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: a current measurement unit in claim 11 and a particle classification unit in claims 11-12.
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 Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of informalities, which appear to be minor draft errors causing grammatical and/or antecedent basis issues.
As noted in the following format (location of objection: suggestion for correction), the following objections may be overcome by making the corresponding corrections: (claim 17, last line: replacing “having” with --has--) and (claim 20, line 1: inserting -- system-- after “coating”).
Any dependent claim of the claim(s) with the noted objections above is also objected to by virtue of its claim dependency. For purposes of examination, the claims have been treated as such with the correction(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). See also MPEP 2173.05(q).
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.
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 5, 8-10, 12, 15, 17-19, and 21-23 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the word "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18-19, and 21-22, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9 and 17 recite the limitation "the charging current and/or discharging current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the measured charging current and/or discharging current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 21-23 provide for the use of an apparatus or system, but since the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noguchi et al. (US 5233191; hereinafter Noguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses a method for detecting particles in a gas of a process environment present in a process chamber (col. 2:51-3:18), the method comprising the steps of: guiding the gas, which potentially carries with it one or more particles, into an ionization and charging unit being in fluid communication with the process chamber (fig. 15; col. 15:27-39), wherein the ionization and charging unit has an anode and a cathode and is adapted and configured to at least partly ionize said gas and to charge at least some of said particles (col. 14:56-15:26; figs. 14-15); necessarily igniting and sustaining a discharge in said gas by applying a voltage between said anode and said cathode of the ionization and charging unit (col. 15:18-23); measuring a current flowing from or to the anode and/or from and to the cathode; detecting the particles based on an AC component or a transient of the measured current (col. 15:33-39).
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi discloses a step of classifying the particles based on a signature of the AC component or of the transient of the measured current (col. 15:14-26).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, Noguchi discloses wherein the particles to be detected necessarily have a mass of more than 1000 Dalton (col. 14:33).
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi discloses wherein the ionization and charging unit has an inlet at one end and an outlet at an other end, so that the gas can pass through the ionization and charging unit (figs. 14-15).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Noguchi discloses wherein the gas is in the group comprising air (col. 59-66), nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, and argon.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Noguchi discloses wherein a pressure of the gas, at which pressure the detection takes place, is less than atmospheric pressure (col. 14:41), in particular down to 10−8 mbar.
Regarding claim 10, Noguchi discloses the step of indicating that particles have been detected when the AC component or the transient exceeds a predetermined threshold (fig. 14: in order to count with 228), and/or indicating that a certain class of particles has been detected when an associated signature, in particular from one or more predetermined signatures, of the AC component or of the transient has been detected.
Regarding claim 11, Noguchi discloses an apparatus for detecting particles in a gas of a process environment in a process chamber (fig. 15; col. 15:27-39), the apparatus comprising: an ionization and charging unit with an anode (225) and a cathode (22), adapted and configured to at least partly ionize said gas and to charge at least some of said particles; a voltage source (220) connected between said anode and said cathode of the ionization and charging unit; a current measurement unit (227) adapted to measure a current from or to the anode and/or from and to the cathode; a particle classification unit adapted to detect the particles based on an AC (alternating current) component or a transient of the measured current (particles detected by 227)).
Regarding claim 12, Noguchi discloses wherein the particle classification unit is further adapted to classify the particles based on a signature of the AC component or of the transient of the measured charging current and/or discharging current (col. 15:14-26).
Regarding claim 13, Noguchi discloses wherein the particles to be detected necessarily have a mass of more than 1000 Dalton (col. 14:33).
Regarding claim 16, Noguchi discloses wherein the ionization and charging unit has an inlet at one end and an outlet at an other end, so that the gas can pass through the ionization and charging unit (figs. 14-15).
Regarding claim 18, Noguchi discloses an output for a signal indicating that particles have been detected when the AC component or the transient exceeds a predetermined threshold (fig. 14: in order to count with 228), and/or indicating that a certain class of particles has been detected when an associated signature, in particular from one or more predetermined signatures, of the AC component or of the transient has been detected.
Regarding claim 19, Noguchi discloses a coating system, etching system (col. 3:68) or lithographic system, wherein the apparatus is in particular located within a delivery pipe for delivering the gas to the processing chamber or within a discharge pipe for discharging the gas from the process chamber (col. 3:68).
Regarding claim 20, Noguchi discloses the system being a system for performing CVD, PVD, PECVD or ALD processes or an epitaxy system (col. 3:68).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
Noguchi discloses claims 1 and 11. Noguchi further discloses wherein an electric field between the anode and the cathode has a strength (due to 229).
However, Noguchi fails to disclose a range from 300 to 3000 kV/m.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Noguchi with a range from 300 to 3000 kV/m, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Noguchi: with 229), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for providing more power to ensure dust and/or impurity detection with more accuracy and ease (Noguchi: col. 2:62-3:4).
Claim(s) 5, 9, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gorkhover et al. (US 2022/0172941; hereinafter Gorkhover).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Noguchi discloses claims 1 and 11. Noguchi further discloses wherein the gas is moved into an opening of the ionization unit by means of a conduit (figs. 14-15), wherein the conduit optionally may be heated to a temperature above the temperature of its surrounding.
However, Noguchi fails to disclose wherein the gas is focussed by means of a hydrodynamic lens.
Gorkhover teaches wherein the gas is focussed by means of a hydrodynamic lens (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Noguchi with the teaching of Gorkhover, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better controlling the ionization (Gorkhover: fig. 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Gorkhover further teaches wherein the step of detecting comprises amplifying the charging current and/or discharging current by means of an AC amplifier circuit (8a, 8b) having a bandwidth (as seen by the output in fig. 1).
However, Gorkhover fails to disclose a bandwidth of at least 500 MHz.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the prior art with a bandwidth of at least 500 MHz, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Gorkhover: fig. 1), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for having as large of a bandwith as possible, like an ideal op-amp, so no data is lost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights