CTNF 18/734,312 CTNF 92961 Rapid Seal Leak Test Using He or Co 2 Gas Detection DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 105890849; “Jiang”), in view of Kim (EP 3998374; “Kim”) . Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses, in figures 1-4, a method of detecting a gas leak in a leak detection chamber (see fig. 4), the method comprising: lowering a pressure plate (10) onto a first side of a seal assembly (11); sealing (24) the pressure plate (10) to the first side of the seal assembly (11); filling the cavity (A) with a detection gas (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”) through a valve (2) in the pressure plate (11); and detecting whether the detection gas is present (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 2 & p. 6, ¶ 2 Jiang’s helium mass spectrometer leak detector detects helium gas leaking out of cavity A into cavity B) outside of the leak detection chamber (A). Jiang fails to disclose a wafer in the seal assembly, where the wafer contacts a seal and where the wafer, seal and pressure plate form a cavity. Kim teaches, in figures 1-2, retaining a wafer (10, 20) in the seal assembly (see figs. 1-2), wherein the wafer (10, 20) contacts an elastomer seal (231, 233), and wherein the elastomer seal (231, 233), the pressure plate (251), and the wafer (10, 20) at least partially form a cavity (271). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s scheme configuring a cavity by assembling a wafer, seal and pressing structure into Jiang’s scheme of detecting a seal of a cavity since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of detecting the degree of electroplating device leakage. Jiang and Kim fail to explicitly disclose the seal is an elastomer seal. However, the Examiner takes official notice that elastomer seals are well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known elastomer seal, as Jiang and Kim’s seal. Doing so provides a reliable seal material. Regarding claim 2, Jiang and Kim disclose the detection gas comprises helium (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”). Regarding claim 3, Jiang and Kim fail to disclose carbon dioxide as a detection gas. However, the Examiner takes official notice that using carbon dioxide as a detection gas is well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the well-known detection gas, carbon dioxide, as Jiang and Kim’s detection gas. Doing so would reduce cost since carbon dioxide is less expensive than helium. Regarding claim 4, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the detection gas (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”) is detected with a gas sniffer ((14) see Jiang’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 2, the examiner considers Jiang’s spectrometer to be a gas sniffer). Regarding claim 5, Jiang and Kim fails to disclose the gas sniffer is disposed outside the leak detection chamber at an interface between the leak detection chamber and seal assembly. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the position of the gas sniffer is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a sealing detection platform by disposing the gas sniffer outside the leak detection chamber at an interface between the leak detection chamber and seal assembly as a matter of design choice to reduce the assembly size. Doing so increases potential utilization of space. Regarding claim 6, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, issuing a leak alert when the detection gas is detected (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang’s alarm sounds if a leak deemed to disqualify the seal is detected). Regarding claim 7, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the leak alert is reported to a software of the leak detection chamber (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang’s emits an alarm prompt and reports the final detection result as a displayed value). Regarding claim 8, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the leak alert is a visual alert, an auditory alert, a haptic alert, or a combination thereof (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang sounds an alarm and emits an alarm prompt including reporting the final detection result as a displayed value). Regarding claim 9, Jiang and Kim disclose the leak alert corresponds to an elastomer seal imperfection, a wafer imperfection, or a combination thereof (see Kim’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 2, Kim’s leak may be caused by wafer flatness or abrasions). Regarding claim 10, Jiang and Kim fail to disclose controlling a gauge pressure of the cavity to be between 0.1 and 0.3 pascals. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control a gauge pressure of the cavity to be between 0.1 and 0.3 pascals, since the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so would increase the reliability of the system in determining defects at operating pressures. Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses, in figures 1-4, a method of detecting a gas leak in a vacuum pre-wet (VPW) chamber (see fig. 4), the method comprising: engaging a first side of the seal assembly (11) with a seal of the VPW chamber (see fig. 4); backfilling a first volume (A) with a detection gas (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”) on the first side of the seal assembly (11); and detecting whether the detection gas is present (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 2 & p. 6, ¶ 2 Jiang’s helium mass spectrometer leak detector detects helium gas leaking out of cavity A into cavity B) in a second volume (B) at a second side of the seal assembly (11), opposite the first side (see fig. 4). Jiang fails to disclose retaining a wafer in a seal assembly, wherein the wafer contacts an elastomer seal; inserting the seal assembly into the VPW chamber. Kim teaches, in figures 1-2, retaining a wafer (10, 20) in a seal assembly (see figs. 1-2), wherein the wafer (10, 20) contacts an elastomer seal (231, 233); inserting the seal assembly (see figs. 1-2) into the VPW chamber (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s scheme configuring a cavity by assembling a wafer, seal and pressing structure into Jiang’s scheme of detecting a seal of a cavity since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of detecting the degree of electroplating device leakage. Jiang and Kim fail to explicitly disclose the seal is an elastomer seal. However, the Examiner takes official notice that elastomer seals are well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known elastomer seal, as Jiang and Kim’s seal. Doing so provides a reliable seal material. Regarding claim 12, Jiang and Kim disclose the detection gas comprises helium (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”). Regarding claim 13, Jiang and Kim fail to disclose carbon dioxide as a detection gas. However, the Examiner takes official notice that using carbon dioxide as a detection gas is well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the well-known detection gas, carbon dioxide, as Jiang and Kim’s detection gas. Doing so would reduce cost since carbon dioxide is less expensive than helium. Regarding claim 14, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the detection gas (see Jiang’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “helium gas”) is detected with a gas sniffer ((14) see Jiang’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 2, the examiner considers Jiang’s spectrometer to be a gas sniffer). Regarding claim 15, Jiang and Kim fails to disclose the gas sniffer is disposed inside the second volume. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the position of the gas sniffer is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a sealing detection platform by disposing the gas sniffer inside the second volume as a matter of design choice to reduce the assembly size. Doing so increases potential utilization of space. Regarding claim 16, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, issuing a leak alert when the detection gas is detected (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang’s alarm sounds if a leak deemed to disqualify the seal is detected). Regarding claim 17, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the leak alert is a visual alert, an auditory alert, a haptic alert, or a combination thereof (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang sounds an alarm and emits an alarm prompt including reporting the final detection result as a displayed value). Regarding claim 18, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4, the leak alert is reported to a software of the leak detection chamber (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang’s emits an alarm prompt and reports the final detection result as a displayed value). Regarding claim 19, Jiang and Kim disclose the leak alert corresponds to an elastomer seal imperfection, a wafer imperfection, or a combination thereof (see Kim’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 2, Kim’s leak may be caused by wafer flatness or abrasions). Regarding claim 20, Jiang and Kim disclose, in Jiang’s figures 1-4determining whether the detection gas is at or above a gas threshold (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang determines if the leakage is lower or higher than a standard); and when the detection gas is at or above the gas threshold, issuing a leak alert (see Jiang’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 2, Jiang emits an alarm if the leakage is above a standard and the product is therefore not qualified). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/734,312 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights