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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on January 23, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,174 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each magnet retention member in claims 1, 7, and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0059] of the specification indicates that a magnet retention member 302
can be in the form of, e.g., apertures, protrusions, indentations, cavities, holes, etc.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A).
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. Additionally, the plurality of magnets can be arranged vertically as an alternate arrangement (par.[0032]).
Yang et al. is silent on wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to at least partially 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). Additionally, referring to Figure 2, Miyata shows an arrangement wherein the top piece 13 and the bottom piece 13 are configured to at least partially surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the top piece and the bottom piece of Yang et al. to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber as taught by Miyata in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. is silent on wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
Referring to Figures 2 above and 5 and page 3, lines 1-8, Miyata teaches a magnet arrangement wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces 13 are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets 20, 22 to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece. 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 modified the apparatus of Yang et al. with wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets as taught by Miyata to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
The resulting apparatus of Yang et al. in view of Miyata would yield wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392).
The teachings of Yang et al. in view of Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 2, Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed 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. in view of Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus to provide the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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 4, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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 5, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Miyata 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)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0244754) in view of Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A) and 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. Additionally, the plurality of magnets can be arranged vertically as an alternate arrangement (par.[0032]).
Yang et al. is silent on wherein the top piece and the bottom piece are configured to at least partially 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). Additionally, referring to Figure 2, Miyata shows an arrangement wherein the top piece 13 and the bottom piece 13 are configured to at least partially surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the top piece and the bottom piece of Yang et al. to surround an outer sidewall of the PECVD chamber as taught by Miyata in order to achieve the chamber conditions for the desired substrate processing.
Yang et al. is silent on the top and bottom piece are coupled to a drive system.
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 drive 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified 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.
Yang et al. is silent on wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
Referring to Figures 2 above and 5 and page 3, lines 1-8, Miyata teaches a magnet arrangement wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces 13 are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets 20, 22 to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece. 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 modified the apparatus of Yang et al. with wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets as taught by Miyata to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
The resulting apparatus of Yang et al. in view of Miyata would yield wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece.
Claim(s) 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 Shin (U.S. 2008/0277063) and Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A) as applied to claims 7 above, and further in view of Vesci et al. (U.S. 2005/0116392).
The teachings of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the material of a top piece and a bottom piece of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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. in view of Shin and Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata fail to teach further comprising a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet 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.
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, 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 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus to provide the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata with a plurality of casings, each casing of the plurality of casings configured to at least partially encapsulate each magnet 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 since it is a known means to individually encapsulate a magnet for better protection.
With respect to claim 10, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin, Miyata, 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 11, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin, Miyata, 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)).
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) and Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A).
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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified 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.
Yang et al. is silent on wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
Referring to Figures 2 above and 5 and page 3, lines 1-8, Miyata teaches a magnet arrangement wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces 13 are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets 20, 22 to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece. 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 modified the apparatus of Yang et al. with wherein the plurality of magnet retention members of the top and bottom pieces are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets as taught by Miyata to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
The resulting apparatus of Yang et al. in view of Miyata would yield wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving (i.e. mount) within the top piece and the bottom piece.
With respect to claim 19, the magnetic holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus 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 and Miyata 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) and Miyata (J.P. 2004/014541A) 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 and Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 13, Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the material of a top piece and a bottom piece of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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 and Miyata have been discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the magnet holding structure of Yang et al. in view of Shin and Miyata 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, Miyata, 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, Miyata, 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, Miyata, 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, Miyata, 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new reference Miyata teaches wherein each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the top piece and each magnet retention member of the plurality of magnet retention members of the bottom piece are configured to engage one of the plurality of magnets to prevent the magnet from moving within the top piece and the bottom piece.
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 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