DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 06/07/2024, in which claims 1-10 are currently pending. The Application is a Continuation of 17365383 , filed 07/01/2021, now abandoned and, claims foreign priority to 110102807, filed 01/26/2021
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 06/07/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Control unit, artificial intelligence unit in claim 1,
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.
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
7- 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8- Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (US20180190548), Bronstein et al. US 20230194435, Lapalme (USPGPUB 20220007582), and further in view Powell et al. (WO 2005012855).
As for Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10: Pan teaches a device, and its method of use (Fig.4) measuring a physical state of a material by spectrum (P.0017), comprising: a first action path where a material to be measured and another material are contained in, the first action path is a first of an action path, wherein the other material and the material to be measured are related in a chemical reaction (Figs. 3-9, Ref.1/7, main chamber and tube chamber; ¶ 22, the optical spectrum plasma gas dissociation measuring device 9 disposed at appropriate locations in the main chamber 1 to measure a contaminant and/or a reactive gas reacting with the contaminant; ¶ 5-6); a detector (Ref.8/9, detecting system) configured to detect a spectrum of the other material in a plasma state during a deposition process of the material to be measured (Fig. 6, ¶ 6, 22); a processing unit connected with the detector, comprising a chip, a processor, a mechanical computer, a circuit, a microprocessor or a combination thereof (Ref.9 in addition to the necessary processing means for calculating physical parameters as disclosed in ¶ 5-6. 18-20, 24-25), configured to obtain a deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state (¶ 18, the gas dissociation degree, in the second chamber 6, is detected by a detecting element 8 and the relative dissociation quantity value is calculated by an optical spectrum plasma gas dissociation measuring device 9. The spectrum and the “appropriate amount of reactive gas A”, as a reaction condition, are both used in the process of measuring the gas dissociation degree; ¶ 19-20 for ex); a control unit connected to the processing unit, configured to control a reaction condition of the other material based on a variation of the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state during the deposition process (inherent to the control of the amount of gas, ex. Reactive gas A, injected in Fig. 6. Also, Claim 6 points to electrical system used); a memory unit connected to the processing unit, configured to store the spectrum, the reaction condition, a theoretical state, a default state, an actual state, and an adjustment parameter of the material to be measured (the memory such as a RAM is necessarily used to store the parameters, such as the theoretical and experimental data, in order to compare them. ¶ 5-6, 18-20 The spectrum, reaction condition such as the amount of reactive gas injected, gas dissociation value, i.e. the adjustment parameter of the material, as well as the theoretical, actual and default dissociation degrees (¶ 20), are stored therein for the calculations of the dissociation value); and a calculation unit connected to the processing unit, configured to perform a algorithm based on at least two of the spectrum of the other material, the reaction condition, the theoretical state, the default state, the actual state, and the adjustment parameter of the material to be measured (¶18-20).
(claim 2) wherein the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state in the first action path is detected by the detector (Pan’s Fig. 5 for ex.)
(claims 3-4) wherein the first action path is communicated with a second action path (Figs. 3-9; first and second chambers and their corresponding tube bodies), at least a part of the other material comes from the second action path, and the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state in the second action path is detected by the detector, the second action path is a second of an action path; wherein the first action path is communicated with a second action path via a tube, at a least part of the other material comes from the second action path via the tube, and the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state in the tube can be detected by the detector, the second action path is a second of an action path (Figs. 4, 5 or 6; different components are detected at different action paths of first and second paths).
(claim 9) wherein the deposition state of the material to be measured is reached a certain level when an intensity of the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state is higher than or lower than a threshold (since no specific limitation is specified about the claimed threshold, it is considered as arbitrary and the measured spectral intensity is constantly larger or lower than arbitrary levels).
Pan does not teach expressly the processing unit configured to obtain the deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state, the chemical reaction between the other material and the material to be measured, and a relation of supplied mole quantity between the other material and the material to be measured; the calculation unit being an artificial intelligence unit, configured to perform a big data algorithm based on at least two of the spectrum of the other material. Pan does not also teach wherein the deposition state is a thickness, a crystallinity, a degree of coalescence, an aggregation or a combination thereof, even though this appears as a mere intended use since no specific structure or steps have been claimed measure any of these parameters. Pan does address CVP in semiconductor industry (¶ 1-3) and any of the claimed parameters would be obvious to estimate in such processes for an efficient control of the process (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D). Pan does not teach expressly either (claim 10) wherein the reaction condition comprises a switch of supply, quantity, temperature, pressure, supply of precursor, supply of catalyst of the material to be measured.
Moreover, Bronstein in a similar field of endeavor teaches systems and method for quality control in glass deposition industry (Abstract, ¶ 3-5 and Figs. 1-9) wherein spectrometry is used (¶ 49, 66, 88, 92-95) to estimate deposited layer thicknesses (¶ 63-65) crystallinity of the layers (¶ 63). In addition, Bronstein uses machine learning analyses, i.e. artificial intelligence (¶ 25, 51-59, 70-78 for ex), without expressly pointing to the big data aspect of the data, even though this would be obvious to one PHOSITA as a species of the limited genus of Ai based calculations (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered). Moreover, Bronstein discloses controlling partial pressure of gases as a parameter of the reaction conditions (¶ 60-62 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective time filing date of the instant application invention to configure the system and method of Pan according to Bronstein’s recommendations so that the deposition state is thickness, the crystallinity, the degree of coalescence, aggregation or a combination thereof; the calculation unit being an artificial intelligence unit connected to the processing unit, configured to perform data algorithm based on at least the two parameters; wherein the reaction condition comprises a switch of supply, quantity, temperature, pressure, supply of precursor, supply of catalyst of the material to be measured, with the advantage of efficient control of layer deposition (Bronstein, ¶ 47).
The combination does not teach expressly performing a big data algorithm; the processing unit configured to obtain the deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state, the chemical reaction between the other material and the material to be measured, and a relation of supplied mole quantity between the other material and the material to be measured.
However, in the spectroscopy/spectrometry measurement applications, big data algorithms have been widely used such as in Lapalme (Abstract and Figs. 1-9) which uses spectral data (¶ 15, 30, 67 for ex.) with big data approaches (¶111) to improve the statistics of the correlating measurements with various factors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective time filing date of the instant application invention to configure the system and method of Pan and Bronstein according to Lapalme’s recommendations so the calculation unit is configured to perform big data algorithm based on at least the two parameters, with the advantage of improving the statistics of the correlating measurements with various factors (¶ 111).
The combination of Pan and Bronstein according to Lapalme still does not teach expressly the processing unit configured to obtain the deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state, the chemical reaction between the other material and the material to be measured, and a relation of supplied mole quantity between the other material and the material to be measured.
However, in the process chamber chemical monitoring applications such as Powell’s (Abstract and Figs. 1-6) which appears to disclose the processing unit configured to obtain the deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state, the chemical reaction between the other material and the material to be measured, and a relation of supplied mole quantity between the other material and the material to be measured (¶ 68-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective time filing date of the instant application invention to configure the system and method of Pan, Bronstein and Lapalme according to Powell’s suggestions so that the processing unit configured to obtain the deposition state of the material to be measured during the deposition process based on the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state, the chemical reaction between the other material and the material to be measured, and a relation of supplied mole quantity between the other material and the material to be measured, with the advantage of effectively controlling the deposition/manufacturing processes (Powell; ¶ 67).
9- Claims 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Bronstein, Lapalme and Powell, and further in view of Pu et al. (“The relation between the optical spectral slope and the luminosity for 17 Palomar–Green quasi-stellar objects” , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 372, 2006)
As for Claims 5, 8, the combination of Pan, Bronstein, Lapalme and Powell teaches the device of claim 1 and corresponding method of use of claim 6
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the variation of the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state includes a slope of the plot of intensity versus time or a slope of the plot of FWHM versus time.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the variation of the spectral slope as a function of time to spectrally estimate a density or a chemical state of a material (MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D). For ex. Pu teaches a spectral study of quasi stellar objects to study the dynamics of the objects (Abstract and Introduction), wherein the time variation of the spectral slope is considered (Abstract, Data Analysis; Discussions and Results Right Col. P.249 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective time filing date of the instant application invention to configure the system and method of Pan, Bronstein, Lapalme and Powell according to Pu’s recommendations so that the variation of the spectrum of the other material in the plasma state includes a slope of the plot of intensity versus time or a slope of the plot of FWHM versus time, with the advantage of effectively measuring the gas dynamics.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877