DETAILED 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 15 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.
The claim requires a “fire rod”. While the applicants may define terms, the Office takes the position that “fire rod” is not sufficiently specifically defined in the specification. Also, while generically/somewhat known in the industry, there is not a sufficiently specific definition such that one would know the full metes/bounds of the term.
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.
Claims 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Welch (6,192,827).
Welch teaches a process kit for use in a process chamber – as a matter of claim interpretation, the process kit is held as a compilation of parts meeting the claim requirements, even if Welch does not teach the compilation as a process kit.
Welch teaches a liner with an annular shape and transfer slot – see Figs. 1-3 and col 4, lines 10-67 wherein the system includes a liner,
- and also teaches a slit door having an arcuate profile with a first and second surface; the use of the a “plasma facing surface” is intended use of the apparatus, 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), so, regardless of plasma, the structure is met, and
- an actuator assembly coupled to the slit door and configured to move the door in a vertical direction, see Figs. 2 and 3A/B, see wherein the assembly is 30, includes rods 200, 210 and further described particularly per col 4, lines 10-67, further as per Figs. 9 and 10, the teachings show the arrangement of the slit door moving vertically between open and closed, and wherein in a closed position it is substantially flush with an inner surface of the liner (see also col 7, lines 14-29).
Regarding claim 12, there is a recessed portion as per Figs. 9/10.
Regarding claim 17, the teachings further include a chamber, see Figs. 1/2 and the cited text, wherein the slit door is used to load substrates (i.e. aligned with the opening in the chamber) and has an annular shape as depicted. As per claim 12 there is a recessed portion. In regard to the substrate support, this is not shown, but it is understood wherein the teachings include that the door is used for loading substrates. Per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit teachings.
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 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings are silent on the door material, but the selection of a material that is not demonstrated as criticality is not a basis for patentability, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, the teachings include a recessed portion per Figs. 9 and 10 but not specifically as claimed with the liner, but as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. a change of shape is obvious without a showing of criticality, in this case, the specific shape would be a design selection based on the shape of the chamber and the door.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (6,192,827) in view of Amir (2017/0211706).
The teachings of Welch are described above, and do not describe the door such as including an inner and outer plate. Amir teaches a ceramic slit valve door wherein the door comprises a door and a backing plate (i.e. inner and outer plate as claimed) [0024-31] and Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to form the door of Welch with an inner and outer portion as such an arrangement is an effective door for sealing a process chamber as per Amir.
Claims 1-4, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (6,192,827) in view of Gurary (2005/0217578).
Welch teaches a slit door assembly for use in a process chamber comprising:
- a slit door having an arcuate profile with a first and second surface; the use of the a “plasma facing surface” is intended use of the apparatus, as explained above,
- the teachings include a recessed portion, see Figs. 9 and 10, but in any case per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. a change of shape is obvious without a showing of criticality,
- an actuator assembly coupled to the slit door and configured to move the door in a vertical direction, see Figs. 2 and 3A/B, see wherein the assembly is 30, includes rods 200, 210 and further described particularly per col 4, lines 10-67, but the teachings do not include a cooling channel in the cooling rods leading to the door.
Gurary teaches, however, that it is useful to cool a door (shutter) of a process chamber by providing a cooling fluid to a cooling channel within a cooling fluid passage within the movable tubing (i.e. rod) that moves the door, see particularly Fig. 3A/B and [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the cooling mechanism of Gurary to the door of Welch as Welch teaches that such a cooling mechanism is useful for controlling temperature in a processing system.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings are silent on the material of the door, but the selection of a material that is not demonstrated as criticality is not a basis for patentability, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, the teachings generally include a cooling fluid – however, such a cooling or heating fluid is a matter of intended use and control of the temperature of the fluid relative to the temperature of the system, as such, the prior art system is capable of performing heating or cooling and the limitations are met.
Regarding claims 15, 18 and 19, the claim limitations are met per the combination of Welch and Grurary, wherein the fluid effecting a heating or cooling, depends on the relative temperature of the chamber and surrounding parts, therefore it is an intended use of the apparatus.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (6,192,827) and Gurary (2005/0217578) in view of Tsung-Lin (2003/0136343).
The teachings of Welch and Gurary are described above, and do not describe the damping or heat transfer pads at the top of the door. It is initially noted that the intended use of either pad is not limiting and a pad for any purpose meets the structural requirements of the claim. Tsung-Lin teaches that an elastic cushion is useful for surround a door in order that seal better against a perimeter of a chamber [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the cushion, i.e. pad, of Tsung-Lin in the apparatus of Welch for the described benefit. Wherein “damping” and “heat transfer” per claims 6 and 10 are not limited, the cushion is held in any case to meet the requirements of a pad and as it surrounds the door, is at least atop.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (6,192,827) and Gurary (2005/0217578) in view of Amir (2017/0211706).
The teachings of Welch and Gurary are described above, and do not describe the door such as including an inner and outer plate. Amir teaches a ceramic slit valve door wherein the door comprises a door and a backing plate (i.e. inner and outer plate as claimed) [0024-31] and Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to form the door of Welch with an inner and outer portion as such an arrangement is an effective door for sealing a process chamber as per Amir. In regard to the particular shape of the door, i.e. ledges and gap, such is a routine selection of shape in order to make the door function in the manner desired, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. and while different from the prior art, the changes are obvious and not inventive without a showing of criticality. To claim 8, that is a function of the size selection further to making the door functional (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (6,192,827) and Gurary (2005/0217578) in view of Gautam (2020/0378006).
The teachings of Welch and Gurary are described above, and do not describe an RF gasket in a recess in the door. Gautam teaches that in a door for a processing chamber, wherein the chamber includes plasma (see abstract), it is useful to include an RF gasket and groove between the door and the system [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the RF gasket and groove (recess) to the door assembly of Welch as Gautam teaches that such is effective in order prevent RF loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is 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. While heating or cooling as noted is intended use, the structure of the combined prior art does not allow for some rods to be associated with heating and some with cooling – particularly wherein there is further a bracket including two of the rods and the heaters displaced from the bracket.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach cooling channels along with a fire rod, the Office suggests changing the term to a resistive heater.
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
