DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 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.
In line 2 of claim 1, the phrase “two high-intensity electric fields” (emphasis added) is subjective, vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what specific range of electric fields that applicants considered as “two high-intensity electric fields”.
In line 9 of claim 1, the phrase “a preferred ratio of, but not limited to, 1:0.4:0.2” is indefinite. It is unclear from the claim whether the cited ratio of 1:0.4:0.2 is required or not since it is “a preferred ratio, but not limited to”. Further, it is unclear from the claim what other ratio for the gas that applicants wish to claim. In addition, it is unclear the basis of the ratio (i.e. mass ratio, volume ratio or mol ratio).
In line 10 of claim 1, the phrase “a source power of preferably 1200 W” (emphasis added) is indefinite. The examiner interprets the term “preferably” means by choice or preference (used to indicate what is wanted or preferred) (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preferably ). It is unclear from the claim whether any limitation right after the term “preferably” is required or not.
In line 10 of claim 1, the phrase “a bias power of preferably 175 W” (emphasis added) is indefinite for the same reason as discussed above. It is unclear from the claim whether any limitation right after the term “preferably” is required or not.
In line 1, the applicants recited “A lateral and vertical dielectrophoresis method for micro/nano-scale biological and metabolic sensors and actuators using two high-intensity electric fields, comprising the following steps:
S1. performing a resist plasma etching ….
S2. performing the metal etching ….
S3. Performing metal profile measurement to measure a remaining thickness; wherein
an inductively coupled plasma process based on chemical and physical etching mechanisms is introduced, and four-step etching technique conditions are introduced to control etching quality;
the four-step etching technique conditions comprise:
breakthrough etching controlled by time;
main etching controlled by endpoint detection;
over-etching controlled by time of an etching process; and
residue removal etching controlled by the time of an etching process.” (emphasis added).
It is noted that step S1, S2 and S3 in claim 1 do not explicitly recite “an inductively coupled plasma process”. It is unclear whether “an inductively couple plasma process” occurs in step S1, or S2 or S3. Further, it is unclear whether the four-step etching technique conditions occur in step S1, S2 or both or in another new step.
In line 2 of claim 2, the phrase “two high-intensity electric fields” is subjective, vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what specific range of electric fields that applicants considered as “two high-intensity electric fields”.
In line 3 of claim 2, the phrase “wherein oxygen is primary gas for resist etching” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the phrase “resist etching” as recited in claim 2 is referred to “resist plasma etching” as recited in step S1 of claim 1 or not.
In line 2 of claim 3, the phrase “two high-intensity electric fields” is subjective, vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the claim what specific range of electric fields that applicants considered as “high-intensity electric fields”.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1. In claim 3, the applicants recited “the chlorine is a chlorine-based gas and is used as a primary etchant for plasma-free aluminum”. It is noted that in claim 1, applicants do not explicitly disclose the metal is aluminum and step S2 is plasma-free. It is unclear whether the limitation “the chlorine is a chlorine-based gas and is used as a primary etchant for plasma-free aluminum” is referred to step S2 or to another unrecited step.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1. In claim 4 the applicants recite “the breakthrough etching is performed to remove native oxide”. However, in claim 1 applicants do not explicitly disclose the present of native oxide. It is unclear whether the present of native oxide is required or not.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1. In claim 5, the applicants recite “the main etching is performed to remove bulk aluminum”. However, in claim 1 applicants do not explicitly disclose the present of aluminum layer, or the metal comprises aluminum. It is unclear whether the present of aluminum is required or not.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. In claim 6 the applicants recite “the over-etching and the residue removal etching are performed to remove residual aluminum on thicker areas of aluminum and to remove aluminum residues.”. However, in claim 1 applicants do not explicitly disclose the present of aluminum layer, or the metal comprises aluminum. It is unclear whether the present of aluminum is required or not.
The phrase “two high-intensity electric fields” as recited in claims 4-10 is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the two tapered electrodes" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the top electrode surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the top electrode surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the two tapered electrodes" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buyong et al. (MY 182174-A).
As to claim 1, Buyong discloses A lateral and vertical dielectrophoresis method for micro/nano-scale biological and metabolic sensors and actuators using two high-intensity electric fields (pages 10-11, comprising the following steps:
S1. performing resist plasma etching before metal etching to form a resist profile at a sidewall, wherein a high-pressure baseline formulation comprises oxygen, nitrogen and argon in a ratio of 1:4:140, with a pressure of 1600 mT, and an RF power of 1300 W, which is used to produce a pre-designed angle resist (abstract, pages 5-6, page 14; Buyong’s claim 1);
S2. performing the metal etching, wherein a baseline instruction comprises chlorine, boron trichloride and argon, with a preferred ratio of, but not limited to, 1:0.4:0.2, a pressure of 8 mT, a source power of preferably 1200 W, and a bias power of preferably 175 W (abstract, pages 5-6; page 14-15 and
S3. performing metal profiling measurement to measure a remaining thickness; wherein
an inductively coupled plasma process based on chemical and physical etching mechanisms is introduced, and new four-step etching technique conditions are introduced to control etching quality;
the four-step etching technique conditions comprise:
breakthrough etching controlled by time;
main etching controlled by endpoint detection;
over-etching controlled by time of an etching process; and
residue removal etching controlled by the time of an etching process (abstract; pages 5-6, page 14-15, Buyong’s claim 1).
As to claim 2, Buyong discloses wherein the oxygen is a primary gas for resist etching, the nitrogen is a buffer gas to maintain a higher chamber pressure, and the argon is used to increase a plasma density (page 6, Buyong’s claim 2).
As to claim 3, Buyong discloses wherein the chlorine is a chlorine-based gas and is used as a primary etchant for plasma-free aluminum (page 6, Buyong’s claim 3).
As to claim 4, Buyong discloses wherein the breakthrough etching is performed to remove native oxide and resist residues left after a photolithography process (page 6, Buyong’s claim 4).
As to claim 5, Buyong discloses wherein the main etching is performed to remove bulk aluminum (page 6, Buyong’s claim 5).
As to claim 6, Buyong discloses wherein the over-etching and the residue removal etching are performed to remove residual aluminum on thicker areas of aluminum and to remove aluminum residues (page 6, Buyong’s claim 6).
As to claim 7, Buyong discloses wherein timing of the breakthrough etching, the over-etching and the residue removal etching is selected on the basis of visual inspection through a microscope for color monitoring, a critical dimension scanning electron microscope for critical dimension measurement, and a field emission scanning electron microscope for cross-sectional views (page 6, Buyong’s claim 7).
As to claim 8, Buyong discloses wherein the method further uses a microfluidic channel with one inlet end and three outlet ends to separate target particles and non-target particles to two different locations, that is, a top electrode surface, and between two tapered electrodes (pages 6-7, Buyong’s claim 8).
As to claim 9, Buyong discloses wherein the method involves lateral separation of dielectrophoresis (DEP) force, the lateral separation of DEP force is positive DEP (PDEP) attractive force between the two tapered electrodes and the top electrode surface along a Y axis, and a separation yield of particles having lateral motion to terminal ends of electrodes in synchronization with a capillary of an X axis (page 9, Buyong’s claim 9).
As to claim 10, Buyong discloses wherein the method further comprises vertical separation of DEP force, the vertical separation of DEP force is negative DEP (NDEP) repulsive force from the top electrode surface to the two tapered electrodes along the X axis, and a separation yield of particles having vertical motion in synchronization with the capillary of the X axis (page 9, Buyong’s claim 10).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights