DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1) and further in view of Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1).Regarding claim 1:Narendrnath teaches (e.g., FIG. 1A, FIG. 10A; however, other embodiments may be relied upon) a baffle inspection apparatus comprising:
a baffle comprising a spray surface (32 / bottom surface of 28 from which the spray exits) configured to receive and spray fluid; a lower vessel (e.g., 66) below the upper vessel and apart from the upper vessel and the upper plate; a pressure measurement sensor (e.g., FIG. 1A - 70’s; FIG. 10A - 162’s) on an upper surface of the lower vessel; Narendrnath fail to teach:
an upper vessel coupled to the baffle such that the spray surface of the baffle faces downwards; an upper plate above the upper vessel and supporting the upper vessel; a lower plate on a lower surface of the lower vessel and supporting the lower vessel; and a support that supports the upper plate and the lower plate, wherein the upper vessel comprises a flow path pipe that is configured to supply the fluid to the baffle so that the fluid is sprayed from the spray surface of the baffleSchaller teaches (FIGS. 1-2)
an upper vessel (122) coupled to the baffle (124) such that the spray surface of the baffle faces downwards; a lower plate (e.g., 110 which supports a substrate that is not shown, [0016], which would be where the lower vessel / simulated substrate / sensor device of Narendrnath would be placed) on a lower surface of the lower vessel (met upon combination as mentioned above) and supporting the lower vessel; and a support (e.g., 116 or that which the entire device of FIG. 1 rests upon in use) that supports the lower plate, wherein the upper vessel (112) comprises a flow path pipe (134) that is configured to supply the fluid to the baffle so that the fluid is sprayed from the spray surface of the baffle Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the support structure and adjustable lift assembly of Schaller in the device of Narendrnath to allow for both distance adjustment (between the spraying surface and the substrate / pressure measurement sensor) as well as alignment between the spraying surface and the substrate / pressure measurement sensor. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the baffle and gas distribution system of Narendrnath (e.g., all the components above 80 in FIG. 1, generally indicated by 28) are not floating in the air but, rather, are supported in some manner that is not shown. Schaller shows how such a baffle and structure may be supported.Collins teaches:
an upper plate (e.g. FIG. 1 - 510 or FIG. 7 - 734) above the upper vessel (e.g., FIG. 7 - 682) and supporting the upper vessel(also see FIG.17; alternatively the upper plate may be FIG. 21 - that which the screws 846 initially go through the top of)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an upper plate, as taught by Collins in the device of Narendrnath as it is an art-recognized equivalent structure for securing or support the upper vessel. The examiner notes that this is not “bodily incorporation”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of FIG. 1 of Schaller is placed upon some supporting surface such as a table. Enclosing the device of FIG. 1 using an upper plate, housing, etc. is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 2:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Narendrnath also teaches (FIG. 1):
a supply tank (52) connected to the flow path pipe (112), the supply tank configured to store the fluid and supply the fluid to the flow path pipe
Narendrnath fails to teach “a pump configured to apply pressure to the fluid and supply the fluid to the supply tank”; however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to use a pump for applying pressure to the fluid and for supplying the fluid to the supply tank. This is merely how such a supply tank is filled for use.
Regarding claim 3:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Narendrnath also teaches:
a processing unit comprising at least one processor, the processing unit configured to receive result data measured by the pressure measurement sensor, process the result data, and visualize the result data(Col. 10, Line 34 through Col. 12, Line 16)
Regarding claim 4:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Schaller teaches:
wherein the upper vessel (FIG. 1 - 122) comprises a baffle hole (FIG. 1 - section of 122 which accommodates 124) that is inwardly concaved from a lower surface of the upper vessel, and wherein the baffle hole is complementarily coupled to a baffle coupling surface of the baffle (FIG. 1 - 124), the baffle coupling surface being on a side of the baffle that is opposite to the spray surface
Regarding claim 6:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fails to teach:
wherein the baffle comprises a tapered portion in which a width of the baffle decreases in an upward direction from the spray surfaceSchaller teaches:
wherein the baffle comprises a tapered portion in which a width of the baffle decreases in an upward direction from the spray surface (FIG. 1 - the very edges of 124 are rounded, meeting the claimed limitation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a slightly tapered portion to the baffle, as taught by Schaller, in the device of Narendrnath as it is an art-recognized equivalent baffle shape that does not affect operation of the device.
Regarding claim 16: This claim is merely the combination of elements of claims 1-3. As such, this claim is rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17: This claim is merely the combination of elements of claims 1-4. As such, this claim is rejected for the same reasons set forth above. The exception to this is the claim 17 limitation of “the baffle hole has a width that decreases in an upward direction”. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to have baffles of differing shape, such as one that tapers. As such, it would be obvious to have the baffle hole have a complimentary shape to accommodate such a differently shaped baffle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1) and Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1) and further in view of Chandrasekharan et al. (US 10378107 B2).Regarding claim 5:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Schaller teaches:
wherein the baffle (FIG. 1 - 124) is coupled to the upper vessel (FIG. 1 - 122)Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins fail to teach:
such that the spray surface of the baffle is coplanar with the lower surface of the upper vesselChandrasekharan teaches:
flush mount showerhead / baffle types are well-known in the art (Col. 7, Lines 7-18)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flush mounted showerhead/baffle, as taught by Chandrasekharan, in the device of Narendrnath as it is an art-recognized equivalent way of mounting the baffle. Additionally / alternatively, Narendrnath and Schaller disclose the key concepts and critical aspects of the claimed invention. The criticality of flush mounting vs. a very slight protrusion is lacking.
The examiner holds that the aforementioned teaching of Chandrasekharan either teaches or renders obvious “such that the spray surface of the baffle is coplanar with the lower surface of the upper vessel” in the context of Narendrnath and general state of the art.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1) and Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1) and further in view of Bourland et al. (US 5010772 A).Regarding claim 7:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fails to teach:
wherein the pressure measurement sensor is configured as a capacitance measurement sensorBourland teaches:
wherein the pressure measurement sensor is configured as a capacitance measurement sensor(e.g., FIGS. 2-4 and 8)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a capacitive sensor, as taught by Bourland, in the device of Narendrnath as the pressure mapping system shown in FIGS. 2-4 and 8 of Bourland is extremely well-known in the art and can be sized for nearly any pressure / force mapping needs.
In general, see: Narendrnath - Col. 10, Line 34 through Col. 12, Line 16; Bourland FIGS. 2-4, FIG. 8, and abstract).
Regarding claim 8:Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, and Bourland teach all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 7 rejection above, Narendrnath and Bourland teach:
wherein the pressure measurement sensor comprises an upper electrode array and a lower electrode array that cross each such as to form a plurality of sensing elements, and wherein the pressure measurement sensor is configured to measure pressure of the fluid sprayed from the baffle based on a position of each of the plurality of sensing elements and data measured from the plurality of sensing elements(The citations previously provided teach all the instant limitations.)
Regarding claim 9:Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, and Bourland teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 7 rejection above, Narendrnath and Bourland teach:
a processing unit configured to receive the data measured by the pressure measurement sensor, process the data, and obtain pressure values according to positions of the plurality of sensing elements(The citations previously provided teach all the instant limitations.)
Claims 7-9 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, Won et al. (US 20200370982 A1) and Bourland. For the limitations of claims 7-9, see the aforecited sections of Narendmath and Bourland in conjunction with Won: FIGS. 1 and 4, abstract, [0003], [0042], and [0136]. The motivation for combination being that Won explicitly teaches a similar capacitive pressure mapping device for sprayed fluid and it’s applicability to wafers/semi-conductors.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1) and Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1) and further in view of Konkola et al. (US 9892956 B1).Regarding claim 10:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fails to teach:
a lower vessel protrusion protruding from the upper surface of the lower vessel, on which the pressure measurement sensor is provided, along an outer edge of the lower vesselKonkola teaches:
a lower vessel protrusion (FIGS. 7A-C - 710) protruding from the upper surface of the lower vessel, on which the pressure measurement sensor (met upon combination…equivalent to the wafer of Konkola - e.g., Col. 13, Lines 24-32) is provided, along an outer edge of the lower vessel
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a protrusion / rim, as taught by Konkola, in the device of Narendrnath to facilitate alignment and preventing unwanted movement (e.g., Konkola - Col. 13, Lines 24-32).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1) and Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1) and further in view of Sawatzki (US 5092557 A).Regarding claim 11:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fail to teach:
a plurality of leveling screws in the lower plate, the plurality of leveling screws configured to adjust a level of the lower vessel to maintain a level of the pressure measurement sensor, wherein the plurality of leveling screws each contact the lower surface of the lower vessel, and are configured to adjust a height of each of the plurality of leveling screws with respect to the lower plateSawatzki teaches:
a plurality of leveling screws in the lower plate, the plurality of leveling screws configured to adjust a level of the lower vessel to maintain a level of the pressure measurement sensor (met upon combination with Narendrnath and Schaller), wherein the plurality of leveling screws each contact the lower surface of the lower vessel, and are configured to adjust a height of each of the plurality of leveling screws with respect to the lower plate(e.g., FIGS. 2-3 - 17-19; Col. 2, Line 64 through Col. 3, Line 16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of leveling screws, as taught by Sawatzki, in the device of Narendrnath and Schaller, as it is an art-recognized equivalent to fine-tine leveling.
Regarding claim 12:Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, and Sawatzki teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 11 rejection above, Sawatzki teaches:
wherein the plurality of leveling screws are configured to be rotated with respect to the lower plate such that the height of each of the plurality of leveling screws is adjusted with respect to the lower plate(e.g., FIGS. 2-3 - 17-19; Col. 2, Line 64 through Col. 3, Line 16)
Regarding claim 14:Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, and Sawatzki teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sawatzki teaches (FIGS. 2-3):
a fastener (e.g., 13, 14) that fixes the lower plate to the support, wherein the fastener is configured to be released such that a vertical height of the lower plate becomes changeable
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1), Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1), and Sawatzki (US 5092557 A) and further in view of Mcmullen (US 3323777 A).Regarding claim 13:Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, and Sawatzki teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fails to teach:
wherein each leveling screw from among the plurality of leveling screws is respectively provided with: a support bearing supporting a load and coaxially provided with the leveling screw; a spur gear coaxially provided with the leveling screw; and a worm gear comprising a side surface that is engaged with the spur gear, and wherein each of the plurality of leveling screws is configured to be adjusted in height by ascending or descending due to the spur gear rotating according to rotation of the worm gearMcmullen teaches:
wherein each leveling screw is respectively provided with: a support bearing supporting a load and coaxially provided with the leveling screw; a spur gear coaxially provided with the leveling screw; and a worm gear comprising a side surface that is engaged with the spur gear, and wherein the leveling screws is configured to be adjusted in height by ascending or descending due to the spur gear rotating according to rotation of the worm gear(FIGS. 1 and 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spur and worm gear jack screw of Mcmullen as the adjustment screws of Sawatzki to reduce or prevent backlash (Mcmullen - Col. 1, Line 44 through Col. 2, Line 23). Further, one would be motivated to have easier access to adjust the screw mechanism from the side.
Regarding claim 18: See the rejections of claims 17, 11, and 13 above which provide citations and reasoning for all the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath et al. (US 8464594 B2) in view of Schaller et al. (WO 2019226295 A1), Collins et al. (US 20070245954 A1), and Sawatzki (US 5092557 A) and further in view of Chandra et al. (US 6602349 B2).Regarding claim 15:Narendrnath, Schaller, and Collins render obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Narendrnath fails to teach:
wherein the pump is configured to adjust pressure of the fluid stored in the supply tank to be 2 bar or more and 100 bar or lessChandra teaches:
wherein the pump (met upon combination) is configured to adjust pressure of the fluid stored in the supply tank to be 2 bar or more and 100 bar or less (Col. 5, Lines 38-52)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use CO2 / supercritical CO2 and the associated pressures involved, as taught by Chandra, as it is a common, economical, and safe fluid for precision wafer cleaning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, Bourland, and Sawatzki. All the limitations, citations, and motivations for combination are provided in the rejections of claims 1-4, 7, and 11 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath, Schaller, Collins, Bourland, Sawatzki, Chandrasekharan, and Mcmullen. All the limitations, citations, and motivations for combination are provided in the rejections of claims 19, 5, and 13 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855