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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A (claims 1-14 and 18-19) in the reply filed on 7 May 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 and 19 first moving mechanism which has been interpreted as a vertical guide rail, a vertical movement body and a vertical actuator and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 43.
Claims 1 and 19 second moving mechanism which has been interpreted as a horizontal guide rail, a horizontal movement body and a horizontal actuator and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 51.
Claim 1 differential screw mechanism which has been interpreted as a motor, a first screw, a second screw and a slider and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 58.
Claim 19 process module which has been interpreted as a chamber and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 21.
Claim 19 transport module which has been interpreted as a housing and a vacuum transport device and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 31.
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.
Further Claim Interpretations
In the elected embodiment, Applicant’s disclosure states that the contact surface (17) is “continuously flush with the inner surface of the block body 12 extending in parallel to the vertical direction …” at para. 39. It follows that “a direction parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface” as claimed merely and necessarily describes a horizontal direction. No other direction(s) appear to be contemplated. Thus, it is being interpreted as a horizontal direction as disclosed for ease and simplicity. If Applicant intends to claim a feature different than this, they are invited to clarify and/or clearly provide evidence of the feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 limitations first movement mechanism and second movement mechanism have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim still includes some but not all of the structures required to perform the claimed functions as set forth in the specification. The required functions cannot be performed by an actuator alone. Note: unlike in the previous claim interpretation, based on Applicant’s clarifying comments, Examiner had not interpreted the first linear track or the second linear track as structural features of the first and second moving mechanisms, respectively. However, the boundaries of this claim limitation remain ambiguous due to the addition of the first actuator and the second actuator. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-14 and 18-19 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is meant to be invoked and has examined accordingly, wherein in the claimed actuators and features of the moving mechanisms but not sufficient structure perform all required functions. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Further still, in the elected embodiment, the claimed second actuator appears to also correspond to the differential screw mechanism (see, e.g., para. 57). However, the claim fails to clearly express this relationship. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the features at least overlap in claims 1 and 19.
Claims 5 and 12 “linear motion bearings” appear to at least partially structurally overlap with the first guide rail and second guide rail of the first and second moving mechanisms, respectively. In order to expedite examination, this is assumed to be the case and Examiner has examined accordingly.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already requires a differential screw mechanism for each of the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanisms. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3, 12-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0822462 to Park et al. in in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0064439 to Otaguro and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0152859 to Collins et al.
Park et al. disclose a gate valve capable of being provided in a boundary portion between two sections to block communication between the two sections substantially as claimed, the gate valve comprising: a base (Figs. 3-5, 240); a first moving mechanism (e.g., at least 241) installed on the base to move along a first linear track; a second moving mechanism (e.g., at least 242-244) and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move along a second linear track orthogonal to the first linear track; and a valve body (250) installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing (see translation).
However, the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism are not provided such that the first moving mechanism (e.g., a vertical guide rail, a vertical movement body and a vertical actuator) is installed on the base and configured to move a/the first movement body along a/the first linear track/direction; and a second moving mechanism (e.g., as a horizontal guide rail, a horizontal movement body and a horizontal actuator) is installed on the first movement body, and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move a/the second movement body along a/the second linear track/direction orthogonal to the first linear track/direction; and a valve body is installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing, wherein one of the first linear track and the second linear track is parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface as specifically claimed.
In Figs. 1-4 and the accompanying text, Otaguro et al. disclose a door/gate provided at a boundary portion between two sections to block communication between the two sections substantially as claimed, the door/gate valve comprising: a base (21 and/or 80); a first moving mechanism (having a first movement body 51 and 55, a first movement rail 57 and 58 and a first actuator 53, 54 and 56) installed on the base and configured to move a/the first movement body along a/the first linear track by a first actuator; a second moving mechanism (having a second movement body 44, a second movement track 41 and a second actuator 43) installed on the first movement body, and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move the second movement body along the second linear track orthogonal to the first linear track by a second actuator; and a valve body (23) installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing, wherein one of the first linear track and the second linear track is parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface (i.e. horizontal) for the purpose of providing a door/gate with a moving mechanism arrangement that does not contaminate a first section or a second section between which the door gate is provided (see, e.g., para. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided Park et al. such that the first moving mechanism (having a first movement body, a first movement rail and a first actuator) is installed on the base and configured to move a/the first movement body along a/the first linear track; and a second moving mechanism (having a second movement body, a second movement rail and a second actuator) is installed on the first movement body, and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move a/the second movement body along a/the second linear track orthogonal to the first linear track; and a valve body is installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing, wherein one of the first linear track and the second linear track is parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface as specifically claimed in order to provide a door/gate with a moving mechanism arrangement that does not contaminate a first section or a second section between which the door gate is provided as taught by Otaguro.
While, in modified Park et al., Otaguro et al. discloses use of a motor (43) drive the second moving mechanism horizontally. Modified Park et al. fail to disclose wherein one of the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism that moves the valve body in a direction parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface (i.e. a horizontal direction) includes a differential screw mechanism (i.e., horizontal/second actuator) configured to finely feed the valve body and having a motor, a first screw, a second screw and a slider. In claimed and elected invention, it is the second moving mechanism that moves in the prescribed direction.
Also in the art of substrate (e.g., semiconductors and the like) manufacturing apparatus, Collins et al. disclose a horizontal/lateral movement mechanism having a differential screw mechanism as an actuator for the purpose of providing a fine-tuned lateral/horizontal position of structure to be positioned in the manufacturing apparatus (see, e.g., paras. 71-79). In Fig. 4F, the differential screw mechanism has a first screw [outer screw 404, adjacent 409 and inner screw], a second screw [inner screw 404, adjacent outer screw and slider] and a slider [419].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have alternatively provided second moving mechanism/second actuator of the gate valve in modified Park et al. as a differential screw that moves the valve body of the gate valve in a direction parallel to a direction orthogonal to a contact surface (i.e. horizontal) in order to provide a fine-tuned lateral/horizontal position thereof as taught by Collins et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism are provided at positions adjacent to an outside of the boundary portion (e.g., inside 80).
With respect to claim 3, the claimed invention is considered the gate valve, not either of the two sections, such that substrate processing is considered an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Nevertheless, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose substrate processing (e.g., degassing can be performed in a FOUP (e.g., degassing) or a clean room (e.g. measuring and testing) and at least the first moving mechanism is provided below the FOUP/processing container.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism include linear motion bearings (i.e., first and second guide rails and any complementary structures to accomplish and support movement).
With respect to claim 13, in modified Park et al., as detailed above, Collins et al. disclose one of the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism that moves the valve body toward the contact surface includes a differential screw mechanism (i.e. a screw) configured to finely feed the valve body.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the first moving mechanism is configured to raise/lower the first movement body in a vertical direction as/using the linear track, and the second moving mechanism is configured to move the second movement body in parallel to the direction orthogonal to the contact surface as/using the second linear track.
With respect to claim 18, the claimed invention is considered the gate valve, such that any substrate processing is considered an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Nevertheless, in modified Park et al., both Park and Otaguro disclose their apparatus may be used in semiconductor manufacturing.
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Park et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 12-14 and 18 in view of KR 10-2014-0084983 to Lee et al.
Modified Park et al. disclose the gate valve substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Park et al. fail to disclose the boundary portion includes an accommodation space in which the valve body and the second movement body are connected to each other via a support extending from outside of the boundary portion into the accommodation space; and a bellows provided around the support to extend from a portion closing the accommodation space into the accommodate space while surrounding the support.
To provide a gate valve between a process module and a transport module in a cluster tool in order to provide and openable and closable opening therebetween, Lee et al. discloses a boundary portion (Fig. 2, 310) includes an accommodation space (inside 310) in which a valve body is movably accommodated, wherein the valve body and a movement body are connected to each other via a support (e.g., Figs. 2-8 and 14, 331) extending from outside of the boundary portion into the accommodation space; and a bellows (314) may be provided around the support to extend from a portion closing the accommodation space into the accommodate space while surrounding the support in order to provided hermeticity.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Park et al., a boundary portion includes an accommodation space in which the valve body and the second movement body are connected to each other via a support extending from outside of the boundary portion into the accommodation space; and a bellows provided around the support to extend from a portion closing the accommodation space into the accommodate space while surrounding the support in order to provide an openable and closable opening between a process module and a transport module in a cluster tool and to have provided bellows in order to provide hermeticity with respect to a support connected between the valve body and movement mechanism as taught by Lee et al.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism include linear motion bearings (i.e., first and second guide rails and any complementary structures to accomplish and support movement).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the first moving mechanism is configured to raise/lower the first movement body in a vertical direction as/using the linear track, and the second moving mechanism is configured to move the second movement body in parallel to the direction orthogonal to the contact surface as/using the second linear track.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Park et al., Otaguro disclose the base extends along the vertical direction, the first moving mechanism includes the first linear track provided on the base and the first actuator is configured to move the first movement body along the first linear track, the first movement body includes a vertically extending portion (e.g. surface) extending in the vertical direction and a horizontally extending portion (e.g., surface) connected to the vertically extending portion and extending in a horizontal direction, and the second moving mechanism includes the second linear track provided on the horizontally extending portion and the second actuator is configured to move the second movement body along the second linear track.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, which appear to be drawn to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Additionally, via horizontal movement for opening and closing, modified Park is configured such that the second moving mechanism is configured to be capable of making a relationship between a displacement of the second movement body from a reference position of the second movement body and time coincide with a relationship between a displacement of the valve body from a reference position of the valve body and time.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2014-0084983 to Lee et al. in view of KR 10-0822462 to Park et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0064439 to Otaguro and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20130152859 to Collins et al.
Lee et al. disclose a substrate processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: a process module (Fig.1, 1) configured to process a substrate; a transport module (2 and 4) configured to transport the substrate to the process module; and a gate valve (multiple structures) provided in a boundary portion between the process module and the transport module (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 2, as well as accompanying translated text), wherein the gate valve includes: a base (Fig. 7, 337); moving mechanisms; and a valve body (320) installed and configured to come into contact with a contact surface so as to perform sealing.
However, Lee et al. fail to disclose a first moving mechanism and a second moving mechanism provided such that the first moving mechanism (having a first movement body, a first movement track and a first actuator) is installed on the base and configured to move a/the first movement body along a/the first linear track by a first actuator; and a second moving mechanism (having a second movement body, a second movement track and a second actuator) is installed on the first movement body, and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move a/the second movement body along a/the second linear track orthogonal to the first linear track by a second actuator; and the valve body is installed on the second movement body as specifically claimed.
Park et al. disclose a gate valve provided at a boundary portion between to section to block communication between the two sections substantially as claimed, the gate valve comprising: a base (Figs. 3-5, 240); a first moving mechanism (e.g., at least 241) installed on the base; a second moving mechanism (e.g., at least 242-244) and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move orthogonal to the first linear track; and a valve body (250) installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing (see translation). The gate valve configuration of Park et al. including first and second moving mechanisms enables spatial uniformity in the process container and shortened processing times (see, e.g., translation).
In Figs. 1-4 and the accompanying text, Otaguro et al. disclose a door/gate provided at a boundary portion between two sections to block communication between the two sections substantially as claimed, the door/gate valve comprising: a base (21 and/or 80); a first moving mechanism (having a first movement body 51 and 55, a first movement track 57 and 58 and a first actuator 53, 54 and 56) installed on the base and configured to move a/the first movement body along a/the first linear track; a second moving mechanism (having a second movement body 44, a second movement track 41 and a second actuator 43) installed on the first movement body, and configured to operate at a timing different from the first moving mechanism and to move the second movement body along the second linear track orthogonal to the first linear track; and a valve body (23) installed on the second movement body and configured to come into contact with a contact surface to perform sealing, wherein one of the first linear track and the second linear track is parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface for the purpose of providing door/gate with a moving mechanism arrangement that does not contaminate a first section or a second section between for which the door gate is provided (see, e.g., para. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Lee et al with a gate valve as detailed and more specifically with first and second movement mechanisms as claimed in order to, inter alia, in order to provide a gate valve that enables spatial uniformity in the process container and shortened processing times and also that does not provide contamination as taught by Park et al. and Otaguro.
While, in modified Lee et al., Otaguro et al. discloses use of a motor (43) drive the second moving mechanism horizontally. Modified Park et al. fail to disclose wherein one of the first moving mechanism and the second moving mechanism that moves the valve body in a direction parallel to a direction orthogonal to the contact surface (i.e. a horizontal direction) includes a differential screw mechanism (i.e., horizontal/second actuator) configured to finely feed the valve body and having a motor, a first screw, a second screw and a slider. In claimed and elected invention, it is the second moving mechanism that moves in the prescribed direction.
Also, in the art of substrate (e.g., semiconductors and the like) manufacturing apparatus, Collins et al. disclose a horizontal/lateral movement mechanism having a differential screw mechanism as an actuator for the purpose of providing a fine-tuned lateral/horizontal position of structure to be positioned in the manufacturing apparatus (see, e.g., paras. 71-79). In Fig. 4F, the differential screw mechanism has a first screw [outer screw 404, adjacent 409 and inner screw], a second screw [inner screw 404, adjacent outer screw and slider] and a slider [419].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have alternatively provided second moving mechanism/second actuator of the gate valve in modified Lee et al. as a differential screw that moves the valve body of the gate valve in a direction parallel to a direction orthogonal to a contact surface (i.e. horizontal) in order to provide a fine-tuned lateral/horizontal position thereof as taught by Collins et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the examined claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s clarification that the first linear track and the second linear track are not structural features of the claimed invention, rather “a way or a direction”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP Patent Pub. No. 2011157989 to Endo discloses a gate valve with a differential screw mechanism.
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 at (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