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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Specifically it is unclear where in the specification claim 19 is supported. More specifically it is unclear where the electron beam vapor deposition occurs with the other process (i.e. “and”). The specification states:
“[0148] At least one electron beam source may be adapted to forming electrons at low energy, typically in the range from 0.1 to 2 keV, adapted to plasma cleaning, plasma layer densification, plasma etching, and/or sputtering, and to forming high-power electrons, typically in the range from 2 keV to 30 keV with an intensity typically in the range from 10 to 200 mA per source, more adapted for electron beam vapor deposition.”
Should this be:
“[0148] At least one electron beam source may be adapted to forming electrons at low energy, typically in the range from 0.1 to 2 keV, adapted to plasma cleaning, plasma layer densification, plasma etching, sputtering, and/or to forming high-power electrons, typically in the range from 2 keV to 30 keV with an intensity typically in the range from 10 to 200 mA per source, more adapted for electron beam vapor deposition.”
Since the original filed claims provide support for this kind of statement.
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 1-19 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, line 3, is indefinite because “each source” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested to replace this with “the at least one electron beam source”.
Claim 1, line 3, is indefinite because “emitting” should be “emit”.
Claim 1, lines 5, 6, is indefinite because “for the treatment a surface of a part” should be “for the treatment of a surface of a part”.
Claim 1, lines 10, 11, is indefinite because “being adapted to performing” should be “being adapted to perform”.
Claim 2, line 2, is indefinite because “the diameter” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 2, is indefinite because “the minimum circle” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 3, is indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “for example smaller than or equal to one tenth” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 2, line 3, is indefinite because “the smallest” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 6, is indefinite because “the diameter” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 6, is indefinite because “the minimum circle” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 7, is indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “for example smaller than or equal to one tenth” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 2, line 7, is indefinite because “the smallest” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, lines 2 and 3, is indefinite because “an electron beam” should be “the electron beam”.
Claim 4, line 3, is indefinite because “an electron beam” should be “the electron beam”.
Claim 6, line 3, is indefinite because “emitting” should be “emit”.
Claim 6, line 4, is indefinite because “sputtering technique” is unclear. What technique is being utilized?
Claim 6, line 5, is indefinite because “electron beam vapor deposition technique” is unclear. What technique is being utilized?
Claim 7, line 2, is indefinite because “supporting” should be “support”.
Claim 7, line 3, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example movable” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 8, line 2, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example a cooled crucible” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 9, lines 3 and 4, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “preferably from 2 to 5 kV” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 10, line 2, is indefinite because “supporting” should be “support”.
Claim 10, line 3, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example movable” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 11, line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “such as an electromagnet or a permanent magnet” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 11, line 3, is indefinite because “deflecting” should be “deflect”.
Claim 11, line 4, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example movable” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 12, line 4, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example coaxial with the treatment chamber” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 13, line 4, is indefinite because “each tube” lacks antecedent basis. Should it be “the tube”?
Claim 14, line 3, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “such as an electromagnet” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 14, line 3, is indefinite because “focusing” should be “focus”.
Claim 14, lines 3 and 4, is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “for example to directing it towards the treatment chamber” is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 14, line 3, is indefinite because “directing it” should be “direct the electron beam”.
Claim 17, lines 1 and 2, is indefinite because “at least two of the electron beam sources” lack antecedent basis. It is suggested to write this as “at least two of the plurality of electron beam sources”.
Claim 17, line 2, is indefinite because “emitting” should be “emit”.
Claim 19, line 2, is indefinite because “implementing” should be “implement”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (WO 99/43864 A1) in view of Okamura et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,728,278).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Ono teaches electron beam device (Fig. 3; Abstract) comprising:
- a treatment chamber (Fig. 3 – 31) having a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3);
- at least one electron beam source (Fig. 3 – 32), the at least one electron beam source being adapted to emit an electron beam in a beam plane substantially transverse to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3) so as to induce a plasma (Page 5 line 23 – plasma sputtering) or an evaporation point in the treatment chamber for the treatment a surface of a part (page 4 – lines 26-27); said at least one electron beam source being external to the treatment chamber (Fig. 3);
- a pumping chamber coupled to a first vacuum pump (Fig. 3 annotated), to the treatment chamber, and to the at least one electron beam source, the pumping chamber being positioned between said treatment chamber and said at least one electron beam source (Fig. 3 annotated);
- at least one first port for the passage of the electron beam between the treatment chamber and the pumping chamber (Fig. 3 annotated); and
- at least one second port for the passage of the electron beam between the pumping chamber and the at least one electron beam source (See Fig. 3 annotated). The pumping chamber surround the wall 37. (See Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
691
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Ono and claim 1 is that the pumping chamber being adapted to perform a differential vacuum pumping of said treatment chamber is not discussed.
Regarding the pumping chamber being adapted to perform a differential vacuum pumping of said treatment chamber (Claim 1), the location of the wall 37 and the vacuum pump in Ono appear to inherently cause a pressure differential between the chamber in the interior of 37 and the exterior of the wall 37. But and assuming arguendo and further in support thereof Okumara suggests providing differential pumping of the chamber inside the wall and outside the wall. (Column 3 lines 45-51; Column 4 lines 3-9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the diameter of the minimum circle in which the at least one first port is inscribed is smaller than or equal to one eighth of the smallest dimension of a transverse cross-section of the treatment chamber taken in the beam plane
AND/OR
the diameter of the minimum circle in which the at least one second port is inscribed is smaller than or equal to one eighth of the smallest dimension of the transverse cross-section of the treatment chamber taken in the beam plane.
Regarding claim 2, Ono teach in Fig. 3 the diameter of the minimum circle in which the at least one first port is inscribed is smaller than or equal to one eighth of the smallest dimension of a transverse cross-section of the treatment chamber taken in the beam plane
AND/OR
the diameter of the minimum circle in which the at least one second port is inscribed is smaller than or equal to one eighth of the smallest dimension of the transverse cross-section of the treatment chamber taken in the beam plane. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one first port is positioned in a side wall of the treatment chamber so that an electron beam emitted by the at least one electron beam source can penetrate through the at least one first port into the treatment chamber.
Regarding claim 3, Ono teach in Fig. 3 wherein the at least one first port is positioned in a side wall of the treatment chamber so that an electron beam emitted by the at least one electron beam source can penetrate through the at least one first port into the treatment chamber. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one second port is positioned in a side wall of the pumping chamber so that an electron beam emitted by the at least one electron beam source can penetrate through the at least one second port into the pumping chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Ono teach in Fig. 3 wherein the at least one second port is positioned in a side wall of the pumping chamber so that an electron beam emitted by the at least one electron beam source can penetrate through the at least one second port into the pumping chamber. (Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one electron beam source, the treatment chamber and the pumping chamber form a closed assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Ono teach in Fig. 3 wherein the at least one electron beam source, the treatment chamber and the pumping chamber form a closed assembly.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the treatment chamber comprises a target adapted to, under the effect of the electron beam or of the plasma, emitting particles toward the part so as to induce a process of thin film depositing on said part by sputtering or electron beam vapor deposition.
Regarding claim 6, Ono teach wherein the treatment chamber comprises a target Fig. 3 – 38) adapted to, under the effect of the electron beam or of the plasma (Page 5 line 23), emitting particles toward the part so as to induce a process of thin film depositing on said part by sputtering or electron beam vapor deposition (Page 5 lines 4-18).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is comprising a deflection apparatus having an electromagnet of permanent magnet, adapted to deflect the electron beam in the treatment chamber, the deflection apparatus being movable.
Regarding claim 11, Ono teaches a deflection apparatus having an electromagnet of permanent magnet, adapted to deflect the electron beam in the treatment chamber, the deflection apparatus being movable. (Page 5 lines 20-22)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the treatment chamber is delimited by walls of a cylindrical or parallelepiped body, and the pumping chamber is positioned against a side wall of the body, inside or outside of the body and the pumping chamber being coaxial with the treatment chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Ono teaches in Fig. 3 the treatment chamber is delimited by walls (37) of a cylindrical or parallelepiped body, and the pumping chamber is positioned against a side wall of the body, inside or outside of the body and the pumping chamber being coaxial with the treatment chamber. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one electron beam source comprises an electron generation chamber and a tube between the electron generation chamber and the treatment chamber, the tube being coupled to the pumping chamber and the at least one second port being between the pumping chamber and the tube of the at least one electron beam source.
Regarding claim 13, Ono teaches in Fig. 3 at least one electron beam source comprises an electron generation chamber and a tube between the electron generation chamber and the treatment chamber, the tube being coupled to the pumping chamber and the at least one second port being between the pumping chamber and the tube of the at least one electron beam source. (See Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
440
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one electron beam source comprises a focusing apparatus such as an electromagnet, adapted to focus the electron beam and for example to direct it towards the treatment chamber.
Regarding claim 14, Ono teaches wherein the at least one electron beam source comprises a focusing apparatus, adapted to focus the electron beam. (Page 5 – magnets 33 as focusing apparatus) Magnets covers the optional “such as” electromagnets via genus species. Magnetic fields of the magnets 33 direct the electrons towards the treatment chamber. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is a plurality of electron beam sources external to the treatment chamber.
Regarding claim 16, Ono teaches a plurality of electron beam sources external to the treatment chamber. (Page 5 lines 6-10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein at least two of the electron beam sources are adapted to emitting electrons along a single beam plane or along two mutually parallel beam planes.
Regarding claim 17, Ono teaches utilizing a plurality of electron beam sources external to the treatment chamber and around the chamber. This covers a single beam plane or along two mutually parallel beam planes. (Page 5 lines 6-10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one first port, and/or the at least one second port, corresponds to a port of a diaphragm.
Regarding claim 18, Ono teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the at least one first port, and/or the at least one second port, corresponds to a port of a diaphragm.
PNG
media_image3.png
450
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the device is adapted to implementing:
- a thin-film deposition by sputtering;
- a thin-film deposition by electron beam vapor deposition;
- a cleaning by means of a plasma;
- a layer densification by means of a plasma; and/or
- a plasma etching.
Regarding claim 19, Ono teach deposition by sputtering. (Page 5 line 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Okumura et al. is that it allows for higher film formation rate. (Column 2 line 57)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ono by utilizing the features of Okumura et al. because it allows for higher film formation rates.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Okumura et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-19 above, and further in view of Bergmann et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,238,546).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the treatment chamber comprises a first support base adapted to support the target, the first support base being movable. (Here the target is understood to be crucible. Column 8 lines 10- 11 -Thereafter, the electron beam gun was switched on and its output was increased up to 700 watts. The voltage between the filament and the crucible was 10.6 kV. The crucible was made to rotate a 2 rpm. The focal spot with a diameter of about 1 millimeter was focused on the sector of the vessel located closer to the exit opening of the electron beam.; Column 6 lines 32-41, 65-68)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first support base comprises, or consists of a cooled crucible.
Regarding claim 8, Bergmann et al. teach wherein the first support base comprises, or consists of a cooled crucible. (Column 6 lines 32-41)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the device comprises a source for biasing the target to a voltage in the range from 0 to 10 kV, preferably from 2 to 5 kV AND/OR an element for cooling the target.
Regarding claim 9, Bergmann et al. teach a water cooling circuit for the target which meets the alternative language of the claims for the element for cooling the target. (Column 6 lines 32-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Bergmann et al. is that it allows for cooling the crucible to prevent overheating. (Column 6 lines 32-41)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Bergmann et al. because it allows for cooling the crucible to prevent overheating.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Okumura et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-19 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0167773 A1).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the support base holding the part to be treated is capable of moving.
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. teach a support base for holding a part to be treated capable of movement. (Paragraphs 0048, 0054)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yang et al. is that it allows for uniform deposition rate. (Paragraph 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Yang et al. because it allows for uniform deposition rate.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Okumura et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-19 above, and further in view of Simons, Jr. (U.S. Pat. 3,046,936).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is comprising a second vacuum pump coupled to the treatment chamber AND/OR a third vacuum pump coupled to the at least one electron beam source is not discussed.
Regarding claim 15, Simons, Jr. teaches a third vacuum pump coupled to the at least one electron beam source. (Selecting the third vacuum pump as the alternative selection from the and/or language of the claim.) (See Figure pumps 54, 56; Column 3 lines 27-32)
The motivation for providing a vacuum pump to the electron beam source is that it allows for preventing damage to the cathode of the electron chamber. (Column 3 lines 27-32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the features of Simons, Jr. because it allows for preventing damage to the cathode of the electron chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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 at 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RMNovember 18, 2025