DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 03/30/2026 has been entered. In the amendment filed 03/30/2026 claim 1 and claim 15 were amended. Based on the claim set filed 11/19/2025, Claims 1-5, 8, and 14-15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1 and 15, “provided in the first direction of the second casing part” is interpreted inclusive of along the first direction of the second casing part. If applicant intends a narrower interpretation of positioned on a specific side, applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim to specifically indicate such positioning.
In claim 1 and 15, line 20-22, the text “wherein the exhaust tube comprises a first exhaust tube in a horizontal section connected to the exhaust port to extend in a straight line and a second exhaust tube in a vertical section connected to the first exhaust tube to extend downward so that the exhaust tube has an overhead structure” is interpreted as the exhaust tube is comprises the first exhaust tube and the second exhaust tube as recited to have an overhead structure (i.e. the exhaust tube has an overhead structure). The overhead structure is formed by the first exhaust tube extending horizontally in a straight line and the second exhaust tube extending vertically (see 121a and 121b Fig 1).
In claim 4, “first flange provided in the process tube”, the use of “in” is interpreted consistent with the instant specification [0045-0048] (and see part 125a Fig 1-3) as “forming part of the structure of” the process tube, that is it is included as a part of the structure of the process tube. The term “in” is not interpreted as limited to “within” or “inside of”.
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:
“control module” in claim 1-5, 8, and 14-15 interpreted as a control box [0067], and equivalents thereof.
“connection part” (“part” being the generic placeholder and “configured to connect the exhaust tube to the exhaust port of the process tube” being the functional language) in claim 3 interpreted as a flange in the process tube, a flange in the exhaust tube, and a sealing member [0045] and equivalents thereof. Note that in claim 4 sufficient structure is recited that the term does not invoke an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
“sealing member” (“member” being the generic placeholder and “sealing” being the functional language) in claim 4-5 interpreted as an O-ring [0040] and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (prev. presented KR 10-2006-0134465 citing machine translation provided 01/05/2024) in view of Kang (prev. presented US 2019/0341278), Park (KR 10-2008-0023940, citing machine translation provided 01/05/2024), and Thompson (prev. presented US 2014/0260695).
Regarding claim 1 and 15, Jang teaches a system (Fig 1) for processing a substrate ([0001] and unnumbered paragraph on p1 of machine translation), the system comprising: a process tube (120 and 127 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) configured to provide a processing space for the substrate (p3 of machine translation); and an exhaust module (shown in Fig 1, exhaust tube 141, sealing case 150, and local exhaust part 152, p3 of machine translation) connected to an exhaust port (127 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) of the process tube provided in a first direction to exhaust process residues within the processing space to outside the processing space (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), wherein the exhaust module comprises: an exhaust tube (141 Fig 1, p3 of machine translation) connected to the exhaust port (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation); a sealing case (safety cover 150 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) configured to accommodate at least a portion of the exhaust tube (Fig 1-2 and p3 of machine translation); and a local exhaust part (exhaust line 152 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) provided in the sealing case to exhaust an inside of the sealing case (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation). Jang fails to teach the process tube is provided in plurality to be arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction, the exhaust module is provided in plurality corresponding to the process tubes so that each of the exhaust modules is provided for each of the process tubes, and the system further comprises: a plurality of gas supply modules respectively provided for a corresponding process tube of the process tubes in the first direction of each of the process tubes, spaced apart from each other in the second direction and disposed symmetrical to each other, and the exhaust modules are disposed between the plurality of gas supply modules in parallel with the plurality of gas supply modules by providing respective exhaust tubes side by side between the plurality of gas supply modules.
Regarding the process tube is provided in plurality to be arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction, initially it is noted that this represents a duplication of parts of the system of Jang to include two processing tubes and a corresponding exhaust tube for each processing tube and that any arrangement of the tubes will cross at least one direction along which the exhaust tube extends because it extends in three dimensions. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract), Kang demonstrates two (i.e. a plurality of) processing tubes (110a, 110b Fig 1) [0029], an exhaust module (exhaust line and corresponding structures on the line) provided in (for or connected to, as explained in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) above) each of the process tubes (exhaust line 150a, 150b Fig 1) [0061], and that the processing tubes are arranged in a second direction (direction along the first axis 11 Fig 1 [0029]) that crosses the first direction (second axis 12 Fig 1 [0034]) along which the flow through the exhaust tubes (modules) extend. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the arrangement of Kang because additional processing tubes allows for increased throughput of the wafers. Note that the combination includes a plurality of the exhaust modules of Jang as structure on and including the exhaust tube (line). Therefore the combination as applied herein includes the exhaust module is provided in plurality corresponding to the process tubes so that each of the exhaust modules is provided for each of the process tubes.
Regarding a plurality of gas supply modules respectively provided for a corresponding process tube of the process tubes in the first direction of each of the process tubes, spaced apart from each other in the second direction and disposed symmetrical to each other, in the combination as applied Kang teaches a plurality of gas supply modules (30-31 Fig 6, and 142 [0055]) provided in the process tubes (Fig 6, tubes 110a,b) in the first direction of each of the process tubes (Fig 5 and 6 see 142), spaced apart from each other in the second direction (Fig 5 and 6) and disposed symmetrical to each other (Fig 6 and [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes.
Regarding the exhaust modules are disposed between the plurality of gas supply modules in parallel with the plurality of gas supply modules by providing respective exhaust tubes side by side between the plurality of gas supply modules, Kang as applied in the combination demonstrates a portion of each exhaust module (exhaust tube line 150a,b Fig 5) is between the gas supply modules (142 Fig 5, note there is a 142 in 140a and a 142 in 140b, [0055], see also 31 Fig 6 and unnumbered exhaust port connected to each tube 110a,b to which the unshown exhaust line 150a,b will connect). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes. Note that Kang (Fig 5) demonstrates the exhaust tubes (part of the exhaust module) are side by side (Fig 5, see 110a,b) in a straight line (see 150a, 150b Fig 5, note that at least a portion of the tubes are side by side in a straight line). Kang as applied in the combination demonstrates the plurality of gas supply modules (portions 142 Fig 5) and the exhaust modules (including tubes 150a,b Fig 5) are disposed at least partially side by side (Fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes.
Regarding the exhaust tube comprises a first exhaust tube in a horizontal section connected to the exhaust port to extend in a straight line in the first direction and the sealing case comprises a first casing part configured to accommodate the first exhaust tube, Jang teaches the exhaust tube comprises a first exhaust tube in a horizontal section (141 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) connected to the exhaust port to extend in a straight line in the first direction (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), and the sealing case comprises a first casing part configured to accommodate the first exhaust tube (upper portion of sealing case 150 Fig 1-2, including portion having line 141).
Regarding the lower chamber, the second exhaust tube, and a second casing part, Jang and Jang in view of Kang remains as applied above. Jang teaches the exhaust tube further comprises a second exhaust tube in a vertical direction (second auxiliary exhaust pipe146 having valve 147 Fig 1, p3 of machine translation) connected to the fist exhaust tube to extend downward so that the exhaust tube has an overhead structure (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), and the sealing case further comprises a second casing part configured to accommodate the second exhaust tube (lower portion of safety cover 150 surrounding pipe 146 Fig 1). Jang fails to teach a lower chamber provided below the process tube and therefore fails to teach the second casing part is spaced apart from the lower chamber. Park teaches a lower chamber (chamber 130 p2 of machine translation) provided below the process tube (process tube 111 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the lower chamber of Park because Park teaches this arrangement allows for control of the environment below the opening of the chamber to prevent contact with undesired species such as oxygen (p3 of machine translation). Regarding the second casing being spaced apart from the lower chamber, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and of the shape of the sealing case. Further, Park demonstrates that where the exhaust tube (116 Fig 1) is spaced apart from and faces the lower chamber (130 Fig 1). This further renders obvious the combination having the second casing part disposed to face and spaced apart from the lower chamber in the first direction (note the downward direction of the pipe of Jang). Regarding the maintenance space, Kang teaches a maintenance space (40 Fig 5b) below the first exhaust tube (note drawing the area under the tubes and Fig 5a demonstrating the tubes 150 are elevated at some level above the lowest level) and the chamber. Therefore, in the combination as applied herein, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the second casing is spaced apart from in the first direction and disposed to face the lower chamber and provide the maintenance space between the lower chamber and the second casing part and under the first exhaust tube because Kang has taught the inclusion of a maintenance space [0051].
The combination as applied thus far fails to teach a maintenance port for maintenance of the second exhaust tube. Addressing the same problem of providing a sealing jacket to a tube (abstract), Thompson teaches including an access door (port) (22 Fig 2) on the case (valve housing 20) to enable access for maintenance [0028]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang and the combination to include a maintenance port on the second casing part for maintenance of the second exhaust tube because Thompson teaches the inclusion of such a port minimizes the time and effort required for maintenance or troubleshooting [0028]. Regarding the specific position, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and it is noted the combination as applied herein is inclusive of including a maintenance port on both casing parts.
Regarding the control module provided in the first direction of the second casing part, Jang teaches a control box (151 Fig 2) provided above the vertical pipe (note this becomes the second casing part as explained above) and extending in the first direction (Fig 2). Therefore Jang in the combination renders obvious the control module provided in the first direction of the second casing part. Additionally, Jang teaches a central controller (p3 of translation) for control of the apparatus. The specific positioning of the controller to be positioned in a first direction of the second casing part represents a mere rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 3-4, Jang and Jang in view of Kang remains as applied to claim 1 above. Jang teaches the exhaust tube (141 Fig 1) connected to the exhaust port (127 Fig 1) (both machine translation p3) but fails to teach the details of the connection and therefore fails to teach a connection part. In the same field of endeavor of a system for processing a substrate (Fig 1 and first paragraph of p2 of the machine translation), Park teaches a connection part (116 Fig 2) configured to connect the exhaust tube to the exhaust port of the process tube (p3 and p4 of machine translation). The connection part of Park includes a first flange provided in the process tube (shown not numbered in Fig 2 of Park, see annotated version below), a second flange (shown not numbered in Fig 2 of Park, see annotated version below) provided at one end of the exhaust tube (126 Fig 2, p4 of machine translation); and a sealing member (O-ring shown not numbered in Fig 2 of Park, see annotated version below and see final paragraph of p1 of machine translation that discloses O-ring). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the connection part of Park because Jang is silent as to the structure of the connection between the exhaust tube and exhaust port and Park demonstrates a connection structure between an exhaust port of the process tube and the exhaust tube (p4 machine translation) and teaches that the connection arrangement of Park minimizes deposition of particles in the gas piping (first paragraph of p2 of machine translation). Note that claim 3 covers equivalents of the connection part disclosed by the instant specification; however, as explained above regarding the limitations of claim 4, the prior art combination as applied teaches the same structures as those disclosed in the instant specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. As part of the connection part of Park as applied in the combination, Park teaches a bellows (122 Fig 2, see also annotated Fig 2 of Park above). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the bellows of Park as part of the connection part because Park discloses this structure as part of the connection part and because Park teaches the bellows help maintain airtightness (first paragraph of p2 of machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches a substrate boat (125 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) in which a plurality of substrates (90 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) is loaded in in multiple stages and accommodated in the process tube (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation, note Fig 1 shows a plurality of wafers vertically arranged at different heights (“stages”) and wafer boat is a term of the art of a carrier that holds a plurality of wafers).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kang, Park, and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim (prev. presented KR 10-2005-0035449, citing machine translation provided 01/05/2024).
Regarding claim 2, Jang and Jang in view of Kang, Park, and Thompson remains as applied to claim 1 above. Jang teaches the exhaust valve should only be opened when gas is leaked into the safety cover (final paragraph of p1 to first paragraph of p2 of machine translation). Jang fails to teach a sensor for detecting when leaked gas is present and instead used a temperature sensor to minimize the thermal effects of opening and closing the valve (first paragraph of p2 of machine translation). Addressing the same problem of leakage in an exhaust pipe of a substrate processing system (final paragraph of p1 to first paragraph of p2 of machine translation), Kim teaches a sensor (detecting section 280 Fig 2) to detect leakage of an exhaust gas of the tube (paragraph 1 of p4 of machine translation). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the sensor of Kim because Kim teaches that this allows for real-time monitoring of whether leaked gas is present and control of the exhaust in response to the presence of the gas (paragraph 1 of p4 of machine translation). This represents use of a known technique (gas concentration monitoring) to improve similar devices (gas leakage encasing devices) in the same way (improved monitoring of the leakage and control of the exhaust). Regarding the sensor being provided in the case, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts to change the position of the sensor within the flow line and it is noted that a position closer to the pipe (i.e. a position within the case) is obvious because it allows for faster detection of a leak of the gas due to the diffusion and flow of the leaked gas and being closer to the source of the leaked gas.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kang, Park, and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Honma (prev. presented JP 07-283164, citing machine translation provided 01/05/2024).
Regarding claim 14, Jang and Jang in view of Kang, Park, and Thompson remains as applied to claim 1 above. Jang fails to teach the exhaust module further comprises a leakage gas dilution part connected to the local exhaust part to dilute a leaking exhaust gas. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system [0002], Honma teaches an enclosure (chamber 26 Fig 2) around the exhaust pipe (10a Fig 2) includes an inert gas supply (27 Fig 2) to dilute leaking exhaust gas [0038]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include an inert gas supply in the sealing case (150 of Jang) because Honma teaches this allows for dilution of leaked processing gas to prevent explosion and improve safety [0038].
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kang, Kogano (prev. presented US 2002/0094502), and Thompson.
Regarding claim 1 and 15, Jang teaches a system (Fig 1) for processing a substrate ([0001] and unnumbered paragraph on p1 of machine translation), the system comprising: a process tube (120 and 127 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) configured to provide a processing space for the substrate (p3 of machine translation); and an exhaust module (shown in Fig 1, exhaust tube 141, sealing case 150, and local exhaust part 152, p3 of machine translation) connected to an exhaust port (127 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) of the process tube provided in a first direction to exhaust process residues within the processing space to outside the processing space (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), wherein the exhaust module comprises: an exhaust tube (141 Fig 1, p3 of machine translation) connected to the exhaust port (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation); a sealing case (safety cover 150 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) configured to accommodate at least a portion of the exhaust tube (Fig 1-2 and p3 of machine translation); and a local exhaust part (exhaust line 152 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) provided in the sealing case to exhaust an inside of the sealing case (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation). Jang fails to teach the process tube is provided in plurality to be arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction, the exhaust module is provided in plurality corresponding to the process tubes so that each of the exhaust modules is provided for each of the process tubes, and the system further comprises: a plurality of gas supply modules respectively provided for a corresponding process tube of the process tubes in the first direction of each of the process tubes, spaced apart from each other in the second direction and disposed symmetrical to each other, and the exhaust modules are disposed between the plurality of gas supply modules in parallel with the plurality of gas supply modules by providing respective exhaust tubes side by side between the plurality of gas supply modules.
Regarding the process tube is provided in plurality to be arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction, initially it is noted that this represents a duplication of parts of the system of Jang to include two processing tubes and a corresponding exhaust tube for each processing tube and that any arrangement of the tubes will cross at least one direction along which the exhaust tube extends because it extends in three dimensions. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract), Kang demonstrates two (i.e. a plurality of) processing tubes (110a, 110b Fig 1) [0029], an exhaust module (exhaust line and corresponding structures on the line) provided in (for or connected to, as explained in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) above) each of the process tubes (exhaust line 150a, 150b Fig 1) [0061], and that the processing tubes are arranged in a second direction (direction along the first axis 11 Fig 1 [0029]) that crosses the first direction (second axis 12 Fig 1 [0034]) along which the flow through the exhaust tubes (modules) extend. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the arrangement of Kang because additional processing tubes allows for increased throughput of the wafers. Note that the combination includes a plurality of the exhaust modules of Jang as structure on and including the exhaust tube (line). Therefore the combination as applied herein includes the exhaust module is provided in plurality corresponding to the process tubes so that each of the exhaust modules is provided for each of the process tubes.
Regarding a plurality of gas supply modules respectively provided for a corresponding process tube of the process tubes in the first direction of each of the process tubes, spaced apart from each other in the second direction and disposed symmetrical to each other, in the combination as applied Kang teaches a plurality of gas supply modules (30-31 Fig 6, and 142 [0055]) provided in the process tubes (Fig 6, tubes 110a,b) in the first direction of each of the process tubes (Fig 5 and 6 see 142), spaced apart from each other in the second direction (Fig 5 and 6) and disposed symmetrical to each other (Fig 6 and [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes.
Regarding the exhaust modules are disposed between the plurality of gas supply modules in parallel with the plurality of gas supply modules by providing respective exhaust tubes side by side between the plurality of gas supply modules, Kang as applied in the combination demonstrates a portion of each exhaust module (exhaust tube line 150a,b Fig 5) is between the gas supply modules (142 Fig 5, note there is a 142 in 140a and a 142 in 140b, [0055], see also 31 Fig 6 and unnumbered exhaust port connected to each tube 110a,b to which the unshown exhaust line 150a,b will connect). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes. Note that Kang (Fig 5) demonstrates the exhaust tubes (part of the exhaust module) are side by side (Fig 5, see 110a,b) in a straight line (see 150a, 150b Fig 5, note that at least a portion of the tubes are side by side in a straight line). Kang as applied in the combination demonstrates the plurality of gas supply modules (portions 142 Fig 5) and the exhaust modules (including tubes 150a,b Fig 5) are disposed at least partially side by side (Fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this gas supply arrangement because Kang demonstrates it as part of an arrangement having a plurality of the process tubes.
Regarding the exhaust tube comprises a first exhaust tube in a horizontal section connected to the exhaust port to extend in a straight line in the first direction and the sealing case comprises a first casing part configured to accommodate the first exhaust tube, Jang teaches the exhaust tube comprises a first exhaust tube in a horizontal section (141 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) connected to the exhaust port to extend in a straight line in the first direction (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), and the sealing case comprises a first casing part configured to accommodate the first exhaust tube (upper portion of sealing case 150 Fig 1-2, including portion having line 141).
Regarding the lower chamber, the second exhaust tube, and a second casing part, Jang and Jang in view of Kang remains as applied above. Jang teaches the exhaust tube further comprises a second exhaust tube in a vertical direction (second auxiliary exhaust pipe146 having valve 147 Fig 1, p3 of machine translation) connected to the fist exhaust tube to extend downward so that the exhaust tube has an overhead structure (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation), and the sealing case further comprises a second casing part configured to accommodate the second exhaust tube (lower portion of safety cover 150 surrounding pipe 146 Fig 1). Jang fails to teach a lower chamber provided below the process tube and therefore fails to teach the second casing part is spaced apart from the lower chamber. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract and Fig 1), Kogano teaches a lower chamber (chamber space 21 Fig 1 [0031], [0038]) provided below the process tube (process tube of Kogano is 2 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the lower chamber of Kogano because Kogano teaches this arrangement allows for preventing flow of contamination into the substrate processing space and preventing flow of contamination from the substrate processing space [0043-0044]. Regarding the second casing being spaced apart from the lower chamber, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and of the shape of the sealing case. Further, Kogano demonstrates that where the exhaust tube (14 Fig 1) extends downward is spaced apart from the lower chamber (21 Fig 1). This further renders obvious the combination having the second casing part spaced apart from the lower chamber in the first direction. Regarding the maintenance space, Kang teaches a maintenance space (40 Fig 5b) below the first exhaust tube (note drawing the area under the tubes and Fig 5a demonstrating the tubes 150 are elevated at some level above the lowest level) and the chamber. Therefore, in the combination as applied herein, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the second casing is shaped to face the lower chamber and spaced apart in the first direction and provide the maintenance space between the lower chamber and the second casing part because Kang has taught the inclusion of a maintenance space [0051].
The combination as applied thus far fails to teach a maintenance port for maintenance of the second exhaust tube on a surface of the second casing part opposite to the lower chamber. Addressing the same problem of providing a sealing jacket to a tube (abstract), Thompson teaches including an access door (port) (22 Fig 2) on the case (valve housing 20) to enable access for maintenance [0028]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang and the combination to include a maintenance port on the second casing part for maintenance of the second exhaust tube because Thompson teaches the inclusion of such a port minimizes the time and effort required for maintenance or troubleshooting [0028]. Regarding the specific position, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and it is noted the combination as applied herein is inclusive of including a maintenance port on both casing parts.
Regarding the control module provided in the first direction of the second casing part, Jang teaches a control box (151 Fig 2) provided above the vertical pipe (note this becomes the second casing part as explained above) and extending in the first direction (Fig 2). Therefore Jang in the combination renders obvious the control module provided in the first direction of the second casing part. Additionally, Jang teaches a central controller (p3 of translation) for control of the apparatus. The specific positioning of the controller to be positioned in a first direction of the second casing part represents a mere rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches a substrate boat (125 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) in which a plurality of substrates (90 Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation) is loaded in in multiple stages and accommodated in the process tube (Fig 1 and p3 of machine translation, note Fig 1 shows a plurality of wafers vertically arranged at different heights (“stages”) and wafer boat is a term of the art of a carrier that holds a plurality of wafers).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kang, Kogano, and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Jang and Jang in view of Kang, Kogano, and Thompson remains as applied to claim 1 above. Jang teaches the exhaust valve should only be opened when gas is leaked into the safety cover (final paragraph of p1 to first paragraph of p2 of machine translation). Jang fails to teach a sensor for detecting when leaked gas is present and instead used a temperature sensor to minimize the thermal effects of opening and closing the valve (first paragraph of p2 of machine translation). Addressing the same problem of leakage in an exhaust pipe of a substrate processing system (final paragraph of p1 to first paragraph of p2 of machine translation), Kim teaches a sensor (detecting section 280 Fig 2) to detect leakage of an exhaust gas of the tube (paragraph 1 of p4 of machine translation). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include the sensor of Kim because Kim teaches that this allows for real-time monitoring of whether leaked gas is present and control of the exhaust in response to the presence of the gas (paragraph 1 of p4 of machine translation). This represents use of a known technique (gas concentration monitoring) to improve similar devices (gas leakage encasing devices) in the same way (improved monitoring of the leakage and control of the exhaust). Regarding the sensor being provided in the case, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts to change the position of the sensor within the flow line and it is noted that a position closer to the pipe (i.e. a position within the case) is obvious because it allows for faster detection of a leak of the gas due to the diffusion and flow of the leaked gas and being closer to the source of the leaked gas.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kang, Kogano, and Thompson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Honma.
Regarding claim 14, Jang and Jang in view of Kang and Kogano remains as applied to claim 1 above. Jang fails to teach the exhaust module further comprises a leakage gas dilution part connected to the local exhaust part to dilute a leaking exhaust gas. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system [0002], Honma teaches an enclosure (chamber 26 Fig 2) around the exhaust pipe (10a Fig 2) includes an inert gas supply (27 Fig 2) to dilute leaking exhaust gas [0038]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jang to include an inert gas supply in the sealing case (150 of Jang) because Honma teaches this allows for dilution of leaked processing gas to prevent explosion and improve safety [0038].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026, hereinafter “reply”, have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (first reply p2-3) that Jang does not teach the amended control module in the first direction. As indicated in the rejection above, Jang teaches a control box (control module) 151 provided to extend in a first direction of the sealing case over the vertical pipe portion which includes the second casing. Therefore the argument that Jang does not teach the control module as positioned is not persuasive. Examiner also notes that the central controller of Jang that applicant refers to and indicates doesn’t have a stated position is applied as the control module as applicant’s arguments (reply p2-3) suggest, it is noted that the recited positioning represents a mere rearrangement of parts.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the teaching of Kang (reply p4) and Thompson and Honma (p4-5) are noted but these references not relied upon for the control module. Examiner notes that where a controller is identified, Examiner maintains that the positioning is merely a rearrangement of parts.
The arguments (reply p6-7) regarding the maintenance space have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the term maintenance space does not contain the implicit structure that applicant’s arguments suggest and the maintenance space may be merely an accessible space.
The arguments regarding Jang (reply p8) fail to address the argued change of shape and instead rely on the premise that the shape of the cover of Jang is fixed. As explained in the rejection the change of shape with the lower portion is obvious in view of the shape of the pipes.
Regarding Kogano (reply p9) examiner notes that “overhead” is relative and that maintenance space merely requires a space. It is noted that the apparatus may be positioned in an elevated position such that all of the structures are “overhead” as indicated above, the claim is interpreted as requiring the horizontal and vertical sections and the prior art as applied teaches these sections. If applicant has specific sizing requirements and these are provided in the instant specification as originally filed, applicant is kindly requested to claim such sizes (if support is present).
Regarding the argument (reply p10-12) that Thompson does not teach the position of the maintenance access door 22 or the maintenance space. Examiner notes that this is not persuasive because Thompson was not cited as teaching the maintenance space or the position of the maintenance door (maintenance port). Applicant does not argue the separate art teaching of the maintenance space or present a persuasive argument as to why the position of the maintenance port is more than a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the maintenance door on the casing. Applicant argues that the maintenance target is different because Thompson teaches the maintenance door for maintaining the valves (first reply p10) whereas the claimed maintenance target is the exhaust tube. This is not persuasive because there is no structural difference between the maintenance opening for a tube vs the maintenance opening for valves on the tube line. The specific maintenance location is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used and is not persuasive in view of the combination rendering obvious all the recited structure as explained above.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims and the amendment to include an analogous limitation in independent claim 15 (reply p 13-14) rely on the alleged failing of the art to teach or render obvious the amended independent claim 1 limitations which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0013639 teaches a controller box (76A Fig 1, 3) on the opposite side along the first direction of the exhaust line containing box (72A Fig 1,3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights