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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrases “are disclosed” and “are shown”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “an electrode resistant to the dissolved ions”. The term “resistant” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is not clearly set forth what would or would not be considered to be “resistant” to dissolved ions. For examination purposes any prior art electrode material that is not expressly set forth as being not resistant to corrosion will be considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn (WO 2008/083638) in view of Yoshii (US 2012/0078516), Busche (US 2015/0187625), Janke (US 5,234,601), and Tran (US 6,309,532)..
As to claims 1 and 3-4, Dorn teaches a heat control system comprising:
a cooling target 2;
a cooling water within a conduit 6, the conduit 6 thermally coupled to the cooling target 2 at region 11 (Fig. 1); and
dissolved ions in the cooling water at a known concentration (page 2, paragraph 7; page 3, paragraph 6).
Dorn does not explicitly teach an electrical conductivity sensor, and does not explicitly teach circuitry configured to measure a cooling water temperature as a function of measured electrical conductivity and con figured to adjust a flow rate of cooling water based on cooling required and the cooling water temperature. However, Yoshii teaches that it is known that electrical conductivity is a linear function of water temperature, and if the concentration of dissolved ions is known, water temperature can be uniquely determined from electrical conductivity (paragraphs 89 and 275). Since the cooling water of Dorn includes dissolved ions, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that use of an electrical conductivity measurement could be utilized to accurately determine temperature. Additionally, Busche teaches that it is known to adjust flow to a cooling target to maintain a desired temperature (paragraphs 3-5 and 41). In light of the teachings of Yoshii and Busche it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dorn to utilize an electrical conductivity sensor and circuitry as claimed in order to maintain a desirable temperature of the cooling target 2.
The cited references are silent in regards to a particular type of electrode. However, it is known to use corrosion resistance electrodes such as electrodes made of stainless steel (Janke, col. 5, lines 17-20) and/or carbon (Tran, col. 1, lines 21-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Dorn by utilizing corrosion resistant electrodes as claimed in order to prevent malfunctioning of the system.
As to claim 2, Dorn is silent regarding the range of electrical conductivity provided by the dissolved ions. However, the specific value of the conductivity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain conductivity will provide an accurate temperature measurement. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize dissolved ions that provide an electrical conductivity in a range from 50-70 mS/cm.
As to claim 5, Dorn teaches dissolved ions that include NA and CL (page 2, paragraph 7; note that Dorn utilizes saline water).
As to claim 6, Dorn does not explicitly teach that the cooling target includes a wafer chuck. However, Dorn does teach that the cooling target can be any electrical components, including housings of semiconductor modules (page 3, 2nd to last paragraph). Furthermore, Busche using a cooling target that is a wafer chuck (paragraph 41). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the system of Dorn such that the cooling target is a wafer chuck as claimed and taught by Busche in order to provide reliable operations for semiconductor manufacturing.
As to claim 7, the modified apparatus does not explicitly teach that the electrode is located at the wafer chuck. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to further modify the reference by having the electrode located as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular electrode location solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the electrode would perform equally well at any location deemed desirable by the user.
As to claims 8-12 and 14-15, if a modified prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious in view of the modified device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the methods as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Dorn.
As to claim 13, Dorn is silent regarding a specific amount of dissolved ions. However, the specific amount of ions is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a particular amount of dissolved ions will provide a sufficient amount of conductivity for the desired operation of the system. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize an amount of dissolved ions in the range of 35-50 g/L.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn, Yoshii, Busche, Janke, and Tran as applied above, and further in view of Jeong (US 2004/0182563).
As to claims 16-17, the modified apparatus includes routing water to multiple parallel semiconductor manufacture components (Dorn, Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach adjusting the flow rate to each component as a function of different temperatures. However, Jeong teaches controlling temperature independently for parallel semiconductor processing tools (see abstract, Fig. 1). In light of this teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dorn to provide individual temperature control at each cooling target 2 in order to ensure that the desired temperature is maintained at each of the targets 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763