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 .
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, 7-8: “process gas injection device” does not draw any corresponding structure from the present disclosure, see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite, “process gas injection device” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) without any additional corresponding structure in the claims or the specification to define the structure of the process gas injection device. The closet structure from the specification recites, “a process gas injection device that injects the process gas into a processing chamber (Pg. 4, lines 4-5)” however this recitation is further defining the function of the device rather than defining structure. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 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 limitation “process gas injection device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “process gas injection device” to include a connection to a supply of process gas for injection into the processing chamber, or equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “gradually” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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. The rate at which the temperature is increased is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “gradually” for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require an increase of temperature within the claimed range.
The term “gradually” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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. The rate at which the temperature is increased is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “gradually” for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require an increase of temperature within the claimed range.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the gradually increased temperature" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommend changing “the gradually increased temperature" in lines 2-3 to “the increased temperature” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 9-10 of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (WO 20100097888), hereinafter Aoki in view of Lessard et al. (WO 88/05500), hereinafter Lessard and Lorimer et al. (US 5,685,963), hereinafter Lorimer.
Regarding claim 1, a vacuum evacuation method to be performed by a cryopump which includes: a freezer equipped with a first stage part and a second stage part and configured to cool the first stage part and the second stage part; a cryopanel including a first stage panel cooled by the first stage part and a second stage panel cooled by the second stage part; a cryopump vessel surrounding the cryopanel; a first heater provided in the first stage part a process gas injection device that injects a process gas a processing chamber (Fig. 1, cryopump 1, two-stage refrigerator 2, first cooling stage 6, second cooling stage 7, cryopanel 8, louvers 10, casing 11, radiation shield 9, electric heater 12; Fig. 4, vacuum vessel 401, gas introducing means 406), and the vacuum evacuation method comprising:
controlling temperatures of the first stage part and the second stage part to be maintained within predetermined temperature ranges (Pg. 8, As described above, when the output value of the second temperature sensor 14 is an output value indicating a temperature higher than a predetermined value, the second temperature setting/control device 17 and the heating controller 18 heat the electric heater 12 that is a heating unit. By increasing the amount of heat, the drive frequency of the drive power supply is increased, and when the output value of the second temperature sensor 14 is an output value indicating a temperature lower than a predetermined value, the amount of heating heat of the electric heater 12 as a heating means is decreased. This constitutes a control means for reducing the drive frequency of the drive power supply);
measuring the temperature of the first stage part and the second stage part (Pg. 6, The first and second temperature sensors 13 and 14 are connected to the first and second temperature setting/control devices 16 and 17, respectively. The target temperature range of the first cooling stage 6 is set in the first temperature setting/controller 16. The first temperature setting/controlling device 16 controls the inverter 5 of the refrigerator driving power supply 4 based on the temperature detected by the first temperature sensor 13 and the set target temperature range of the first cooling stage 6. Control. That is, based on the output of the first temperature sensor 13, the execution speed of the cooling cycle of the two-stage refrigerator 2 is feedback controlled so as to keep the temperature of the first cooling stage 6 constant);
monitoring whether the temperature of the first stage part reaches a predetermined first stage reference temperature (Pg. 7, First, the cryopump is started (S201), and the temperature adjustment of the second cooling stage 7 is started after the temperature adjustment of the first cooling stage 6 is started (S202). During this temperature adjustment, it is monitored whether the temperature t of the second cooling stage 7 detected by the second temperature sensor 14 is within the target temperature range (S203). First, the cryopump is started (S201), and the temperature adjustment of the second cooling stage 7 is started after the temperature adjustment of the first cooling stage 6 is started (S202). During this temperature adjustment, it is monitored whether the temperature t of the second cooling stage 7 detected by the second temperature sensor 14 is within the target temperature range (S203). On the other hand, when it is detected that the temperature t of the second cooling stage 7 detected by the second temperature sensor 14 is higher than the maximum value Tmax of the target temperature range in spite of the temperature adjustment (S203-Yes). A control signal is output from the second temperature setting / control device 17 to the heating controller 18. Upon receiving this control signal, the heating controller 18 raises the power supplied from the heating power supply 19 to the electric heater 12. As a result, the output of the electric heater 12 increases (S204). When the heat load on the first cooling stage 6 increases, as described above, the drive temperature of the drive power of the two-stage refrigerator 2 is increased by the first temperature setting / control device 16 and the refrigeration cycle is accelerated. As a result, the refrigerating capacity of the second cooling stage 7 is increased, and the temperature t of the second cooling stage 7 is lowered. During this time, the temperature of the first cooling stage is maintained at the target temperature because the drive frequency of the two-stage refrigerator 2 is controlled based on the temperature of the temperature sensor 13 of the first cooling stage as described above);
a process of vacuum-evacuating the process gas (Pg. 9, In the sputtering process, as described above, for example, a gas having a high vapor pressure is used even at a low temperature such as Ar. These gases are condensed and exhausted in the second stage as described above. However, the temperature of the second stage varies depending on the heat load that varies depending on the usage environment or operating conditions. As a result, the exhaust characteristics of the cryopump change and the pressure in the vacuum vessel 401 changes; Further, the teachings of Aoki at least imply a process of vacuum-evacuating the process gas since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Aoki does not disclose a second heater provided in the second stage part (Fig. 3, first heating element 42, second heating element 44; Pg. 11, lines 4-13, A first heating element 42 contacts the first stage and a second heating element contacts the second stage 44 heat sink 28. The heating element 44 is used to adjust the temperature of the primary pumping surface so that there is optimal cryosorption of the gas being pumped on that surface. This embodiment uses a high conductance material such as copper for the member 30. The present embodiment uses the heating element 44 contacting the second stage heat sink to maintain the primary pumping surface at the optimal temperature T).
Aoki fails to teach a second heater provided in the second stage part, however Lessard teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryopumps to include a first heater provided in the first stage part and a second heater provided in the second stage part. This is strong evidence that modifying Aoki as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing individual temperature control of the first stage part and the second stage part to improve temperature control operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki by Lessard and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing individual temperature control of the first stage part and the second stage part to improve temperature control operations.
However, Aoki as modified does not explicitly disclose the vacuum evacuation method comprising:
a process of receiving an injection signal of the process gas from the process gas injection device that injects the process gas into the processing chamber;
a process of turning on the first heater based on the injection signal to increase a temperature of the first stage part;
a process of measuring the temperature of the first stage part;
a process of monitoring whether the temperature of the first stage part reaches a predetermined first stage reference temperature; and
a process of vacuum-evacuating the process gas when the temperature of the first stage part reaches the predetermined first stage reference temperature.
Lorimer teaches a vacuum evacuation method that indicates a beginning and an end of process gas flow and uses a cryopump and a getter pump that includes monitoring system parameters, including temperature and pressure, and heuristics to control to adjust the operation of the pumps during the vacuum evacuation method (Fig. 1, wafer processing system 10, first enclosure 12, cryopump 22; Fig. 8, steps 160-168; Fig. 9, steps 170-176; Col. 13, lines 12-42, In a step 160, argon begins to flow into the chamber, and in a step 162 the argon gas continues to flow and a plasma is created while maintaining both the in situ pump system and the cryopump system. Next, in a step 164, the plasma stops and the argon gas is turned off to allow the in situ pump system and the cryopump system to reduce pressure in the chamber. The processed wafer is then removed from the chamber in a step 166 and the process ends at step 168. A preferred process 162 corresponding to step 162 of FIG. 8 is illustrated in FIG. 9. The process 162 begins at 170 and, in a step 172, the composition and concentration of the gas and the chamber is monitored. Next, in a step 174, the operating parameters of the in situ getter pump are adjusted based upon the monitoring step and certain process heuristics. The process 162 ends at 176. It should be noted that the process 162 illustrated in FIG. 9 is an embodiment of the closed-loop or feedback process. Of course, the open-loop processes described are also viable and may be preferable for certain applications. The operating parameters of the in situ getter pump referred to in step 174 can include activating one or more getter modules, changing the temperature of a getter module, etc. Process heuristics are rules-of-thumb implemented by the system designer to optimize the process. For example, the system designer might decide that the temperature on a getter module having ST707 getter material should be dropped from 350° to ambient temperature when the partial pressure of water vapor reaches a certain level, or after a predetermined period of time, etc.).
Aoki as modified fails to teach the vacuum evacuation method comprising: a process of receiving an injection signal of the process gas from the process gas injection device that injects the process gas into the processing chamber; a process of turning on the first heater based on the injection signal to increase a temperature of the first stage part; a process of measuring the temperature of the first stage part; a process of monitoring whether the temperature of the first stage part reaches a predetermined first stage reference temperature; and a process of vacuum-evacuating the process gas when the temperature of the first stage part reaches the predetermined first stage reference temperature, however Lorimer teaches that it is a known method in the art of vacuum evacuation during sputtering to include a vacuum evacuation method that indicates a beginning and an end of process gas flow and uses a cryopump and a getter pump that includes monitoring system parameters, including temperature and pressure, and heuristics to control to adjust the operation of the pumps during the vacuum evacuation method. This is strong evidence that modifying Aoki as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing optimal temperature control of a cryopump during sputtering to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki as modified by Lorimer and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing optimal temperature control of a cryopump during sputtering to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 2, Aoki as modified discloses the vacuum evacuation method of Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Aoki as modified teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part from 35K to 60K by using the first heater. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part from 35K to 60K by using the first heater, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part from 35K to 60K by using the first heater, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Aoki as modified discloses the vacuum evacuation method of Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Aoki as modified teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part by 5K. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part by 5K, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the process of increasing the temperature includes a process of gradually increasing the temperature of the first stage part by 5K, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Aoki as modified discloses the vacuum evacuation method of Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a pressure of the process gas increases based on the gradually increased temperature of the first stage part and decreases when the temperature of the first stage part reaches the predetermined first stage reference temperature (Aoki, Pg. 9, In the sputtering process, as described above, for example, a gas having a high vapor pressure is used even at a low temperature such as Ar. These gases are condensed and exhausted in the second stage as described above. However, the temperature of the second stage varies depending on the heat load that varies depending on the usage environment or operating conditions. As a result, the exhaust characteristics of the cryopump change and the pressure in the vacuum vessel 401 changes), and
the pressure of the process gas is from 1E-10 Torr to 1E-6 Torr (Aoki, Pg. 3, For example, in argon, oxygen, and nitrogen, a temperature of 20K or less is required in order for all of these gases to have a vapor pressure of 1X10 .sup.-9 Pa or less. Considering the temperature gradient with the second cooling stage, the temperature of the second cooling stage needs to be about 15K or less).
Further, Aoki as modified teaches the claimed invention except for the pressure of the process gas is from 1E-10 Torr to 1E-6 Torr. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the pressure of the process gas is from 1E-10 Torr to 1E-6 Torr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the pressure of the process gas is from 1E-10 Torr to 1E-6 Torr, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Aoki as modified discloses the vacuum evacuation method of Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a process of receiving a non-injection signal of the process gas from the process gas injection device that injects the process gas into the processing chamber (Lorimer, Fig. 8, 164; Col. 13, lines 16-18, Next, in a step 164, the plasma stops and the argon gas is turned off to allow the in situ pump system and the cryopump system to reduce pressure in the chamber); and
a process of turning off the first heater of the first stage part to maintain the temperature of the first stage part in an idle state (Lorimer, Fig. 9, 170-176; Col. 13, lines 12-42, In a step 160, argon begins to flow into the chamber, and in a step 162 the argon gas continues to flow and a plasma is created while maintaining both the in situ pump system and the cryopump system. Next, in a step 164, the plasma stops and the argon gas is turned off to allow the in situ pump system and the cryopump system to reduce pressure in the chamber. The processed wafer is then removed from the chamber in a step 166 and the process ends at step 168. A preferred process 162 corresponding to step 162 of FIG. 8 is illustrated in FIG. 9. The process 162 begins at 170 and, in a step 172, the composition and concentration of the gas and the chamber is monitored. Next, in a step 174, the operating parameters of the in situ getter pump are adjusted based upon the monitoring step and certain process heuristics. The process 162 ends at 176. It should be noted that the process 162 illustrated in FIG. 9 is an embodiment of the closed-loop or feedback process. Of course, the open-loop processes described are also viable and may be preferable for certain applications. The operating parameters of the in situ getter pump referred to in step 174 can include activating one or more getter modules, changing the temperature of a getter module, etc. Process heuristics are rules-of-thumb implemented by the system designer to optimize the process. For example, the system designer might decide that the temperature on a getter module having ST707 getter material should be dropped from 350° to ambient temperature when the partial pressure of water vapor reaches a certain level, or after a predetermined period of time, etc.). Further, the limitations of claim 5 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chew et al. (US 20220120282) discloses a similar vacuum evacuation method in a sputtering process.
Timm et al. (WO 95/11381) discloses a similar vacuum evacuation method in a sputtering process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 June 8th, 2026
Prosecution Insights