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 § 102
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, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 16-17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rinzan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0176291).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) a method for fabricating (see pars. [0005] and [0029]) a Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) sensor 40 [0025] used for monitoring semiconductor processes (see pars. [0025] and [0028]), comprising the steps of:
providing a quartz crystal 40 configured to measure a mass deposited on a surface of the quartz crystal (see pars. [0006] and [0034]), the mass difference registered as a consequence of a change in resonance frequency of the quartz crystal (see pars. [0006] and [0034]);
modifying the surface of the quartz crystal (by adding/modifying a getter: see pars. [0029]-[0032]);
wherein the step of modifying the surface increases a quantity of surface defects for rapid capturing of mass (i.e. the addition/modification/refreshing of the getter increases the quantity of surface defects for rapid capturing of mass: see pars. [0029]-[0032] and [0085]), thereby augmenting a registration response of the QCM sensor (i.e. the addition/modification/refreshing of the getter improves the detection of an air leak: [0034]) when exchanging a consumed QCM sensor in-situ in the semiconductor manufacturing processes (see pars. [0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 16, Rinzan further discloses increasing the area percentage of defects of the QCM surface (i.e. the addition/modification/refreshing of the getter increases the area percentage of surface defects for rapid capturing of mass: see pars. [0029]-[0032] and [0085]).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 17, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) attaching non-metalloid elements to the modified surface (i.e. when O2 adsorbs to the Ti of the getter: see pars. [0071] and [0081]).
Regarding claims 4, and 19, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the non-metalloid elements are nitrogen and oxygen [0071].
Regarding claim 6, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the step of attaching non-metalloid elements is performed by adsorption (see pars. [0071] and [0081]).
Regarding claim 8, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the step of modifying the surface includes the step of increasing the quantity of defects to the sub-micrometer scale (i.e. the roughness is controlled so the 50A level: [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the step of modifying the surface includes a surface modification on the order of angstroms (i.e. the roughness is controlled so the 50A level: [0085]).
Regarding claim 24, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) removing/detaching materials from the quartz crystal surface [0032] in order to create the surface modifications [0032].
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, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinzan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0176291).
Regarding claim 10, Rinzan is applied as above, but does not disclose the step of modifying the surface includes a surface modification on the order of tenths of nano-meters.
However, such a modificaiton would be merely a change in size/proportion of the device, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rinzan’s method so that the step of modifying the surface includes a surface modification on the order of tenths of nano-meters.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 12-15, 18, 20-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinzan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0176291) in view of Ding (U.S. Pub. 2004/0061207).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 12, 14-15, 18, and 20-21, Rinzan is applied as above, and discloses (regarding claims 14-15 and 21) attaching non-metalloid elements to the modified surface (i.e. when O2 adsorbs to the Ti of the getter: see pars. [0071] and [0081]); and the non-metalloid elements are nitrogen and oxygen [0071].
Rinzan does not disclose attaching metalloid elements to the modified surface; the metalloid elements are from a group comprising: boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium; and a combination of non- metalloid and metalloid elements attached to the modified surface of the quartz crystal.
Ding discloses attaching metalloid elements to the modified surface (i.e. a getter material can be monocrystalline silicon: [0015]; the metalloid elements is silicon [0015]; and a combination of non- metalloid and metalloid elements attached to the modified surface of the quartz crystal (i.e. silicon doped with Ti etc.: [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rinzan’s method/device to include attaching metalloid elements to the modified surface; the metalloid elements are from a group comprising: boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium; and a combination of non- metalloid and metalloid elements attached to the modified surface of the quartz crystal, as taught by Ding.
Such a modification would be either a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(B); or a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Rinzan is applied as above, but does not disclose the step of attaching metalloid elements is performed by adsorption; and the step of treating the QCM surface includes thin film deposition from the group of: atomic layer deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic or ion beam bombardment, and high-voltage sputtering.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that forming a getter layer by adsorption, atomic layer deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic or ion beam bombardment, or high-voltage sputtering was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP 2144.03.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rinzan’s method so that the step of attaching metalloid elements is performed by adsorption, atomic layer deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic or ion beam bombardment, or high-voltage sputtering.
Because Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the previous Action, the statement that “forming a getter layer by adsorption, atomic layer deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic or ion beam bombardment, or high-voltage sputtering was well-known in the art at the time the invention” is taken to be applicant admitted prior art (AAPA). See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 25, Rinzan discloses (Figs. 1-6) precursors/reagents needed to achieve the surface adsorption can be in one of a chemical and a physical form including atoms (i.e. Ti: see pars. [0029]-[0031] and [0079]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinzan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0176291) in view of DeBoer et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0193800).
Regarding claim 23, Rinzan is applied as above, and discloses the step of increasing the percentage of defects to the QCM surface is accomplished within a reaction environment including gas and plasma phase environments [0097]-[0098].
Rinzan does not disclose the step of increasing the percentage of defects to the QCM surface is accomplished within a reaction environment including liquid.
DeBoer discloses that the sensor can be used in both a gaseous and liquid environment (see par. [0050] – therefore, Rinzan’s sensor which refreshes the getter could be used in an environment that includes liquid).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rinzan’s method so that the step of increasing the percentage of defects to the QCM surface is accomplished within a reaction environment including liquid, as taught by DeBoer.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-08-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a QCM that greatly reduces the delay before reaching its steady state,” “the surface modifications are directly to the QCM itself,” and “an improved registration response where the steady state condition of the modified QCM 300 is reached much faster than a traditional QCM 200”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the claims are distinguished because they do not require a coating, and that the QCM is directly modified. However, the claims do not exclude a QCM with a coating (such as the Getter in Rinzan), and the getter material of Rinzan is on the surface of the QCM, which meets the claimed limitation of “modifying the surface of the quartz crystal” (since the getter coating is on/integral with the surface, and is used in the sensing process; to modify the getter is to modify the surface of the QCM).
For at least the reasons above, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights