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 .
Continued Examination
Six months after the non-final office action was issued, Examiner attempted to confirm that no response had been filed with Applicant’s Attorney. On 15 July 2025 a notice of abandonment was mailed. 28 January 2026 Applicant filed a petition for revival, including the statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply until the filing of a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) was unintentional, which was granted. Thus, examination is resumed and proceeds as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Claims 21-37 are newly presented and are addressed below.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to previously presented claims 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has expressed and argued that cracking of a one-way valve is well-understood to be a threshold pressure at which the valve transitions from a closed state to an open state permitting flow. It is not clear to Examiner that this is a “well-known” feature. Nevertheless, in the instant case, claim 18 features relating to “cracking pressure” do no more than set forth this definition as a claim limitation. Thus, in order to expedite examination, Examiner accepts that the one-valve will have at least this feature by definition and has presently withdrawn the previous 112 rejections with respect to the feature.
Examiner notes that based on the above, it follows that that an operating system will also necessarily have a minimum and maximum operating pressure as recited in claim 19. Optimization of pressures is also addressed with respect to claim 20 in the rejection. Applicant argues that the recited ranges are not routine optimization. However, this appears to be counter-intuitive to Applicant’s arguments regarding the implicit features of the claimed one-way/check valve, which are designed for specific pressure ranges, and also the teachings of the relied upon prior art which explicitly teaches optimization of pressure ranges.
Finally, regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the prior art combination used to reject claims 18-20. Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the fact that the inventor has recognized “another advantage” which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (Note: Examiner is not necessarily convinced that Applicant has discovered another advantage, more than restated an advantage in their own language). Additionally, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III in the reply filed on 24 September 2024 was previously acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner notes that Applicant’s response did not specifically state an election of species. However, as recited Group III, corresponding to claim 18 included a separately provided gas capacitor downstream of claimed said one-way valve, this species has been considered to be implicitly and effectively elected by original presentation in response to the requirement. This species appears to correspond to Fig. 5. Additionally, Examiner notes that Figs. 6-7 does not appear to include a one-way valve/check valve downstream from the gas capacitor, rather one-way valve(s)/check valve(s) are provided in parallel with and/or as part of the gas capacitor, which is considered to be mutually exclusive embodiment from providing a gas capacitor downstream from the gas capacitor as originally claimed.
Thus, claims 26-37, directed to the embodiment of Figs. 6-7, wherein the one-way valve(s)/check valves are part of the gas capacitor (also including other related features) are considered non-elected.
Newly submitted claims 26-37 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: see analysis above.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-37 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 21 “signal pressure line” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 303 gas capacitor. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 21 recites “signal pressure line” it is not clear if this meant to refer to the claimed gas supply line, or not. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that there is at least overlap or the two are meant to correspond to the same feature and has examined accordingly. Either way, the feature must be fully supported by the original disclosure.
Claim 21 recites “pneumatic actuators” but fails to relate the same to the previously recited pneumatically actuated valves. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the “pneumatic actuators” are one and the same with the previously recited “pneumatically actuated valves and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22 recites “at least one slit valve” but fails to relate the same to the previously recited pneumatically actuated valves. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the “at least one slit valve” are one and the same with the previously recited “pneumatically actuated valves and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22 recites “after the one way valve”, but there is not previous indication that this step necessarily happens. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that this feature is optional and has examined accordingly.
Claim 24 recites “a plurality of slit valves” but fails to relate the same to the previously recited pneumatically actuated valves. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the “plurality of slit valves” are one and the same with the previously recited “pneumatically actuated valves”and has examined accordingly.
Claim 25 recites “a plurality of semiconductor tools” without relating to the previously recited semiconductor tool. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the “plurality of semiconductor tools” are meant to include the previously recited “semiconductor tool” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 25 recites “a plurality of slit valves”. However, “a plurality of slit valves” has already been recited. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the claim was meant to refer to the previously recited “plurality of slit valves” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 25 recites “the gas supply line services a plurality of semiconductor tools and/or a plurality of slit valves”. It is not clear what is meant by “services”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that “services” is inclusive of supplying gas from the remote gas source and has examined accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
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) 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0034673 to Choi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0158025 to Larson.
Choi et al. disclose a method for operating a semiconductor tool, substantially as claimed and comprising: providing a semiconductor tool (Figs. 1-6), wherein said semiconductor tool includes (a) a gas supply line (70) which supplies gas from a remote gas source (300); (b) a central chamber (Figure 1, 20), and a plurality of process chambers (10), wherein each of said plurality of process chamber is equipped with a pneumatically actuated valve (60) which is in fluid communication with the gas supply line and which transforms the process chamber of the plurality of process chambers from a first state in which the process chamber of the plurality of process chambers is in fluidic communication with said central chamber, to a second stage in which the process chamber of the plurality of process chambers is fluidically isolated from said central chamber.
However, Choi et al. fail to disclose, the semiconductor tool is provided in combination with a gas capacitor including a pressurized gas reservoir which is disposed downstream from a one-way valve.
Larson teaches providing a semiconductor tool in combination with a pneumatic air supply system, wherein the pneumatic air supply system includes a gas capacitor including a pressurized gas reservoir (see, e.g., paras. 54-55) which is disposed downstream from a one-way valve (see, e.g., paras. 54-55) for the purposes of maintaining pneumatic supply pressure within a selected range and isolating the pressurized gas reservoir from system related drops in pneumatic pressure, respectively.
Additionally, Larson teach that the pneumatic supply pressure is maintained within a selected range (Pcrack) and the one-way valve is used to facilitate this pressure maintenance and isolate the pneumatic valves when the pressure is not maintained.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have provided the semiconductor tool of Choi et al. in combination with a pneumatic air supply system, wherein the pneumatic air supply system includes a gas capacitor including a pressurized gas reservoir which is disposed downstream from a one-way valve in order to perform a method to maintain pneumatic supply pressure within a selected range and isolate the pressurized gas reservoir from system related drops in pneumatic pressure, respectively, as taught by Larson.
With respect to claim 18, the pressure fluctuation will necessarily have a maximum and a minimum, Larson teaches that the acceptable operating pressure fluctuations may be characterized by a minimum acceptable pressure (80 psig) and a maximum acceptable pressure (85) psig, wherein Pmin is may considered to be 85 psig and thus fulfills the inequality 0 < Pcrack < Pmin.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, neither Larson, nor Choi et al. teach the specific inequalities as claimed. However, Choi et al. teach that the acceptable pressures associated with respect to the pneumatically actuated valves may be selected based on the conditions of the chambers to which they are connected and the features of the gas supply line and the pneumatically actuated valves, such that they function as required. The courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided an acceptable pressure range in modified Choi et al., corresponding to Pcrack , conditions between the fluidically communicating process chambers and central chamber, gas supply line features and pneumatically actuated valve features in order to provide desired pneumatic valve function, one-way valve function and processing chamber conditions
With respect to claim 21, in modified Choi et al., as set forth by Applicant in their most recent response, the one-way valve is by definition inoperable when pressure falls below a threshold, such that pneumatically actuated components necessarily would necessarily be disabled and remain in a last position barring intervention.
With respect to claims 22-23, in modified Choi et al., Choi et al. teach although at least one slit valve is normally operated automatically, the at least one slit valve may be manually operated if the tool interlocks during a manufacturing process or during maintenance and an operator can operate the at least one slit valve manually, such that one or more wafers may be removed from the semiconductor tool, wherein open and close of slit valves as provided in Choi et al. are expressly for placing and removing wafers in and out of the semiconductor tool. See, e.g., paras. 9 and 32.
With respect to claim 24, in modified Choi et al., the pressurized gas reservoir of Larson provides a local reservoir of clean dry air that increases an effective working-gas volume available to the semiconductor tool and reduces pressure fluctuations associated with operation of a plurality of slit valves (see, e.g., paras. 54-55).
With respect to claim 25, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious to set an operating pressure of the semiconductor tool to values recommend by a tool manufacturer while the gas supply line “services” (i.e. supplies) a plurality of semiconductor tools and/or a plurality of slit valves. More simply put, it would be obvious to use the apparatus in methods as recommended.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 3,156,255 and JP 08068404-A disclose use of one-way valves to isolate a fluid source with respect to a slit/gate valve.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights