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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the rotational magnetic housing" in lines 1 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In light of the above, dependent claims 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 19.
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(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0020]-[0040], Yang et al. discloses a magnet holding structure for a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) chamber, the magnet holding structure comprising: a top piece 84 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the top piece having a first inside edge and a first outside edge (Fig. 2, pars.[0035]-[0036]); a bottom piece 81 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the bottom piece having a second inside edge and a second outside edge (Fig. 2, pars.[0035]-[0036]); and a plurality of magnets 101 (par.[0023]), each magnet positioned between a magnet retention member of the top piece and a magnet retention member of the bottom piece.
Yang et al. is silent on wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber; however, it is still obvious.
Referring to paragraphs [0027]-[0028], Yang et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to size the magnet holding structure (i.e. top piece and bottom piece) in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing. Hence, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. is capable of sizing up to surround the outer sidewall or it could be used in a smaller chamber that would surround the outer sidewall (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to size the top piece and the bottom piece of Yang et al. to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing.
With respect to claim 7, referring to paragraphs [0027]-[0028], Yang et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to size the magnet holding structure (i.e. top piece and bottom piece) in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing. Hence, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. is capable of sizing up to surround the outer sidewall or it could be used in a smaller chamber that would surround the outer sidewall (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to size the top piece and the bottom piece of Yang et al. to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing. With regards to wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to rotate around the outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber, it should be noted that Yang et al. is capable of being rotated and no structure has been claimed for the rotation.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392).
The teachings of Yang et al. have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 2 and 8, Yang et al. fail to teach wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof.
Referring to paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach a magnet holding structure wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof since it conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the material of a top piece and a bottom piece of Yang et al. to be made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof as taught by Vesci et al. since it is a conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet.
The teachings of Yang et al. have been discussed above.
With respect to claims 3 and 9, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. fail to teach further comprising a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater.
Referring to Figures 2-3 and paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a magnet holding structure to comprise a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material (i.e. stainless steel) having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. with a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection.
With respect to claims 4 and 9, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material comprising nickel, iron, copper, chromium, molybdenum, silicon, or combinations thereof (i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings has an opening, and wherein at least a portion of each opening is configured to face the PECVD chamber (Vesci et al.-Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6 and 11, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Vesci et al. further includes wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising stainless steel, and one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of about 80,000 to about 100,000 (Note. i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]-Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll C. v. Interchemcial Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Claim(s) 12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Shin (U.S. 2008/0277063).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0020]-[0040], Yang et al. discloses a magnet holding structure for a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) chamber, the magnet holding structure comprising: a top piece 84 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the top piece having a first inside edge and a first outside edge (Fig. 2, pars.[0035]-[0036]); a bottom piece 81 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the bottom piece having a second inside edge and a second outside edge (Fig. 2, pars.[0035]-[0036]); and a plurality of magnets 101 (par.[0023]), each magnet positioned between a magnet retention member of the top piece and a magnet retention member of the bottom piece.
Yang et al. is silent on wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are each provided within a rotational magnetic housing system configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber.
Referring to paragraphs [0027]-[0028], Yang et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to size the magnet holding structure (i.e. top piece and bottom piece) in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing. Hence, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. is capable of sizing up to surround the outer sidewall or it could be used in a smaller chamber that would surround the outer sidewall (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Referring to Figures 2-4, 10-11 and paragraphs [0018]-[0050], Shin discloses chamber for processing a substrate, comprising: a chamber body 200 (par.[0024]); and a rotational magnetic housing system 462 configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber to enhance plasma uniformity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet housing structure of Yang et al. to have the top piece and the bottom piece that are each provided within a rotational magnetic housing system configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber as taught by Shin since it is a known means to enhance plasma uniformity in a plasma chamber.
With respect to claim 19, the magnetic holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin further includes wherein the rotational magnetic housing comprises: an upper plate (i.e. top of 462); an outer sidewall (outer sidewall of 462); an inner sidewall defining a round central opening (inner sidewall 462); a lower plate (bottom of 462); and a plurality of retaining brackets disposed in the rotational magnetic housing (i.e. each magnet 422 are fixedly installed at the inner side surface of housing 462-par.[0034]).
Shin is silent on the retaining means being a bracket; however, “fixedly installed” is an alternate and equivalent means for securing the magnets to the magnetic housing. Hence, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to alternatively use retaining brackets in Shin since it is an alternate and equivalent means to secure the magnet to the magnetic housing.
With respect to claim 20, the magnetic holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin further includes wherein: each retaining bracket of the plurality of retaining brackets is disposed in the rotational magnetic housing with a distance d between each retaining bracket; and the plurality of magnets are configured to travel in a circular path when the rotational magnetic housing is rotated around the round central opening (Figs. 2-4, 10-11).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Shin (U.S. 2008/0277063) as applied to claims 12 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392).
The teachings of Yang et al. in view of Shin have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 13, Yang et al. in view of Shin fail to teach wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof.
Referring to paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach a magnet holding structure wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof since it conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the material of a top piece and a bottom piece of Yang et al. in view of Shin to be made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof as taught by Vesci et al. since it conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet.
The teachings of Yang et al. in view of Shin have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin fail to teach further comprising a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater.
Referring to Figures 2-3 and paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a magnet holding structure to comprise a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material (i.e. stainless steel) having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin with a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection.
With respect to claim 15, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material comprising nickel, iron, copper, chromium, molybdenum, silicon, or combinations thereof (i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]).
With respect to claim 16, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings has an opening, and wherein at least a portion of each opening is configured to face the PECVD chamber (Vesci et al.-Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 17, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Vesci et al. further includes wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising stainless steel (Vesci et al.-par. [0007]).
With respect to claim 18, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Vesci et al. further includes one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of about 80,000 to about 100,000 (Note. i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]-Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll C. v. Interchemcial Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754).
Referring to claims 1, 7, and 12, U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 discloses a magnet holding structure for a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) chamber, the magnet holding structure comprising: a plurality of magnets 101 (par.[0023]), each magnet positioned between a magnet retention member of the top piece and a magnet retention member of the bottom piece.
U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 is silent on a top piece having a plurality of magnet retention members, the top piece having a first inside edge and a first outside edge; a bottom piece having a plurality of magnet retention members, the bottom piece having a second inside edge and a second outside edge; and wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber.
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraphs [0035]-[0036], Yang et al. teach a top piece 84 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the top piece having a first inside edge and a first outside edge; a bottom piece 81 having a plurality of magnet retention members, the bottom piece having a second inside edge and a second outside edge (Fig. 2, pars.[0035]-[0036]). Additionally, referring to paragraphs [0027]-[0028], Yang et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to size the magnet holding structure (i.e. top piece and bottom piece) in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing. Hence, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. is capable of sizing up to surround the outer sidewall or it could be used in a smaller chamber that would surround the outer sidewall (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the magnet housing structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 with a top piece having a plurality of magnet retention members, the top piece having a first inside edge and a first outside edge; a bottom piece having a plurality of magnet retention members, the bottom piece having a second inside edge and a second outside edge; and wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber as taught by Yang et al. in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing.
With regards to claim 7, wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to rotate around the outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber (claims 1, 10, 18).
With regards to claim 12, wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are each provided within a rotational magnetic housing system configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber (claims 1, 10, 18).
Claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) and Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392).
The teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 2, 8, and 13, U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. fail to teach wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof.
Referring to paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach a magnet holding structure wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof since it conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the material of a top piece and a bottom piece of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. to be made of a material comprising steel, copper, brass, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, iron, manganese, nickel, ceramic, quartz, polystyrene, divinylbenzene, silicon, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof as taught by Vesci et al. since it conventionally known non-magnetic material used to protect a magnet.
The teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. have been discussed above.
With respect to claims 3, 9, and 14, the magnet holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. fail to teach further comprising a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater.
Referring to Figures 2-3 and paragraph [0007], Vesci et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a magnet holding structure to comprise a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material (i.e. stainless steel) having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the magnet holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. with a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet, wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of 50,000 or greater as taught by Vesci et al. since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection.
With respect to claims 4, 9, and 15, the magnet holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material comprising nickel, iron, copper, chromium, molybdenum, silicon, or combinations thereof (i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]).
With respect to claims 5, 10, and 16, the magnet holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. further includes wherein one or more casings of the plurality of casings has an opening, and wherein at least a portion of each opening is configured to face the PECVD chamber (Vesci et al.-Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, 11, and 17-18, the magnet holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. further includes wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are made of a material comprising stainless steel, and one or more casings of the plurality of casings is made of a material having a relative magnetic permeability value of about 80,000 to about 100,000 (Note. i.e. stainless steel, Vesci et al.-par.[0007]-Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll C. v. Interchemcial Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754), Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392) and Shin (U.S. 2008/0277063).
The teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. have been discussed above.
Referring to Figures 2-4, 10-11 and paragraphs [0018]-[0050], Shin teach wherein the rotational magnetic housing comprises: an upper plate (i.e. top of 462); an outer sidewall (outer sidewall of 462); an inner sidewall defining a round central opening (inner sidewall 462); a lower plate (bottom of 462); and a plurality of retaining brackets disposed in the rotational magnetic housing (i.e. each magnet 422 are fixedly installed at the inner side surface of housing 462-par.[0034]) since it is a known means to enhance plasma uniformity in a plasma chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet housing structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al. and Vesci et al. to have the top piece and the bottom piece that are each provided within a rotational magnetic housing system configured to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber as taught by Shin in order since it is a known means to enhance plasma uniformity in a plasma chamber.
Shin is silent on the retaining means being a bracket; however, “fixedly installed” is an alternate and equivalent means for securing the magnets to the magnetic housing. Hence, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to alternatively use retaining brackets in Shin since it is an alternate and equivalent means to secure the magnet to the magnetic housing.
With respect to claim 20, the magnetic holding structure of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 in view of Yang et al., Vesci et al., and Shin further includes wherein: each retaining bracket of the plurality of retaining brackets is disposed in the rotational magnetic housing with a distance d between each retaining bracket; and the plurality of magnets are configured to travel in a circular path when the rotational magnetic housing is rotated around the round central opening (Shin-Figs. 2-4, 10-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al.’735 teach a magnet holding structure having a top piece and a bottom piece with a plurality of magnets. Vesci et al.’678 teach a plurality of magnets encapsulated in a casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights