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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Tatsumi
(JP 08-096988) in view of Oh et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2016/0379802 Al) and Kraus et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0340858 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Tatsumi teaches a plasma monitoring a gate valve disposed on a first
side of a chamber, wherein the gate valve is opened or closed in conjunction with a plasma
monitoring operation; a viewport structure disposed outside the chamber; and an optical emission
spectroscopy disposed outside the chamber, wherein the optical emission spectroscopy monitors
plasma by receiving plasma light transmitted through at least one of flight transmitting part of the viewport structure. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0014; Machine Translation)
PNG
media_image1.png
368
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Tatsumi and claim 1 is that the viewport structure including a
plurality of light transmitting parts and where the plurality of light transmitting parts transmit
light is not discussed (Claim 1 ) and the optical emission spectroscopy comprising a diffracting part and a detector is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding where the viewport structure including a plurality of light transmitting parts
and where the plurality of light transmitting parts transmit light (Claim 1), Oh et al. teach
wherein a viewport structure includes a plurality of light transmitting parts and where the
plurality of light transmitting parts transmit light. (Figs. 5, 6; Paragraphs 0052, 0053)
Regarding the optical emission spectroscopy comprises a diffracting part and a detector (Claim 1), Kraus et al. teach utilizing as an optical spectroscopy for a plasma chamber which has a diffracting part and a detector. (Paragraph 0023 – [0023] As shown, the sensor 130 is used as the sensing element in the OES system. The sensor 130 is illustrated as a single block, but it is to be appreciated that the sensor 130 may comprise a first diffraction grating, a second diffraction grating, and a detector. For example, the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating may be oriented so that the grating directions are substantially orthogonal to each other. In an embodiment, the detector may comprise any suitable detector (e.g., charged coupled device (CCD), a charge injection device (CID) or the like). The sensor 130 may also comprise mirrors and/or lenses for focusing the optical emissions.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the valve is opened only during the plasma
monitoring operation.
Regarding claim 2, Tatsumi teach a gate valve which is structurally the same as
applicant's claimed apparatus. Therefore, this functional limitation in claim 2 can be met. It
should be noted that the manner in operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus from
the claim from the prior art. (See MPEP 2114 - Apparatus and Article Claims -
II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART - "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is the viewport structure includes a driving device
connected to the viewport structure and the driving device rotates or linearly moves the viewport
structure.
Regarding claim 3, Oh et al. teach the viewport structure includes a driving device
connected to the viewport structure and the driving device rotates or linearly moves the viewport
structure. (Paragraphs 0053, 0054)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a shutter disposed between the
viewport structure of the chamber.
Regarding claim 5, Oh et al. teach a shutter in the form of a light control unit with a slit.
(Paragraph 0051, Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a third opening is defined in the shutter, and
the third opening overlaps at least one of the plurality of light transmitting parts.
Regarding claim 6, Oh et al. teach wherein a third opening is defined in the shutter, and
the third opening overlaps at least one of the plurality of light transmitting parts. (Paragraphs
0051,0052)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an optical lens disposed between
the viewport structure and the optical emission spectroscope.
Regarding claim 7, Oh et al. teach an optical lens disposed between the viewport
structure and the optical emission spectroscope. (Paragraphs 0051, 0052)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the optical lens is a convex lens.
Regarding claim 8, Oh et al. teach wherein the optical lens is a convex lens. (See Fig. 6 -
item 240)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in a circular array form in the viewport structure.
Regarding claim 9, Oh et al. teach wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in a circular array form in the viewport structure. (Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in an nxm matrix form in the viewport structure, wherein n is a natural number of 1 or
greater and m is the natural number of 2 or greater.
Regarding claim 10, Oh et al. in Fig. 5 teach wherein the plurality of light transmitting
parts are arranged in an nxm matrix form in the viewport structure, wherein n is a natural number
of 1 or greater and m is the natural number of 2 or greater.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Oh et al. is that it allows for monitoring
vacuum ultraviolet. (Paragraph 0006)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kraus et al. is that it allows for improved resolution. (Paragraph 0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Tatsumi by utilizing the features of Oh et al. and Kraus et al. because it allows for monitoring vacuum ultraviolet and for improving resolution.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Tatsumi in view of
Oh et al. and Kraus et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10 above, and further in view of Sato (JP 11-343973).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the viewport structure further includes a cold
trap part spaced apart from the plurality of light transmitting parts, and the cold trap part
aggregates and collects plasma particles.
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches wherein a cold trap spaced apart from a spectrometer
where the cold trap captures particles. (See Abstract; Fig. 1)
With regarding to using a plurality of light transmitting parts Oh et al. teach this feature.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sato is that it allows for capturing particles.(Paragraph 0027)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize a cold trap (cryogenic panel) of Sato
before the spectrometer in the combination of Tatsumi and Oh et al. and Kraus et al. in order to capture particles.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tatsumi (JP 08-096988) in view of Oh et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2016/0379802 Al) and Yun (U.S.
PGPUB. 2020/0013596 Al) and Kraus et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0340858 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Tatsumi teaches a plasma monitoring a gate valve disposed on a first
side of a chamber, wherein the gate valve is opened or closed in conjunction with a plasma
monitoring operation; a viewport structure disposed outside the chamber; and an optical emission
spectroscopy disposed outside the chamber, wherein the optical emission spectroscopy monitors
plasma by receiving plasma light transmitted through at least one of flight transmitting part of the viewport structure. (Fig. l; Paragraph 0014; Machine Translation)
PNG
media_image1.png
368
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Tatsumi and claim 1 is that the viewport structure including a
plurality of light transmitting parts and where the plurality of light transmitting parts transmit
light is not discussed (Claim 11) and a shutter disposed between the viewport structure and the
chamber wherein the shutter rotates or linearly moves is not discussed (Claim 11) and the optical emission spectroscopy comprising a diffracting part and a detector is not discussed (Claim 11).
Regarding where the viewport structure including a plurality of light transmitting parts
and where the plurality of light transmitting parts transmit light (Claim 11), Oh et al. teach
wherein a viewport structure includes a plurality of light transmitting parts and where the
plurality of light transmitting parts transmit light. (Figs. 5, 6; Paragraphs 0052, 0053)
Regarding a shutter disposed between the viewport structure and the chamber wherein the
shutter rotates or linearly moves (Claim 11), Yun teaches a shutter disposed between the
viewport structure and the chamber wherein the shutter rotates or linearly moves. (Paragraph
0086; Fig. 14)
Regarding the optical emission spectroscopy comprises a diffracting part and a detector (Claim 1), Kraus et al. teach utilizing as an optical spectroscopy for a plasma chamber which has a diffracting part and a detector. (Paragraph 0023 – [0023] As shown, the sensor 130 is used as the sensing element in the OES system. The sensor 130 is illustrated as a single block, but it is to be appreciated that the sensor 130 may comprise a first diffraction grating, a second diffraction grating, and a detector. For example, the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating may be oriented so that the grating directions are substantially orthogonal to each other. In an embodiment, the detector may comprise any suitable detector (e.g., charged coupled device (CCD), a charge injection device (CID) or the like). The sensor 130 may also comprise mirrors and/or lenses for focusing the optical emissions.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the valve is opened only during the plasma
monitoring operation.
Regarding claim 2, Tatsumi teach a gate valve which is structurally the same as
applicant's claimed apparatus. Therefore, this functional limitation in claim 2 can be met. It
should be noted that the manner in operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus from
the claim from the prior art. (See MPEP 2114 - Apparatus and Article Claims -
II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART - "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a third opening is defined in the shutter, and
the third opening overlaps at least one of the plurality of light transmitting parts.
Regarding claim 14, Yun teaches wherein a third opening is defined in the shutter, and
the third opening overlaps at least one of the plurality of light transmitting parts. (See Fig. 14)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the shutter is provided in plurality to overlap
the plurality of light transmitting parts respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Yun teaches in Fig. 14 the shutter is provided in plurality to overlap
the plurality of light transmitting parts respectively.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the shutter further includes a driving device
which rotates or linearly moves the viewport structure.
Regarding claim 16, Oh et al. teach the viewport structure includes a driving device
connected to the viewport structure and the driving device rotates or linearly moves the viewport
structure. (Paragraphs 0053, 0054)
It would be obvious to combine the driving device of Oh et al. with the shutter device of
Yun because it would be obvious to make apparatus integral. (See MPEP 2144.04 -
B. Making Integral
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an optical lens is disposed between the
viewport structure and the optical emission spectroscopy.
Regarding claim 17, Oh et al. teach an optical lens disposed between the viewport
structure and the optical emission spectroscope. (Paragraphs 0051, 0052)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the optical lens is a convex lens.
Regarding claim 18, Oh et al. teach wherein the optical lens is a convex lens. (See Fig. 6
- item 240)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in a circular array form in the viewport structure.
Regarding claim 19, Oh et al. teach wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in a circular array form in the viewport structure. (Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of light transmitting parts are
arranged in an nxm matrix form in the viewport structure, wherein n is a natural number of 1 or
greater and m is the natural number of 2 or greater.
Regarding claim 20, Oh et al. in Fig. 5 teach wherein the plurality of light transmitting
parts are arranged in an nxm matrix form in the viewport structure, wherein n is a natural number
of 1 or greater and m is the natural number of 2 or greater.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Oh et al. is that it allows for monitoring
vacuum ultraviolet. (Paragraph 0006)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yun is that it allows for controlling plasma
light transmittance. (Paragraph 0086)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kraus et al. is that it allows for improved resolution. (Paragraph 0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Tatsumi by utilizing the features of Oh et al. and Yun and Kraus et al. because it allows for monitoring vacuum ultraviolet and for controlling plasma light
transmittance and for improved resolution.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsumi in view
of Oh et al. and Yun and Kraus et al. as applied to claims 11, 12, 14-20 above, and further in view of Sato (JP 11- 343973).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is the viewport structure further includes a cold trap part
spaced apart from plurality of light transmitting parts, and the cold trap part aggregates and
collects plasma particles.
Regarding claim 13, Sato teaches wherein a cold trap spaced apart from a spectrometer
where the cold trap captures particles. (See Abstract; Fig. 1)
With regarding to using a plurality of light transmitting parts Oh et al. teach this feature.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sato is that it allows for capturing particles.(Paragraph 0027)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize a cold trap (cryogenic panel) of Sato
before the spectrometer in the combination of Tatsumi, Oh et al., Kraus et al. and Sato in order to capture particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Tatsumi’s grating 5 and photomultiplier are not analogous to the now claimed diffracting part and detector, it is argued that Tatsumi’s grating 5 and photomultiplier is typical of an optical detection system used in optical spectroscopy. The grating 5 disperses light and the photomultiplier detects. However Kraus et al. explicitly teach utilizing optical spectroscopy for a plasma chamber which has a diffracting part and a detector which is now required by the claims. It would be obvious to utilize the features of Kraus in Tatsumi in order to monitor the plasma chamber optical emissions.
In response to the argument that the combined prior art does not teach a viewport structure disposed outside the chamber and including a plurality of light transmitting parts; and an optical emission spectroscopy disposed outside the chamber, wherein the optical emission spectroscopy comprises a diffracting part and a detector, and the optical emission spectroscopy monitors plasma by receiving plasma light transmitted thereto through at least one of the plurality of light transmitting parts of the viewport structure, it is argued that Tatsumi teach a viewport structure disposed outside the chamber. Oh et al. teach a plurality of light transmitting parts. Tatsumi teaches an optical emission spectroscopy disposed outside the chamber. Kraus et al. teach optical emission spectroscopy comprises a diffracting part and a detector. Tatsumi and Kraus et al. teach optical emission spectroscopy monitoring plasma by receiving transmitted plasma light. It should be further pointed out that Kraus et al. teach a plurality of light transmitting parts in Fig. 2C in the form of fiber optic cables.
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights