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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al (WO 2013138258 A1) in view of Shanbhag et al (US 10760158 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Larson et al discloses a mounted x-ray window comprising: a housing including a flange (2) encircling an aperture (6) (col. Lines 27-60); an x-ray window mounted on the flange and spanning and covering the aperture (See Fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 67-col. 6, line 6); the x-ray window including one or more layers (4) (i.e. beryllium film) each having an atomic number less than 14 (col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, line 3). Larson et al is silent with regards to an additive passivation film as claimed. Shanbhag et al discloses an ex situ coating of chamber components for semiconductor processing comprising: a protective coating (passivation film, i.e. aluminum oxide, aluminum fluoride, aluminum nitride, etc.) (See Abstract) ex situ in an atomic layer deposition process to coat one or more chamber components subsequently installed in a reaction chamber; the additive passivation film having a thickness greater than 5 nanometers (nm) (col. 3, lines 12-19) and less than a thickness of each of the one or more layers (i.e. beryllium film), and comprising a material different than the one or more layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Larson et al with the teaching of Shanbhag et al so as to preserve x-ray transmission while improving seal and environmental durability.
Regarding claims 2-3, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film includes at least one material selected from aluminum oxide, boron nitride, boron trioxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, aluminum fluoride, boron carbide, and boron oxide (col. 13, lines 42-52).
Regarding claim 4, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film is an atomic layer deposition (ALD) film (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein a surface of the one or more layers comprises micro-cracks (defects), and wherein the additive passivation film fills the surface micro-cracks (col. 35, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 6, Larson et al discloses further comprising: a seam between a perimeter edge of the x-ray window and the flange of the housing (See Fig. 15); an adhesive in the seam and adhering the x-ray window to the flange (2); and the additive passivation film (4) (i.e. beryllium film) extending beyond the x-ray window and overlapping the seam (See Fig. 12, pages 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film extending beyond the x-ray window and overlapping the housing (chamber) (col. 18, lines 15-50).
Regarding claim 8, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film covers an exterior surface of the housing (chamber) (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film covers an interior surface of the housing (chamber) (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film covers both an exterior surface and an interior surface of the housing (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film is an outermost layer with respect to the plurality of layers and has an exposed surface (col. 10, lines 13-33).
Regarding claim 12, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film is an inner layer sandwiched between two of the plurality of layers (col. 13, lines 53-67).
Regarding claim 13, Larson et al discloses further comprising: a support grid with one or more layers on the support grid, the support grid comprising ribs spanning the aperture (See Figs. 1-4); a passivation film (4) (i.e. beryllium film) disposed on ribs and overlapping interface between ribs and layers).
Regarding claim 14, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film is added to a surface of the one or more layers (col. 13, lines 53-67).
Regarding claim 15, Larson et al discloses a mounted x-ray window comprising: a housing including a flange (2) encircling an aperture (6) (col. Lines 27-60); an x-ray window mounted on the flange and spanning and covering the aperture (See Fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 67-col. 6, line 6); the x-ray window including stack of layers (4) (i.e. beryllium film) having an atomic number less than 14 (col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, line 3). Larson et al is silent with regards to an additive passivation film as claimed. Shanbhag et al discloses an ex situ coating of chamber components for semiconductor processing comprising: a protective coating (passivation film, i.e. aluminum oxide, aluminum fluoride, aluminum nitride, etc.) (See Abstract) ex situ in an atomic layer deposition process to coat one or more chamber components subsequently installed in a reaction chamber; the additive passivation film having a thickness greater than 5 nanometers (nm) (col. 3, lines 12-19) and less than a thickness of each of the one or more layers (i.e. beryllium film), and comprising a material different than the one or more layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Larson et al with the teaching of Shanbhag et al so as to preserve x-ray transmission while improving seal and environmental durability.
Regarding claim 16, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film is an atomic layer deposition (ALD) film (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Larson et al discloses further comprising: a seam between a perimeter edge of the x-ray window and the flange of the housing (See Fig. 15); an adhesive in the seam and adhering the x-ray window to the flange (2); and the additive passivation film (4) (i.e. beryllium film) extending beyond the x-ray window and overlapping the seam (See Fig. 12, pages 7-8).
Regarding claim 18, Larson et al in view of Shanbhag et al discloses wherein the additive passivation film extending beyond the x-ray window and overlapping the housing (chamber) (col. 18, lines 15-50).
Regarding claim 19, Larson et al discloses further comprising: a support grid with one or more layers on the support grid, the support grid comprising ribs spanning the aperture (See Figs. 1-4); a passivation film (4) (i.e. beryllium film) disposed on ribs and overlapping interface between ribs and layers).
Regarding claim 20, Larson et al discloses a mounted x-ray window comprising: a housing including a flange (2) encircling an aperture (6) (col. Lines 27-60); an x-ray window mounted on the flange and spanning and covering the aperture (See Fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 67-col. 6, line 6); the x-ray window including stack of layers (4) (i.e. beryllium film) having an atomic number less than 14 (col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, line 3). Larson et al is silent with regards to an additive passivation film as claimed. Shanbhag et al discloses an ex situ coating of chamber components for semiconductor processing comprising: a protective coating (passivation film, i.e. aluminum oxide, aluminum fluoride, aluminum nitride, etc.) (See Abstract) ex situ in an atomic layer deposition process to coat one or more chamber components subsequently installed in a reaction chamber; the additive passivation film having a thickness greater than 5 nanometers (nm) (col. 3, lines 12-19) and less than a thickness of each of the one or more layers (i.e. beryllium film), and comprising a material different than the one or more layers; the additive passivation film extending beyond the x-ray window and overlapping the housing (chamber) (col. 18, lines 15-50). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Larson et al with the teaching of Shanbhag et al so as to preserve x-ray transmission while improving seal and environmental durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al (US 5161179 A) discloses a beryllium window comprises a disk-shaped beryllium plate containing beryllium as an essential element, a welding film partially merged into the outer peripheral portion of the beryllium plate and formed of a substance having at least one element selected from the group consisting of silver, gold, nickel and copper, and a reinforcing unit of a stainless steel, and the welding film is partially merged into the reinforcing unit, wherein the welding film fixes the beryllium plate to the reinforcing unit through diffusion welding so that the beryllium window is less deformative against heat stress.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liddiard et al (US 9305735 B2) discloses an x-ray window comprising a polymer and carbon nanotubes and/or graphene. The carbon nanotubes and/or graphene can be embedded in the polymer. Multiple layers of polymer, carbon nanotubes, and/or graphene may be used. The polymer with carbon nanotubes and/or graphene can be used as an x-ray window support structure and/or thin film.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights