DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on January 12, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 7 are amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not properly anticipate the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the previous Office letter identifies Hirose’s carrier port (47) as the claimed “opening” and the deposit shield (50) as the claimed “sidewall body.” However, the former is formed within the chamber sidewall and the latter is situated within the processing space. Because these two features are spatially separated, Hirose cannot satisfy the stipulation of the third paragraph of claim 1: “the sidewall body has…an opening defined therein,” (p. 2).
In response, the examiner previously construed the opening as an abstract volume of space extending from the outer boundary of the carrier port into the processing volume. However, in view of the clarifying amendments to claim 1, the examiner now construes the claimed “opening” as a vertical plane constituting the inner boundary of the sidewall body (50). In this way, the opening remains a constituent of the sidewall body, as the third paragraph of claim 1 requires.
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 – unit 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 “driving unit” of claim 1;
The “sealing part” of claim 4;
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 driving unit (40) is being interpreted as a driving motor in accordance with paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s specification.
The sealing part (OR) is being interpreted as an O-ring in accordance with paragraph [0060].
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. Claim 1 has been amended to read: “the opening extends through the sidewall body from an exterior surface of the sidewall body and intersects the valve space.” As shown by Figure 4, the opening (16) appears to denote the inner boundary of the valve space (30). It is unclear, then, how this opening extends “from an exterior surface of the sidewall body” given that the opening is essentially constituted as a vertical plane lacking a horizontal extent from the perspective of Figure 4. That is, using Figure 4 as a reference, the portion immediately to the left of the opening (16) is the valve space (30) and the portion immediately to the right is the reaction space (10); it is unclear how this opening, bounded on either side by the valve space (30) and reaction space (10), can possibly extend “from an exterior surface of the sidewall.” Clarification is required, especially with regard to the respective boundaries of the valve space and the opening. Applicant’s paragraph [0045] states that the “valve space 30 is formed between the slot 18 and the opening 16.” For the aforementioned reasons, this description seems wholly incompatible with the new material asserting that the opening “extends…from an exterior surface of the sidewall body.” Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of an opening abutting a valve space as satisfying the contested limitation.
(The examiner observes that Applicant’s slot (18) does appear to extend “through the sidewall body from an exterior surface of the sidewall body,” which may indicate that Applicant understands this feature to constitute the claimed “opening.” However, claim 1 also requires the valve space to be “larger” than the opening in the “first direction,” i.e., the horizontal direction, but Figure 4 clearly shows the slot to be larger along this extent.)
Separately, claim 1 stipulates that the groove of the sidewall body is “spaced apart from an inner surface of the reaction space.” The concept of the “inner surface of the reaction space” does not appear in Applicant’s specification, and its boundary is indefinite. As described above, the opening (16) is disposed between the valve space (30), containing the groove, and the reaction space (10). Thus, the “inner surface of the reaction space” and the “opening” appear to denote the same volume of space, thereby overdetermining the limitation. Clarification of the respective boundaries of the “opening” and the “inner surface” is required. (Note: “inner surface of the reaction space” also appears in the penultimate paragraph of claim 1.) To expedite prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of either an opening or an inner surface as satisfying the contested limitation.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose et al., US 2004/0149214.
Claim 1: Hirose discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (41) including a chamber bottom (56) and a sidewall body (50) which define a reaction space (Fig. 6);
Wherein the sidewall body (50) has a valve space (57) and an opening defined therein ([0056]; Fig. 7);
Wherein the valve space extends partially through the sidewall body along first and second directions and terminates at a groove formed within the sidewall body (Fig. 9);
Wherein the groove is spaced apart from an inner surface of the reaction space (Fig. 8B);
A valve, including:
A blade (49) movable within the valve space and groove and configured to open and close the opening [0058];
A motor (52), i.e., the “driving unit,” configured to raise and lower the blade ([0058]; Fig. 7);
Wherein one surface of the blade is formed in the same plane as the inner surface of the reaction space (Fig. 6);
Wherein the top of the blade is inserted into the groove to prevent movement of the blade (Fig. 9).
To clarify the above nomenclature, the examiner understands the notched portion (70) on the underside surface of the reaction body as constituting the claimed groove, whereby a corresponding notch (71) formed on an upper surface of the blade (49) inserts within the groove to close the opening (Fig. 9).
Continuing, the examiner understands the claimed “opening” as a vertical plane disposed at the inner boundary of the valve space. Regarding the new material pertaining to this opening, it can be said that the opening “intersects” with the valve space given that they share the same boundary. Further, given that the opening may be construed as a vertical plane having an infinitesimal horizontal extent, whereby the horizontal extent of the valve space is commensurate with the width of the blade, the valve space is necessarily larger in the first direction. Regarding the second direction, given the embodiment of Figure 9, annotated below, the opening extends up to the inner notch formed on feature 70, whereas the valve space extends up to the outer notch formed on feature 72. As the vertical extent of the outer notch of feature 72 extends to a higher position than that of the inner notch of feature 70, it can be said that the valve space is greater than the opening in the second direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
265
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: As shown by Figure 8B, the blade moves through a valve space structured by both the sidewall body and the chamber bottom.
Claim 3: As shown by Figure 9, the blade inserts into the opening and seamlessly interfaces with the sidewall body.
Claim 4: Figure 9 depicts a seal (72), i.e., the “sealing part,” formed at the top of the blade to perform a sealing function [0066].
Claim 7: Given a steady-state operation, the temperature of the blade, sidewall, and chamber bottom will equilibrate.
Claim 8: Hirose embeds a heater (58) within the blade ([0057]; Fig. 7).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Saito et al., US 2020/0126816.
Hirose embeds a heater (58) within the blade but is silent regarding the technique of fluid circulation. Remedying the deficiency is Saito, disclosing a technique of symmetrical plasma confinement using a deposition shield (23), who cores a flow path (221) within a shutter (22) of the deposition shield to circulate a temperature adjusting fluid therein ([0031-32]; Figs. 2-3). Given the proximity of Hirose’s blade to the processing region, temperature regulation is necessarily a signal imperative, and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to integrate a fluid path within the blade body to satisfy this imperative.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Isago, US 2018/0374722.
Hirose actuates the blade vertically but is silent regarding the capacity for lateral movement. In supplementation, Isago, too, avails a movable blade (70) to selectively occlude a wafer-transfer opening ([0030], Figs. 1-2). As an additional step, however, during the blade’s shuttering operation, Isago presses the blade laterally towards the sealing means to ensure a hermetic attachment ([0066-67]; Fig. 6C). It would have been obvious to incorporate a lateral step during Hirose’s closing operation to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the seal.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hayasaka et al., US 2019/0348262. Hayasaka discloses a processing chamber comprising a blade (76v), actuated vertically by a driving unit, that covers an opening formed in the chamber’s sidewall (Figs. 2-3; [0039]).
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
Prosecution Insights