragraph 0050 “a pressure-adjusting valve unit 43 is provided above the turbo-molecular pump 41 in the main exhaust line”), said light source mechanically coupled to a wall of said section of pipe and optically coupled via a window to said aerodynamic aperture (Figure 2C, paragraph 0052 “laser light source unit 100”, which is coupled to the wall of the pipe, with a window indicated as present in paragraph 0056 “laser introduction window”), said detector mechanically coupled to said wall of said section of pipe (Figure 2A, elements 108, 117, 103 are attached to the wall) and optically coupled via a detector window to receive light from one or more particles as they pass through said aerodynamic aperture (Figure 2A, paragraph 0053 “A part of scattered light 118 generated due to a foreign particle 80 traversing laser light 110 enters a light collecting optical system 117, and is detected by the I-CCD camera 103.”).
As to claim 7, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said light source is about proximal to said at least one throttling element (Figures 2A & 2B, laser light source 100 is proximal to flappers 87).
As to claim 8, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said detector is disposed about adjacent to said at least one throttling element (Figures 2A & 2B, CCD camera 103 is adjacent to flappers 87).
As to claim 9, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said at least one throttling element comprises a series of two or more plates with said aerodynamic aperture defined by at least one separation between two or more plates (Figure 2B, paragraph 0053 “flappers 87” and “gap between the flappers”).
As to claim 10, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said at least one throttling element comprises said aerodynamic aperture defined by a variable aperture device (paragraph 0050 “ in order to adjust the pressure of the inside of the processing chamber, a pressure-adjusting valve unit 43 is provided”, and paragraph 0048 recites “(when valve is not fully open)” indicating the valve can be variably open and closed).
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 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
As to claim 3, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, in addition said pipe comprises a mounting assembly that connects a first end of said pipe to a process chamber (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “processing chamber 1” which is connected to the exhaust system), and connects a second end of said pipe to a vacuum pump system (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “dry pump 42 for reducing the pressure of the inside of the processing chamber” and “vacuum gauge 54”).
While Kobayashi does not explicitly teach a mounting assembly similar to applicant’s Figure 1, flange 128 & fastener 129, Kobayashi teaches a series of elements that direct, shape and interact with a flow of particles (Figure 1, elements 1, 43, 116, 41), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have them supported & fixed in place with a mounting assembly, in order to keep them in place.
As to claim 5, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said light source comprises low-divergence light column formed into a rectangular ribbon shape of light (paragraph 0107 “rectangular laser light 110” and a laser beam is low divergence).
As to claim 6, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said light source comprises a laser light formed into a rectangular ribbon shape of light (paragraph 0107 “rectangular laser light 110”).
Claims 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Moriya (United States Patent Application Publication 20080170226).
As to claim 4, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of said aerodynamic lens comprises a plurality of apertures. However, it is known in the art as taught by Moriya. Moriya teaches a particle monitoring system (Abstract “A particle monitor system”) that focuses a particle stream onto a beam of light (Figures 2A-B) that increase the concentration of particles at the light beam (paragraph 0070 “the particle converging member 23 converges most of the particles toward the focal point FP”) with Figure 1 corresponding to Kobayashi Figure 1 and Figure 2A corresponding to the aerodynamic lens of instant Figure 3B, wherein said aerodynamic lens comprises a plurality of apertures (Figure 4A, paragraph 0091 “particle converging unit 29”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said aerodynamic lens comprise a plurality of apertures, in order to converge the particles into the laser beam.
As to claim 16, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of said particle detector is disposed in gas flow series with a different main process valve. However, it is known in the art as taught by Moriya. Moriya teaches said particle detector (Figure 1, element 20) is disposed in gas flow series with a different main process valve (Figure 1, paragraph 0062, “valve 19” is in series with the detector). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said particle detector be disposed in gas flow series with a different main process valve, in order to better regulate the exhaust gas in a desired manner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Beeman et al (United States Patent 4094492).
As to claim 11, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve. However, it is known in the art as taught by Beeman. Beeman teaches a valve for gas flow control (Abstract “A variable orifice forming mechanism utilizing an iris shutter arrangement adapted to control gas flow”) where said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said variable aperture device comprise an iris valve, in order to take advantage of the better control of iris valves over flap valves.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Hurlbert et al (United States Patent 2934892).
As to claim 12, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve including leaves of said iris valve which curve out of a plane defined by said aerodynamic aperture of said iris valve. However, it is known in the art as taught by Hurlbert. Hurlbert teaches said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve including leaves of said iris valve which curve out of a plane defined by said aerodynamic aperture of said iris valve (Figure 1, column 1:25-27 “an annular array of mutually overlapping curved iris leaves jointly movable in nozzle area reducing or increasing direction.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve including leaves of said iris valve which curve out of a plane defined by said aerodynamic aperture of said iris valve, in order to better distribute stress and minimize binding, while better regulating the particle flow in a desired manner.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Borden et al (United States Patent 5534706).
As to claim 13, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of said variable aperture device comprises a butterfly valve. However, it is known in the art as taught by Borden. Borden teaches a processing station (Figure 1, element 101) and throttle & particle sensor in the exhaust (Figure 2, elements “Throttle plate” and column 3:55-57 “laser beam 206 of a particle sensor 205 is projected across a pump line opening 251 parallel to the axis of a butterfly valve 220”), where a variable aperture device comprises a butterfly valve (Figure 1, column 3:24-26 “The throttle valve of the present invention can be implemented by one of numerous types of throttle valves, such as a butterfly valve”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said variable aperture device comprise a butterfly valve, in order to better stabilize the pressure in the process chamber.
As to claim 14, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of said variable aperture device comprises a gate valve. However, it is known in the art as taught by Borden. Borden teaches said variable aperture device comprises a gate valve (Figure 1, column 3:24-26 “The throttle valve of the present invention can be implemented by one of numerous types of throttle valves, such as … a linear gate valve.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said variable aperture device comprise a gate valve, in order to better stabilize the pressure in the process chamber.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Abram et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20090127022).
As to claim 15, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 10, with the exception of said variable aperture device comprises a vane valve, at least one vane of said vane valve spring biased to a closed position and wherein said at least one vane opens by a gas flow through said vane valve, and wherein in said closed position there remains an open aerodynamic aperture. However, it is known in the art as taught by Abram. Abram teaches
said variable aperture device comprises a vane valve (Figure 1, paragraph 0021 “a valve body or vane 18”),
at least one vane of said vane valve spring biased to a closed position (claim 9 “a spring that biases said vane toward said closed position” see also paragraphs 0020 & 0037) and
wherein said at least one vane opens by a gas flow through said vane valve (paragraph 0021 “the vane 18 is pivoted toward the open position to minimize blockage of the exhaust gas flow path 16 in response to pressure exerted against the vane 18 by exhaust gases.”), and
wherein in said closed position there remains an open aerodynamic aperture (paragraph 0020 “a closed position where a substantial portion of the exhaust gas flow path 16 is blocked” indicating there is still a flow path in the closed position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said variable aperture device comprises a vane valve, at least one vane of said vane valve spring biased to a closed position and wherein said at least one vane opens by a gas flow through said vane valve, and wherein in said closed position there remains an open aerodynamic aperture, in order to better regulate the exhaust flow.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Pursifull et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190040823).
As to claim 17, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition said particle detector (Figure 1, elements 43, 116) is disposed in gas flow (Figure 1, elements 43, 116, 41 define a path from chamber 1 to pump 42) parallel with the primary throttling element (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “bypass exhaust line 48”), said particle detector disposed in a bypass pipe (Figure 1, the path of elements 1, 43, 116, 110, 41, 42 is interpreted to read on the “bypass”) around a different main process (the path of elements 1, 48, 42 is interpreted to read on the “main process” exhaust line).
Kobayashi does not teach a main process contains a throttling element. However, it is known in the art as taught by Pursifull. Pursifull teaches airflow management “Abstract “Methods and systems are provided for progressively opening and controlling each of … an auxiliary throttle coupled in series with a venturi, and a main intake throttle arranged in parallel with the auxiliary throttle in order to deliver a desired intake airflow or manifold vacuum”) where both the main flow and bypass flow have throttling elements (Figure 1, paragraph 0016 “throttle 114” and paragraph 0026 “Parallel conduit 182 includes an auxiliary throttle 184 disposed therein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have throttling elements in both the main and bypass pipes, in order to deliver a desired intake airflow or manifold vacuum.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Bonin et al (United States Patent 6906799).
As to claim 18, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of a scanning mirror used in combination with the light source to illuminate a region of said aerodynamic aperture at the focal point of the aerodynamic lens. However, it is known in the art as taught by Bonin.
Bonin teaches analyzing particles downstream of a wafer processing station (Figure 3 and column 1:10-12 “This invention relates to the field of semiconductor wafer processing, and more particularly to a method for analyzing the signals resulting from a scanned beam particle monitor.”) comprising a scanning mirror used in combination with the light source to illuminate a region (Figure 2, column 4:22-25 “transmitter 44 includes a laser diode 52 as well as a scanning mirror 56 which is oscillated by a motor (not shown) wherein a resulting scanning laser beam 60 exits into a measurement volume”) of said aerodynamic aperture at the focal point of the aerodynamic lens (using this scanning element in the place of Kobayashi Figure 2A’s light source would result in the beam illuminating the focal point of the aperture of Kobayashi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a scanning mirror used in combination with the light source to illuminate a region of said aerodynamic aperture at the focal point of the aerodynamic lens, in order to better isolate & remove noise, and reduce the number of false negatives that are detected.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Trainer (US 20100231909).
As to claim 19, Kobayashi teaches a method of making a particle count measurement, comprising the steps of:
(i) fully opening an adjustable throttling aperture (Kobayashi teaches multiple pressures (paragraph 0048 “the pressure-adjusting valve adjusts the pressure”) indicating the valve has multiple settings, and examiner interprets the widest one as “fully open” as that’s as open as the throttle gets);
(iii) partially closing the said adjustable throttling aperture to add process gases to achieve a target pressure in a process chamber while forming an aerodynamic focus (paragraph 0048 “when the pressure-adjusting valve adjusts the pressure (when valve is not fully open), the laser light scattered by foreign particles is detected by a CCD camera”, indicating data is taken at different settings, one of which is most-open (“fully open”) and at least one other is less than that (“partially closed”));
(iv) making a particle count measurement proximal to the aerodynamic focus (paragraph 0010 “An object of the present invention is to provide a plasma processing apparatus in which a particle counter capable of detecting foreign particles with a particle diameter of 100 nm or smaller with high efficiency is mounted.”, paragraph 11 “a particle monitor capable of constantly monitoring the level of foreign particles with required accuracy is mounted and a foreign particle detecting method” and paragraph 12 details such a process); and
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach (ii) recording a background particle detection measurement; (v) subtracting the background measurement to provide a corrected [measurement]. However, it is known in the art as taught by Trainer. Trainer teaches a scattered light detector (Abstract “A light source illuminates the particles. Scattered light, from the particles, is mixed with light, from the light source, onto at least one light detector.”) with a calibration procedure including (ii) recording a background particle detection measurement; (v) subtracting the background measurement to provide a corrected [measurement] (paragraph 0191 “In heterodyne detection of scattered light, the measured power spectrum of the scatter detector current is corrected for the background noise by measuring the background signal spectrum without the presence of particles in the light beam. This background spectrum is then subtracted from the spectrum measured when particles are present.”, and the concept of removing an ambient signal would apply to the particle count measurements of Kobayashi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be (ii) recording a background particle detection measurement; (v) subtracting the background measurement to provide a corrected particle count, in order to remove sources other than the particles of interest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights