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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 13 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 1 recites the limitation "the selection device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the housing unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 includes the same limitations as amended claim 1 regarding the selection device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2008/0141943 as cited on IDS) in view of Parent (US 9,297,064) and Schertler (US 2002/0144890).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a surface treatment apparatus comprising:
a housing unit (2, fig. 2) that houses at least one workpiece (12);
a placement device (5) that includes a rotating shaft (6) extending in a horizontal direction (Fig. 1-3, [0067]), and on which the workpiece (12) is placed such that a surface of the workpiece is substantially orthogonal to a normal direction of an outer peripheral surface of the rotating shaft (6), and faces outward ([0067], fig. 1, 2, and 3);
a first rotating device (motor 7, [0067-0068]) which is provided on each placement device (5) that rotates only the placement device (5) in the housing unit in a predetermined rotation pattern around the rotating shaft (6, Fig. 1-3);
a surface treatment device (23, fig. 3) that extends inside the housing unit (2) and in parallel with the rotating shaft (6), and performs at least one type of surface treatment by supplying gas to the surface of the workpiece ([0098], [0113]).
Matsumoto teaches a plurality of film forming chambers therefore it also teaches a plurality of placement devices. However, Matsumoto does not teach the surface treatment apparatus further comprises a selection device that selects one placement device to be housed in the housing unit from the plurality of placement devices. Neither does Matsumoto does not teach a second rotating device.
Parent teaches a plurality of part carriers (53, 54) on a conveyor (52) that that are processed using an external rotating exchange that picks the carrier from the conveyor and positions it within a vacuum enclosure so that the parts it carries can be coated by sputtering or similar coating methods (col. 3-4). Parent teaches that its platform allows for multiple part carriers (53, 54) to be processed rapidly and teaches such an apparatus is operable in the coating arts. Applying Parent to claim 1, it teaches the placement device (part carrier 53, 54) includes a plurality of placement devices (Fig. 1 and 2), and the surface treatment apparatus further comprises a selection device (20, 26, fig. 1, 2; col. 3, ln. 10-30; col. 4, ln. 55-col. 5, ln. 55) that selects one placement device (part carrier 53, 54) to be housed in the housing unit (30, 40) from the plurality of placement devices (part carriers 53, 54, Fig. 1 and 2). Parent teaches the selection device includes a second rotating device (20, 26) that rotates any one of the plurality of placement devices (part carrier 53, 54) to a position facing a housing port of the housing unit (30, 40 col. 5, ln. 18-55). The rational to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber and placement device of Matsumoto by providing the selection device includes a second rotating device that rotates any one of the plurality of placement devices to a position facing a housing port of the housing unit;
and providing the selection device includes a second rotating device that rotates any one of the plurality of placement devices to a position facing a housing port of the housing unit, as taught by Parent, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Matsumoto does not teach an exhaust device but does teach controlling the pressure in the chamber 2.
Parent teaches an exhaust device (34) that is provided inside the housing unit (30) at a position different from a position where the surface treatment device (40)is provided, adjusts pressure inside the housing unit, and exhausts the gas inside the housing unit (Fig. 1 and 2, col. 6, ln. 45-64).
The Examiner takes the position that an exhaust device is well-known and commonly used in vacuum chamber such as those of Parent and Matsumoto. Each prior art reference teaches that exhaust devices are operable, necessary and desirable for creating vacuum atmospheres within vacuum chambers. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of combining the exhaust device of Parent with the chamber of Matsumoto using known methods wherein the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Matsumoto by providing an exhaust device (34) that is provided inside the housing unit (30) at a position different from a position where the surface treatment device (40)is provided, adjusts pressure inside the housing unit, and exhausts the gas inside the housing unit, as taught by Parent, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Matsumoto teaches separating the placement device (2a, 11) from the chamber 2 to perform maintenance. Matsumoto teaches the chamber 2 is evacuated to provide an atmosphere for sputtering, therefore Matsumoto inherently teaches a seal between 2 and 2a.
Matsumoto does not teach the sealing member is integrally configured with the placement device.
Schertler teaches a sealing member integrally configured with the placement device (21) to seal the housing unit (1, 7) when the material to be treated is housed in the housing unit [0012].
Each of the prior art Matsumoto and Schertler teach sealing members to be well known, necessary and operable in the vacuum chambers. As such it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to provide the integrated seal of Schertler to the vacuum chamber of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success using known methods wherein the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the placement device of Matsumoto by providing a sealing member integrally configured with the placement device to seal the housing unit when the material to be treated is housed in the housing unit, as taught by Schertler, because it would simplify the design of the sputtering apparatus and vacuum chamber [0012].
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the exhaust device.
Parent teaches the exhaust device (34) is provided horizontally in a lower part of the housing unit (30, Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Matsumoto by providing the exhaust device (34) is provided horizontally in a lower part of the housing unit, as taught by Parent, because it would allow reduction of the atmosphere of the sputtering chamber to less than 10 torr (col. 6, ln 55-65).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto does not teach a second rotating device.
Parent teaches the selection device includes a second rotating device that rotates any one of the plurality of placement devices (53, 54) to a position facing a housing port of the housing unit (col. 5, ln. 18-55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber of Matsumoto by providing the selection device includes a second rotating device that rotates any one of the plurality of placement devices to a position facing a housing port of the housing unit, as taught by Parent, because it would allow continuous metallization of parts within the system (col. 2, ln 5-15).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches a conveyance device (guide rail [0070]) that conveys the workpiece (12) placed on the placement device (5) in an axial direction of the rotating shaft (6 [0069-0070], fig. 3) so as to house the workpiece (12) in the housing unit (2) or carry the workpiece out of the housing unit (2).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the surface treatment device is a plasma treatment apparatus (23) that extends inside the housing unit (2) and in parallel with the rotating shaft of the placement device (5 Fig. 1).
Claim 7 recites a functional aspects of the reactor. The prior art only needs to demonstrate the capability to perform the recited function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Matsumoto performs surface treatment of the workpiece by supplying a reaction gas to an electrode to which high- frequency power is applied to convert the reaction gas to plasma, and spraying, to the workpiece, a precursor generated by causing the reaction gas converted to plasma to react with a film-forming gas ([0113], [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the plasma treatment apparatus (22, 23) is provided on an upper inner wall surface of the placement device (housing unit 2, fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto teaches the plasma treatment apparatus includes a plurality of supply pipes for the film-forming gas ([0138-0139]), and a supply amount of the film-forming gas is independently set for each of a plurality of workpieces placed in an extending direction of the rotating shaft, the workpiece including the plurality of workpieces [0113-0115].
Regarding claim 11, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In light of Gardner the Examiner takes the position that Matsumoto’s electrode would not perform differently than the claimed electrode. Therefore the requirements of claim 11 are obvious over in view of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto teaches the surface treatment device (23) is a sputtering apparatus that performs sputtering on the workpiece ([0137]).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto teaches a surface treatment method comprising:
selecting a placement device (5) with a rotating shaft (6) extending in a horizontal direction (fig. 1-3, [0069-0070])
placing at least one workpiece (12) on the placement device such that a surface of the workpiece (12) is substantially orthogonal to a normal direction of an outer peripheral surface of the rotating shaft (6) and faces outward (Fig. 1-3, [0069-0070]);
performing at least one type of surface treatment [0113] by rotating only the placement device (5) which is in the housing unit (2) and the workpiece (12, fig. 1 and 2) is placed on in a predetermined rotation pattern around the rotating shaft (6, [0067-0068], 6, Fig. 1-3) in the housing unit (2), which is sealed (evacuation) and supplying gas to the surface of the workpiece from a surface treatment device (23) that extends inside the housing unit (2) in a direction parallel to the rotating shaft (6, Fig. 1-3);
and adjusting pressure inside the housing unit (2) and exhausting the gas inside the housing unit (30) by an exhaust device.
Matsumoto teaches a plurality of film forming chambers therefore it also teaches a plurality of placement devices including a rotating shaft in a horizontal direction. However, Matsumoto does not teach selecting a placement device among a plurality of placement devices.
Matsumoto also does not teach the exhaust device provided inside the housing unit at a position different from a position where the surface treatment device is provided [0113-0115]).
Parent teaches a plurality of part carriers (53, 54) on a conveyor that that are processed using an external rotating exchange that picks the carrier from the conveyor and positions it within a vacuum enclosure so that the parts it carries can be coated by sputtering or similar coating methods (col. 3-4). Parent teaches that its platform allows for multiple part carriers to be processed rapidly and teaches such an apparatus is operable in the coating arts. Applying Parent to claim 13, it teaches selecting a placement device (part carrier, 53, 54) among a plurality of placement devices (53, 54, fig. 1 and 2) using a selection device (20, 26, fig. 1, 2; col. 3, ln. 10-30; col. 4, ln. 55-col. 5, ln. 55) that selects one placement device (part carrier 53, 54) to be housed in the housing unit (30, 40) from the plurality of placement devices (part carriers 53, 54, Fig. 1 and 2). The rational to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chamber and placement device of Matsumoto by selecting a placement device among a plurality of placement devices, as taught by Parent, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Parent teaches an exhaust device (34) provided inside the housing unit at a position different from a position where the surface treatment device is provided (Fig. 1 and 2, col. 6, ln. 45-65).
The Examiner takes the position that an exhaust device is well-known and commonly used in vacuum chamber such as those of Parent and Matsumoto. Each prior art reference teaches that exhaust devices are operable, necessary and desirable for creating vacuum atmospheres within vacuum chambers. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of combining the exhaust device of Parent with the chamber of Matsumoto using known methods wherein the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the exhaust device of Matsumoto by providing an exhaust device provided inside the housing unit at a position different from a position where the surface treatment device is provided, as taught by Parent, because it would allow reduction of the atmosphere of the sputtering chamber to less than 10 torr (col. 6, ln 55-65).
Matsumoto teaches separating the placement device (2a, 11) from the chamber 2 to perform maintenance. Matsumoto teaches the chamber 2 is evacuated to provide an atmosphere for sputtering, therefore Matsumoto inherently teaches a seal between 2 and 2a.
Matsumoto does not teach a sealing member is integrally formed with a mounting member on which the workpiece to be treated is mounted.
Schertler teaches a sealing member [0012] integrally formed with placement device to seal the housing [0012].
Each of the prior art Matsumoto and Schertler teach sealing members to be well known and necessary and operable in the vacuum chamber arts. As such it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to provide the integrated seal of Schertler to the vacuum chamber of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success using known methods wherein the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the placement device of Matsumoto by providing a sealing member integrally formed with the placement device on which the workpiece to be treated is mounted, as taught by Schertler, because it would simplify the design of the sputtering apparatus and vacuum chamber [0012] and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results..
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, Parent and Schertler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hassan (US 4,270,999).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the plasma treatment apparatus includes a plurality of electrodes (23, fig. 1) respectively corresponding to a plurality of workpieces (12) placed in an extending direction of the rotating shaft (6), the workpiece including the plurality of workpieces (12, fig. 1), and the high-frequency power (RF) to be supplied to each of the plurality of electrodes [0113] but does not teach the power is independently set.
Hassan teaches the plasma treatment apparatus includes a plurality of electrodes (23, 25, fig. 1) respectively corresponding to a plurality of workpieces (25) placed in an extending direction of the rotating shaft (rotatable carrier 19), the workpiece including the plurality of workpieces, and the high-frequency power (RF) to be supplied to each of the plurality of electrodes is independently set (col. 3, ln. 50-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify high-frequency power (RF) to be supplied to each of the plurality of electrodes of Matsumoto by providing it is independently set, as taught by Hassan, because it would provide a uniform highly effective gas field in the reactivity zone surrounding the etching object (col. 1, ln. 40-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) has been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that the prior art Parent does not rotate the workpiece.
The Examiner disagrees because Parent teaches rotating the workpiece for coating (col. 11, ln. 33-46).
Applicant argues Matsumoto does not engage in selection of placement devices.
The Examiner disagrees because Parent teaches selection of placement devices as set out in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not recognize the advantageous results achieved by the present invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached on 571 272 8902. 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights