DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on September 12, 2025. Claims 1 and 13-15 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) Mayeda’s clamping mechanism is intended for use only in sub-atmospheric, near-vacuum, or atmospheric pressures, since the spring-actuated pivotal lever is unsuitable in high-pressure contexts. Claim 1, of course, has been amended to stipulate a “high-pressure process…under a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure” (p. 12).
(2) Mayeda’s clamping mechanism does not clamp the flange portions “inside a clamping channel,” as claim 1 requires (p. 12).
In response,
(1) The examiner does not find this persuasive given Applicant’s stipulation that Mayeda already establishes operability of the clamping mechanism at atmospheric pressure. The claimed range of a “pressure higher than atmospheric pressure” formally enfolds a pressure value infinitesimally higher than atmospheric pressure; it stands to reason that if Mayeda’s spring is fully operable at a given value, one of ordinary skill would presume operability at an infinitesimally higher value. Further, the reference discloses that the biasing force “is proportional to the strength of the included spring” (4, 35-46). If a given context of use demanded a stronger biasing force, the selection of a spring appropriate to the task would have been obvious, since applying a known technique to a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
(2) The examiner disagrees, as one can trace a path from the terminus of Mayeda’s lever (26) to the base of the clamping mechanism’s body (24), whereby this path clearly encloses the respective flanges of the upper and lower tubes (Fig. 2). This path, then, may be plausibly construed as the claimed “clamping channel.”
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.
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) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – “assembly,” “member,” “module,” and “part,” in this case – that are 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 limitations are:
The “manifold assembly” of claims 1, 13-14, 16, and 18;
The first and second “coupling parts” of claim 6;
The “coupling member” of claim 6;
The “inner pumping part” of claim 13;
The “elastic part” of claim 16;
The “detection parts” of claim 19.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The manifold assembly will be interpreted as an outer manifold (50) and an inner manifold (60) in accordance with paragraph [0120] of the specification.
The coupling part will be interpreted as bolt hole in accordance with paragraph [0126].
The coupling member (58) will be interpreted as a bolt in accordance with paragraphs [0145] and [0160].
The inner pumping part (740) will be interpreted as an exhaust line in accordance with Figure 8.
The elastic part will be interpreted as spring (212) in accordance with paragraph [0200];
The detection part will be interpreted as a current-generating sensor in accordance with paragraph [0244].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The final paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to read, “a plurality of actuators distributed at one of a plurality of positions on the base plate.” Read literally, this syntax implies that all of the actuators are disposed at only one of the positions on the base plate, which is incorrect. The examiner suggests, a plurality of actuators respectively distributed at a plurality of positions on the base plate. To advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as if the suggested changes have already been rendered.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim recites “a base plate,” but claim 1 has already invoked this very feature. It is unclear, then, if the base plate of claim 14 further clarifies the base plate of claim 1, or if it is invoking a second base plate. Clarification is required. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will interpret the base plate of claim 14 as further clarifying the base plate of claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The claim refers to “a releasing position and a locked position,” but claim 1 already recites these same positions. As such, it is unclear if the releasing and locked positions of claim 15 further clarify the same positions of claim 1 or different positions. The examiner suggests amending claim 15 to recite the releasing position and the locked position. To advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as if the suggested changes have already been rendered.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The final line of this claim specifies that the cap flange and manifold assembly “are close by the first spaced interval.” The examiner suggests substituting spaced apart for “close,” as the latter’s use in this case appears nonstandard, and its form as a verb or adjective is unclear. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as if the suggested changes have already been rendered.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The final line of the first paragraph of claim 20 refers to the lower tube “to be drawn to the outside.” The examiner finds this phrase to be indefinite, as the verb “drawn” implies active movement and seems inapt to describe a static feature like a tube. Further, the term “outside” lacks context: the tube is outside relative to what boundary? Clarification is required. To advance prosecution,
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, US 6,187,102, in view of Mayeda et al., US 5,497,727, and Seo et al., US 2007/0080156.
Claims 1, 13-15: Yamamoto provides a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
An outer tube (4b) which defines a protective space therein (5, 26ff);
An inner tube (4a) which defines a reaction space therein;
Wherein a portion of the inner tube is accommodated in the outer tube;
A manifold assembly (400) configured to support the inner and outer tubes such that they are spaced apart;
A cap flange (24) configured to seal a lower portion of the manifold assembly (7, 4-15);
A base plate (26a) spaced apart from a lower portion of the cap flange.
As interpreted under 112(f), “manifold assembly” is being taken as both an outer and inner manifold. Portion 18 of Yamamoto’s apparatus may be taken as the inner manifold, and portion 7a may be taken as the outer manifold (Fig. 1). Further, Yamamoto provides an exhaust line but does not address the coupling of the cap flange. In supplementation, Mayeda describes a processing apparatus comprising an upper tube (12) which mates to a lower tube (14) via respective flanges (18, 20) (3, 46-63; Fig. 1). An O-ring (22) is disposed between the flanges to seal the processing environment (4, 3-9). To further secure the coupling, Mayeda arrays a plurality of clamping mechanisms (24) about the circumference of the flange site (Fig. 2). A given clamping mechanism includes a clamp (26) that applies a biasing force in a locked position, whereby the means generating the bias, a spring internal to the mechanism, may be taken as the “actuator” (4, 30-40). As shown, the clamp affixes to the top of the upper flange (18) and the bottom of the lower flange (20), thereby establishing a channel inside of which the two flanges are clamped together. The vertical rod extending from the top of the clamping mechanism’s body so as to support the clamp (26) may be taken as the “clamp bracket configured to vertically support the clamp.” It would have been obvious to integrate actuated clamping mechanisms within Yamamoto’s apparatus to promote the stated objective of securing the cap flange to the manifold assembly in order to establish a sealed processing environment.
Lastly, it is unclear if the configuration of Yamamoto’s base plate (26a) is adequate to accommodate the plurality of already incorporated actuators, as final paragraph of claim 1 requires. The reference of Seo, however, like Yamamoto, provides a double tube processing apparatus including a cap flange (151) which seals the tubes from below ([0043]; Fig. 1). Coupled subjacently to the cap flange is a “disc-shaped” base plate (155a) of sufficient diameter to accommodate a plurality of sealing mechanisms (170), whereby the examiner understands these mechanisms as being analogous to the incorporated actuators. It would have been obvious to configure Yamamoto’s base plate in accordance with the paradigm of Seo to achieve the predictable result of supporting the clamping mechanisms, as a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). As a final point of clarification, given a disc-shaped base plate, the footer on the bottom of Mayeda’s clamp (24) would plausibly rest upon the base plate.
Claim 4: Figure shows a domed outer tube, but the configuration of the inner tube’s topside is indefinite. Yamamoto, however, contemplates an alternative embodiment in which both tubes comprise domed tops (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to form the inner tube of Figure 1 with a domed top, as a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 3144.04, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966).
Claim 5: As shown by Figure 1, Yamamoto’s outer manifold (7a) supports the lower end of the outer tube (4b) to define an inner space connected to the protected space, and the inner manifold supports a lower end (18) of the inner tube (4a) defining a second inner space connected to the reaction space.
Claim 8: Yamamoto provides an outer gas exhaust port (6) and a supply port (29) which supplies gas inside the tubes.
Claim 9: Yamamoto provides a series of valves (11-13) which induce a vacuum. These valves are not formally named as a “pump,” yet they achieve a commensurate function. As such, the examiner understands these mechanisms to be obvious over the other.
Claims 16-17: Seo provides a spring, i.e., the “elastic part,” between the base plate (155a) and the elevating plate (151) to impose to an elastic force pressing the against the cap flange [0043].
Claim 18: The rejection of claim 1, above, addresses the recited manifolds.
Claims 19-20: The rejection of claim 12, above, substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, regarding those limitations stipulating the shape of the thermocouple tube: It appears that Kitayama’s tube is linear and does not contain a “bent portion.” Remedying this deficiency is Seo, who provides a tube (115) having a horizontal extension portion, a vertical portion disposed under the extension portion, and a lower bent portion which passes through the sidewall of a manifold (Fig. 1). By configuring the tube in an “S”-shape, its terminus can be disposed centrally above the substrate stack. Although Seo’s tube supplies a fluid rather than housing thermocouples, the same principle obtains: by positioning the thermocouple closer to the substrate, the accuracy of the temperature measurement can be improved. Seo simply offers a structural solution to positioning the thermocouple as close as possible to the substrate stack. It would have been obvious to configure Kitayama’s thermocouple tube in an “S”-shape since a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 3144.04, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966).
Claim 21: As shown by Figure 1, Mayeda’s clamping channel faces a side surface of the cap flange.
Claim 22: The pressure status of the process is a matter of intended use. During an interval of clamping, the operator can simply operate the apparatus at high pressure – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 23: Mayeda’s clamps are dispersed on a side surface of the cap flange (Fig. 1).
Claim 24: Mayeda’s clamp comprises a “spring actuated pivotal lever” that exerts the clamping force (4, 35-38). Said lever may be taken as the claimed “rod,” and any portion of the clamp’s base region may be taken as the claimed “bracket.”
Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Mayeda and Seo, and in further view of Colgan et al., US 2016/0069613.
Claim 2: Yamamoto forms the inner and outer tubes of quartz (5, 30-35). Colgan, though, attests that the outer tube of a reaction furnace may alternatively be formed of stainless steel. Although this material has lower emissivity than quartz, its strength permits a thinner construction, which reduces heat capacity and bore dimension, in turn. It would have been obvious to form Yamamoto’s tube of steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Claim 3: For procure the advantages elaborated directly above, it would have been obvious to form both tubes of steel –it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Mayeda and Seo, and in further view of Sekizuka, US 5,368,648.
Claim 6: Yamamoto provides each of a sidewall, upper flange, and lower flange for both the inner and outer manifold (Fig. 1). The primary reference, however, is silent regarding the means of affixment. In supplementation, Sekizuka avails a bolt (12) to secure to the discrete chamber parts of a vertical furnace, thereby demonstrating the suitability of this affixment technique (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to use this fastener to couple Yamamoto’s manifolds, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Claim 7: Yamamoto’s first sidewall’s diameter exceeds that of the second sidewall.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Mayeda and Seo, and in further view of Saito et al., US 2012/0052457.
Claim 10: Yamamoto does not clearly explain the arrangement of supply and exhaust ports. Saito, however, contemplates a heat treatment furnace comprising outer and inner tubes, whereby each manifold is provided with supply and exhaust ports (7, 8, 35, 36) (Fig. 1; [0039]). It would have been obvious to incorporate these features within Lee’s system to achieve the predictable result of supplying and removing fluid from the apparatus.
Claim 11: Saito provides a pump (20) [0041].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Mayeda, Seo, and Sekizuka, and in further view of Kitayama et al., US 5,622,639.
Yamamoto is silent regarding the matter of a thermocouple. In supplementation, Kitayama teaches a vertical furnace apparatus whose reaction space comprises a thermocouple protection tube (150) containing a plurality of thermocouples (151) configured to measure a temperature therein (9, 34-60; Fig. 4). As Lee seeks to maintain a pre-determined temperature within the reaction tube, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to incorporate Kitayama’s thermocouple arrangement to achieve the predictable result of temperature measurement.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Imai et al., US 2010/0297832. As shown by Figure 3, Imai provides an inner tube (48) and an outer tube (42), whereby an inner manifold (62a-c, 98a) provides and exhausts gas from a reaction space, and an outer manifold (62d, 98b) supplies and exhausts gas from a protective space (44) [0037-38].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716