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 .
Response to Amendment
The 112(b) rejections of claims 18-19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the applied rejection does not teach a throttling element that both regulates chamber pressure and defines an aerodynamic aperture. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kobayashi (US 20110146908).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the applied rejection does not appropriately address the claimed method steps. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Kobayashi in view of Trainer (US 20100231909).
Regarding the new interpretation of the claim, the examiner directs the applicant to MPEP 2111.01(II), which discusses not having to read method steps in the listed order, unless they’re directly or implicitly indicated to be done in a specific order, “the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order”. As the method steps do not comprise numbers (e.g. “step one”) and the specification does not describe the steps of a background measurement & subtraction anywhere aside from claim 19, the examiner interprets the five claim limitations (i.e. opening, recording, closing, making & subtracting) as separate method steps that must be taught by prior art, but not necessarily in the order presented by the applicant.
As such, the Kobayashi reference is cited as teaching the ‘opening’, ‘closing’ and ‘making’ steps, and Trainer is cited as reading on the ‘recording’ and ‘subtracting’ steps.
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 –
(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”) comprising:
at least one throttling element (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “pressure-adjusting valve unit 43”) which defines 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)”);
a light source illuminates configured to illuminate a region of said aerodynamic aperture at about a focal point of an 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 about 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.” and exhaust systems ), 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 “Since many of foreign particles pass through the gap between the flappers to enter the inside of the turbo-molecular pump 41, there is a high probability that the foreign particles pass through the laser light 110 passing immediately beneath the gap between the flappers 87.”).
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 both 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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”), 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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Kim et al (KR 101465363).
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 Kim. Kim teaches an aerodynamic lens (Abstract, “The present invention relates to an aerodynamic lens.”) wherein said aerodynamic lens (Figure 2, element 100) comprises a plurality of apertures (Figure 2 there are multiple elements 120, paragraph 83 “focusing unit 120”). 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 better focus and control the particle flow into the laser beam.
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 Kim. Kim teaches said variable aperture device comprises an iris valve (Figure 4a is an iris 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 an iris valve, in order to symmetrically control the beam diameter.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, and further in view of Nakata et al (JP H0647850).
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 Nakata. Nakata teaches a particle detector in the exhaust flow of a processing device (Figure 1, paragraph 5 “the particles are detected by the particle detecting means 9”) in which said particle detector is disposed in gas flow series with a different main process valve (Figure 1, paragraph 65, “first valve 7”, “81 is a second valve provided in the bypass 101”, “second valve 82 provided on the main road 102” are different valves used in the particle detection process). 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.
As to claim 17, Kobayashi teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of said particle detector is disposed in gas flow parallel with the primary throttling element, said particle detector disposed in a bypass pipe around a different main process throttling element. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nakata. Nakata teaches said particle detector (Figure 12, paragraph 66 “sensor 9”) is disposed in gas flow parallel with the primary throttling element (Figure 1, paragraph 65 “101 is a bypass provided in the middle of the exhaust line 10,”), said particle detector disposed in a bypass pipe around a different main process throttling element (Figure 1, sensor 9 is on bypass line 10, with paragraph 65 teaching a separate valve, “second valve 82 provided on the main road 102”). 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 parallel with the primary throttling element, said particle detector disposed in a bypass pipe around a different main process throttling element, in order to more easily adjust the flow to the particle sensor in a desired manner (e.g. avoiding exposing the sensor to certain types of particles).
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:
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);
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”));
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 recording a background particle detection measurement; 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 recording a background particle detection measurement; 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.”, which 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 recording a background particle detection measurement; subtracting the background measurement to provide a corrected particle count, in order to remove sources other than the particles of interest.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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