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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutake et al. (JP2009/094383).
Regarding claim 8, Nobutake teaches a substrate processing apparatus that includes a processing container (Fig. 1) that can be provided with vacuum pressures (see Best Mode section) and a plasma box including a plasma generation unit within the processing container that is in communication with the processing chamber with a first gas inlet (item 8) through which a cleaning gas may be provided and a second inlet through which a vacuum is generated (item 3) so as to lower the pressure in the processing chamber wherein a cleaning gas is introduced into the chamber while the pressure within the chamber is gradually reduced (see the description of “the first Vac step”. Nobutake fails to teach the use of “nozzles”. However, broadly, a “nozzle” is defined as “a cylindrical or round spout at the end of a pipe, hose or tube to control a jet of a gas or liquid”. It is not explicitly stated that the exhaust or gas inlet of Nobutake are round although most pipes are round although changing the shape of the exhaust and gas inlet of Nobutake to round would be considered a mere change in shape of the prior art exhaust and gas inlet, wherein the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected results arising from the change in shape or a prior art object, a newly provided shape for the same object is not patentable over the prior art shaping of said object. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Nobutake further teaches the use of first and second gas supply pipes (items 8 and 9) wherein one is employed to provide the cleaning gas. Further as stated above, the cleaning process of Nobutake proceeds from a chamber wherein pressure has not been lowered via the second nozzle to a condition wherein the pressure is substantially reduced to vacuum pressures.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Nobutake teaches the use of two gas pipes as shown above, the primary purpose of said pipes being to provide process gases that react in the chamber to form a coating.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-15, the process of the current claims merely reads upon separating the cleaning cycle of Nobutake into separate cleaning steps. However this is also done by Nobutake by using cleaning cycles that may be repeated one after the other.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues largely that the removal of deposits that takes place in Nobutake does not take place while a second gas nozzle is adjusted to have a negative pressure. The examiner disagrees. While the examiner does understand the applicants’ argument in general, it is noted that the current claims do not distinguish between the plasma box and the processing container wherein reasonably one may be a substituent of the other as in Nobutake. As claimed, the process container needs to be able to be depressurized which is the case for the removal of gas from both the container and plasma generation unit of Nobutake. As claimed the plasma box must be in communication with the process container as is done in Nobutake wherein the box may be present within what may be considered the process container. Plasma must also be generated in the plasma box which is also done in Nobutake and is not excluded from the process container in the current claims. Additionally a first gas nozzle must be installed in the process container which takes place in Nobutake wherein the process container comprises the plasma box. Finally the interior of an exhaust nozzle is attached to the process container in Nobutake which also reads upon the plasma box wherein gases exit the chamber. As such, while there are structures that are necessary for both the structures of both the plasma box and processing container of the current claims, the two structures may entirely overlap and the same may be true for Nobutake. In this regard, the examiner cited the ‘first vac step’ section of the disclosure wherein gas passes into a first section of the device of Nobutake and reacts in the plasma generation portion of his invention and thereafter a vacuum is provided on the interior of the reaction chamber and when vacuum is achieved addition cleaning gas is provided thereby moving gas collectively from the plasma generation section of the processing chamber to the exhaust port of the processing chamber. Therefore in this manner cleaning gas is provided from a first nozzle into the processing chamber via the plasma generation region in a state in which the second gas nozzle, controlling the exhaust port is adjusted to have a negative pressure, thereby removing the deposits from the chamber and plasma generation region.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights