DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed. While not required, as per MPEP 609, In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites 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), 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "guiding hole" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three motors connected to the electrode with connecting means through ONE guiding hole must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iizuka (2012/0111501).
Iizuka teaches a system for controlling an upper electrode, comprising:
- an upper electrode module facing a lower electrode in a process chamber, see Fig. 1 and particularly [0023-26], wherein the system is a parallel plate etching system with the showerhead acting as the upper electrode,
- a lid, see cover body 12,
- at least three motors disposed at an upper surface of the lid, see actuators 30, initially the Office holds that it is understood that at least motors are disposed, because it is taught that the alignment is precisely controlled such motors are arranged at regular intervals along a periphery, it would be understood that an alignment of a circular object would not be able to be precisely controlled without at least three motors, see MPEP 2144.01, wherein it is stated that it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference in a case of anticipation,
- in the alternative, but in any case wherein Iizuka teaches that a plurality of such motors are arranged at regular intervals along a periphery, the range is overlapped and the limitation is met and made obvious,
- connecting means for connected the motors to the motors – this term is interpreted under 112(f) as per above, and the specification teaches operating shafts and therefore the term is interpreted to include such shafts and their equivalent; the portions on Iizuka are unlabeled, but the parts connecting the motor to the electrode module meet the requirements of the claimed shafts or their equivalents.
Regarding claim 2, the location and slope is controlled by the connecting means. In regard to the ‘regulation’ however, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The prior art includes the claimed structure and is therefore deemed capable of the same use (though in this case the prior art teaches the same control).
Regarding claim 4, the motors are disposed separately at different edge portions of the lid as described.
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iizuka (2012/0111501) in view of Kim (2014/0020708).
The teachings of Iizuka are described above, the teachings include bellows 14, but for other elements and not the connecting means. Kim teaches an analogous system including multiple positioning mechanisms for an upper electrode, see Fig. 3 and particularly [0040-49] and [0069]. The system includes multiple positioning mechanisms (see PM in the figure), the mechanisms include a bellow and are arranged at positions around the periphery and also in the center portions of the lid.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include the use of the bellows to enclose the positioning mechanisms of Iizuka as Kim teaches that bellows are useful for the same, the positioning mechanisms work the same function as the claimed connecting means.
Regarding claim 5, Iizuka does not teach the motors disposed at different center portions of the lid, but Kim teaches the equivalent system as noted and includes that positioning mechanisms are usefully included at periphery and center portions of the lid. While Kim does not necessarily teach multiple center portions, the teachings include both center and edge and further the duplication and/or rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 B. and C. In this case, to include multiple center mechanisms would have been either a duplication and/or a rearrangement and obvious for the purpose of level the upper electrode as in both of the teachings. The instant claims drawn to such motors at the center or the edge suggests a lack of criticality.
Regarding claim 6, the motors are all connected through guiding holes. The claim reads as though the three motors are connected through one guiding hole, it is also interpreted as one guiding hole per each connecting means.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iizuka (2012/0111501) in view of Fukiage (2016/0322218)
The teachings of Iizuka are described above, including a showerhead but not teaching a purge gap. Fukiage teaches a system with a showerhead and teaches that it is useful to include a gap at the edge of the showerhead in order to flow a purge gas [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the purge gas of Fukiage as a known feature around a showerhead to the system/showerhead of Iizuka. It is noted that the use for a “purge gas” is intended use but in any case the prior art teaches the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The teachings of Mullapudi (2006/0231382) further include an insulator ring electrically insulating a top plate, but there is no reason to include the claimed flowing holes along the ring base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights