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 .
Summary
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines in the graphs of FIGS. 1 and 2 cannot be differentiated. It appears that the original image was in color, therefore in black and white different patterns of dashes, dots, etc. should be used to differentiate one line from another. 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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 states that it is a “method of determining relative particle concentration and a relative particle-precursor concentration…and of determining a correlation of the concentrations with expected wafer-defect densities” however such a method does not appear to be set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure. The Applicant lists many different parameters involved in wafer processing operations. The Applicant then attempts to state how other parameters can be adjusted to change the first set of parameters. However there does not appear to be any nexus between the listed parameters and expected wafer-defect densities. Furthermore, no instructions are given for how the parameters can be adjusted. What apparatus is used? How is it set up? What are the steps in the measuring process? How is the sensor data processed? What calculations are made?
Regarding claims 2-21: These claims are rejected as lacking enablement due to their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/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 claims 1-21: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the apparatus (sensors, controllers, mechanisms/equipment for adjusting all of the manufacturing parameters in claims 3-7 and 9-21) and the actual method steps of “determining a relative particle concentration and a relative particle-precursor concentration” as well as the steps of correlating those values “with expected wafer-defect densities.”
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “manipulation” of at least one of three values and one piece of equipment. However claim 1 provides no method steps as to how any of this can actually be accomplished. To manipulate means “to manage or utilize skillfully” (retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulation on 27 July 2026). Therefore the only method step in claim 1 is to utilize one of the listed variables (initial nebulized droplet-size distribution, post-nebulization droplet-size distribution, aerosolized particle-size distribution) or an aerosol particle detector. Please note that the three listed variables are not input parameters (like pressure or temperature in the vacuum chamber where the wafers are processed). Rather, they are output variables, meaning that a particular wafer-processing setup, will produce a particular particle or droplet size distribution.
Regarding claims 2 and 8: Manipulating a peak in a droplet size distribution is stating a change in the output of a process. It is therefore indefinite as to how this output value is “manipulated.” This reasoning also applies to claim 8.
Regarding claims 3 and 9: What piece of equipment has the ultrasonic frequency or amplitude? What is being adjusted? This reasoning also applies to claim 9.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 12: What is “an ultrasonic liquid flow rate?” Is this a flow rate of a liquid measured with an ultrasonic sensor? Is there an ultrasonic device that is causing the liquid to flow? How is it adjusted? This reasoning also applies to claim 10. This reasoning also applies to “ultrasonic carrier-gas flowrate” in claim 12.
Regarding claim 5: What apparatus has a pneumatic orifice or capillary? What is flowing through it? How is it adjusted?
Regarding claim 6: What gas is being adjusted? What apparatus is it a part of?
Regarding claim 7: What is a pneumatic liquid flow rate? The word “pneumatic” pertains to gas, which seems to contradict “liquid.” Is the flow rate of the liquid measured by some pneumatic apparatus? How is the flow rate adjusted?
Regarding claim 11: What is an ultrasonic diameter? Does the conduit carry the fluid by ultrasonic means? Is the diameter of the conduit measured by ultrasonic means? What does the conduit carry? What apparatus is it part of?
Regarding claims 13-15: What apparatus is the Rayleigh jet part of? What is the liquid that is being jetted?
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 21: It what way is inertial impaction used to manipulate the droplet size distribution? Is an inertial impactor installed when there was not one previously? Is the spacing of the plates or the geometry of the areas of flow changed? If so, according to what criteria? This reasoning also applies to the virtual impaction in claim 21.
Regarding claims 18-20: Different types of separation are recited, but there is no explanation of how they are to be used, what apparatus is used, how the parameters are adjusted or how to correlate any produced data with wafer defect densities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights