DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 3 February 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10-16 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source.” The claim of “a separate radical generation source” constitutes new matter. The term “separate” is not present in applicant’s originally filed specification. Furthermore, applicant’s specification indicates a single radical generation source adapted to generate the different types of radicals (par 0018-0019). Furthermore, applicant discloses reducing the number of power supplies in order to have one power supply provide for different radical generation (par 0023-0025).
Furthermore, while applicant does disclose different radical supply ports for the different radicals; it is clear that the second radical supply ports are not the claimed “second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source,” because the second radical supply ports are also claimed separately within claim 1.
Since there is no disclosure of a “a separate radical generation source” and instead an indication of a single source configurable to provide different radicals, applicant has not reasonably conveyed that the inventor at the time the applicant was filed had possession of said “separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source.” Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for new matter. Dependent claims 3, 4, 7 and 10-16 are correspondingly rejected.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“radical supply means” in claims 1 and 14 (there isn’t sufficient structure claimed to produce the radical supply function)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2020/0332811) in view of Kwan (US 6596123) in view of Choi (US 2007/0286766).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a vacuum pump (fig 1) comprising:
a housing (fig 1, casing 1, par 0063) having an inlet port (2, par 0064) and an outlet port (discharge port EX, par 0065);
a rotor shaft (5, par 0069) rotationally supported inside the housing; and
a rotating body (RT, par 0073) including a plurality of rotor blades (6, par 0074) fixed to the rotor shaft and is rotatable together with the rotor shaft (par 0074),
a threaded spacer (thread groove stator 8, par 0088) spaced apart from the rotating body by a predetermined distance (predetermined clearance between the lower end of RT and thread groove stator 8, par 0091)
the vacuum pump further comprising:
a first radical supply means ( gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) capable of supplying radicals of a first radical type into the housing (high-energy gas put into a radical state, par 0137; gas includes argon, krypton, xenon, par 0138),
the first radical supply means comprising:
a first radical supply port (gas injection holes 92, par 0137) located in the housing; a first radical generation source for generating the radicals of the first radical type (gas supply system “SS” por 0170) and a first valve (fig 2 or fig 18, any of BL1, BL2, BL3 and BL4, par 0147, 0154) between the first radical generation source and the first radical supply port;
a second radical supply means that is capable of supplying radicals of a second radical type, which is different from the first radical type, into the housing (a second gas of argon, krypton or kenon put into a high-energy radical satte, par 0137-0138a the removing gas may be appropriately selected or combined as needed, par 0138; a combination of gases plainly refers to at least two gases), …
…
a controller (controller “CX”, Par 0148-0153) configured to:
…
[control flow of a first gas using] the first valve (BL1 and BL2 are used to control removing gas to injection holes 92, par 0153; the signal is output from the controller to BL1-BL4 to supply gas to holes 92, par 0147; a similar control is suggested for gas stored in surge tank TK with control of valve BL4, par 0154;) for a first period of time (an injection time of the removing gas is controlled, par 0010, 0015, 0036, 0115, 0148-0153)…, the first period of time sufficient for the first radical to react with a deposit in the vacuum pump (the intended result of adding the gas is reaction with the deposit, par 0171-0174) that requires multiple reaction steps to be decomposed (intermittent injection could be used, also switching to a second gas can also be done, par 0172);
[end flow of the first gas] after the first period of time (BL1 and BL2 are used to control removing gas to injection holes 92, par 0153; the signal is output from the controller to BL1-BL4 to supply gas to holes 92, par 0147; a similar control is suggested for gas stored in surge tank TK with control of valve BL4, par 0154;); and
[controlling the flow of a second gas] for a second period of time (intermittent injection could be used, also switching to a second gas can also be done, par 0172) , the second period of time sufficient for the second radical to react with the deposit (the intended result of adding the gas is reaction with the deposit, par 0171-0174),
wherein the first radical supply port (a first from gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) and the second radical supply port (a second from gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) are provided, in an axial direction of the rotor shaft (92 are located axially between the threaded groove exhaust and the rotor blades, par 0112-0113), between the threaded spacer and a rotor blade most distant from the inlet port among the plurality of rotor blades (fig 1 depicts holes 92 between threaded groove and rotor blades, par 0099).
Yamamoto does not disclose
the second radical supply means being separated from the first radical supply means,
the second radical supply means comprising:
a second radical supply port located in the housing; a second radical generation source for generating the radicals of the second radical type, the second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source
a second valve located between the second radical generation source and the second radical supply port; and
determining that a valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber is closed,
Where [controlling the flow of the first gas] is opening the first valve while the valve between the vacuum pump and process chamber is closed, closing the first valve after the first period of time,
Where [controlling the flow of the second gas] is opening a second valve that controls the second gas entry into the pump, while the valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber is closed and after the first valve has been closed.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose switching from a first cleaning/removing radical gas to a second cleaning/removing radical gas. Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches switching cleaning/removing gases in order to have “a larger effect of removing the deposited product” (par 0172). Yamamoto broadly teaches in order to increase the removing effect, switching from inert gas, to high temperature gas, to high-energy gas “and the like” (id.). The phrase “and the like” reasonably suggests that there are other reasonable switches between removing gases in order to increasing the removing effect.
Therefore, Yamamoto makes it obvious to try switching from a first radical gas to a second radical gas in order to increase removing effect. Something is obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143). In this case, Yamamoto clearly gives a finite number of removing gases to select from: an inert gas, a high-temperature gas, or a high-energy gas such as a radical gas (Par 0137). Yamamoto explicitly indicates that each can be used as a removing gas (par 0137) as well as suggests methods of using said gases to remove deposited product (par 0172). Therefore the use of each gas is a predictable solution as a removing gas. There is a reasonable expectation of success of increasing removing effect by switching from a high-energy radical gas to another high-energy radical gas because Yamamoto recognizes that different gases of different molecular weight have different removal effects (par 0138).
Regarding the opening and closing of valves, Yamamoto teaches controlling the injection time, and flow of the cleaning gas into the pump by using valves BL1-BL4 (par 0147, 0153, 0154).
Valves are ubiquitous in the art, and the plain meaning of a valve is “a device that opens and closes to control the flow of liquid or gases (See definition of “valve” obtained from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/valve on 21 August 2025).” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use opening and closing of said valves BL1-BL4 and duplicated valves on a second gas supply means to control the injection time and flow of gas to the pump as the predictable result of using a valve for its intended use.
Regarding the second valve controlling the second gas, Yamamoto teaches switching to a second cleaning gas (par 0172) but does not disclosing using a second valve system to control said gas.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the control valves (BL1-BL4) to supply a second gas as a duplication of parts (See MPEP 2143). A duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, Yamamoto already discloses controlling a secondary cleaning gas as explained above, it is reasonable to conclude that adding second set of control valves for the secondary cleaning gas produces a predictable result because the second set of valves is used for cleaning gas control in the same way as the first set of valves.
Regarding opening the second valve after the first valve has been closed, Yamamoto teaches switching to a second cleaning gas (par 0172). The plain meaning of the term “switch” is to stop usage of one thing and then change to the use of another. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that closing the first valve ends the use of the first cleaning gas, and opening the second valve starts the use of the second cleaning gas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use opening of the second valve and closing of the first valves to control flow of the first and second cleaning gas as the predictable result of using a valve for its intended use.
Kwan teaches an analogous method for cleaning a wafer system and turbomolecular pump (abstract),
With a clearing system comprising a first radical supply means (RF generator 152, c 4 ln 46-65)
a second radical supply means being separated from the first radical supply means (remote plasma source 150a with an ADDITIONAL SIDE PORT, c 4 ln 66 – c 5 ln 6; the additional supply port for only the second gas is interpreted as “separate”),
the second radical supply means comprising:
a second radical supply port located in the housing (additional side port, c 5 ln 1); a second radical generation source (remote plasma source 150, c 4 ln 67) for generating the radicals of the second radical type (remote provided fluorine gases, c 5 ln 4-5), the second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source (the remote source 150A is different from the RF generator, c 4 ln 46-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the second radical supply means of Yamamoto by adding the second radical supply means taught by Kwan thereby adding a secondary source of cleaning plasma that is not dependent on the same supply as the first source, thereby creating a redundant cleaning gas supply system.
Choi teaches a vacuum pump (130) with a housing (housing for pumps are implicit, pump housings are conventionally required for operation of a pump) comprising: a first radical supply port (fig 3, discharge of plasma chamber 310 to 110, par 0026), a second radical supply port (a second plasma chamber 310 to 110, par 0026; a plurality of plasma chambers is disclosed, par 0011, 0026, claim 1) … that are capable of supplying a plurality of types of radicals (chlorine or fluorine radicals, par 0024, 0026) including a first radical and a second radical (chlorine or fluorine radicals, par 0024) into the housing (cleaning residue from the operating surface of the pump is implicitly the cleaning of the pump interior, par 0022); a radical supply means (radical generator 220, par 0024, which contains a plurality of plasma chambers 310, par 0011, 0026, claim 1) for supplying the first radical to the first radical supply port and for supplying the second radical to the second radical supply port (the plurality of plasma chambers 310 would have connections to exhaust 110, similar to the single connection depicted in fig 3), a controller (210) and a valve between the vacuum pump and a process chamber (gate valve 100, par 0006)
Regarding the controller configured to determine that the valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber is closed.
Choi does teach that the main benefit of the invention, is adding the separate line for cleaning gas, separate from the reaction chamber, eliminates the need to change process conditions of the reaction chamber when cleaning the vacuum pump (par 0029). Furthermore, Choi allows the pump cleaning to be done both whether or not the reaction chamber (100) is being used with the main process (par 0027). These disclosures would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the intention of Choi is to allow the pump cleaning process to be isolatable from the process in the reaction chamber (100). A person of ordinary skill in the art would note that Choi’s gate valve (fig 2, 120, par 0006) is depicted between the reaction chamber (100) and the cleaning gas section (110) and that this position would suggest that gate valve (120) is used to isolate the process chamber (100) from the cleaning gas section (110). Furthermore, gate valves are known in the art as valves that function to either fully open or fully close a passage, which aligns with the obvious intended purpose of the gate valve in either fully separating or fully connecting the process chamber and the reaction chamber.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that Choi’s gate valve (120) may be fully closed in order to allow the cleaning of pump (130) to occur without needing to change any parameters in the reaction chamber (100, par 0029), because it is reasonable to conclude that conventionally the fully closed valve (120) would isolate pump (130) from reaction chamber (100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path between vacuum pump and process chamber of Yamamoto by adding the gate valve (100) of Choi in order to allow cleaning of the vacuum pump without affecting the pressure level of the process chamber as suggested by Yamamoto (par 0143) and also suggested by Choi (par 0029). It would be further obvious to modify the control of Yamamoto to monitor and integrate opening and closing the gate valve (100) in order to prevent not affect the vacuum of the process chamber while using the cleaning gas method of Yamamoto which is suggested by Yamamoto intended to prevent affecting the vacuum of the external device M by limiting cleaning to times when the external device M is giving a maintenance permission signal (par 0143-0146). Furthermore, the use of a valve to prevent gas flow between devices is the primary function of a valve in the mechanical arts; using the valve in the above manner produces a predictable result as it is obvious that the valve is used in the same manner in the combination that it would be used in the references individually.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 15. Yamamoto is silent on wherein at least a part of the power serves also as a power supply for plasma generation of a chamber.
Choi further teaches wherein at least a part of the power supply configured to drive the radical generation source for the plurality of types of radicals (Choi, RF generator uses electricity to produce radicals, par 0011, 0015, 0022) serves also as a power supply for plasma generation (RF converts chlorine/fluorine gas to radicals/plasma, abstract; examiner notes that the plain meaning of plasma is an ionized gas, such that the ionized gas radicals meet the plain meaning of plasma) of a chamber (Choi, plasma chamber 310, par 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the radical supply means of Yamamoto by using the power supply and radical generation source of Choi for the expected result of producing cleaning gas in a radial or in a plasma state as suggested by Yamamoto (par 0137).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1, wherein each of the radical supply ports is located at a position substantially equidistant from the inlet port in an axial direction of the rotor shaft (Yamamoto, injection holes 92 are located upstream of the thread groove exhaust flow path R2, par 0099, 0112; fig 1 depicts the holes at the same axial location between the rotor blades and the thread groove).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, when a pressure value of the vacuum pump as the operation data exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Yamamoto, pressure measurement determines amount of deposition and adds removing gas accordingly, par 0167), determine that deposition of by-products is in progress and that the radicals need to be supplied to clean off the by-products (supply rate of removing gas is increased based upon estimates of deposition amount based on measured pressure, par 0167).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto teaches a vacuum pump cleaning system (fig 1, deposit removal, abstract) comprising:
a housing (fig 1, casing 1, par 0063) having an inlet port (2, par 0064) and an outlet port (discharge port EX, par 0065);
a rotor shaft (5, par 0069) rotationally supported inside the housing; and
a rotating body (RT, par 0073) including a plurality of rotor blades (6, par 0074) fixed to the rotor shaft and is rotatable together with the rotor shaft (par 0074),
a threaded spacer (thread groove stator 8, par 0088) spaced apart from the rotating body by a predetermined distance (predetermined clearance between the lower end of RT and thread groove stator 8, par 0091)
the vacuum pump cleaning system further comprising:
a first radical supply means ( gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) capable of supplying radicals of a first radical type into the housing (high-energy gas put into a radical state, par 0137; gas includes argon, krypton, xenon, par 0138),
the first radical supply means comprising:
a first radical supply port (gas injection holes 92, par 0137) located in the housing; a first radical generation source for generating the radicals of the first radical type (gas supply system “SS” por 0170) and a first valve (fig 2 or fig 18, any of BL1, BL2, BL3 and BL4, par 0147, 0154) between the first radical generation source and the first radical supply port;
a second radical supply means that is capable of supplying radicals of a second radical type, which is different from the first radical type, into the housing (a second gas of argon, krypton or kenon put into a high-energy radical satte, par 0137-0138a the removing gas may be appropriately selected or combined as needed, par 0138; a combination of gases plainly refers to at least two gases), …
…
a controller (controller “CX”, Par 0148-0153) configured to:
[control flow of a first gas using] the first valve (BL1 and BL2 are used to control removing gas to injection holes 92, par 0153; the signal is output from the controller to BL1-BL4 to supply gas to holes 92, par 0147; a similar control is suggested for gas stored in surge tank TK with control of valve BL4, par 0154) for a first period of time (an injection time of the removing gas is controlled, par 0010, 0015, 0036, 0115, 0148-0153)…, the first period of time sufficient for the first radical to react with a deposit in the vacuum pump (the intended result of adding the gas is reaction with the deposit, par 0171-0174) that requires multiple reaction steps to be decomposed (intermittent injection could be used, also switching to a second gas can also be done, par 0172);
[end the flow of the first gas] after the first period of time (BL1 and BL2 are used to control removing gas to injection holes 92, par 0153; the signal is output from the controller to BL1-BL4 to supply gas to holes 92, par 0147; a similar control is suggested for gas stored in surge tank TK with control of valve BL4, par 0154;); and
[controlling the flow of a second gas] for a second period of time (intermittent injection could be used, also switching to a second gas can also be done, par 0172) , the second period of time sufficient for the second radical to react with the deposit (the intended result of adding the gas is reaction with the deposit, par 0171-0174),
wherein the first radical supply port (a first from gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) and the second radical supply port (a second from gas injection holes 92, par 0137; from channel 11a, par 0112, 113) are provided, in an axial direction of the rotor shaft (92 are located axially between the threaded groove exhaust and the rotor blades, par 0112-0113), between the threaded spacer and a rotor blade most distant from the inlet port among the plurality of rotor blades (fig 1 depicts holes 92 between threaded groove and rotor blades, par 0099).
Yamamoto does not disclose
Yamamoto does not disclose
the second radical supply means being separated from the first radical supply means,
the second radical supply means comprising:
a second radical supply port located in the housing; a second radical generation source for generating the radicals of the second radical type, the second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source
a second valve located between the second radical supply means and the second radical supply port; and
determining that a valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber,
Where [controlling the flow of the first gas] is opening the first valve while the valve between the vacuum pump and process chamber is closed, closing the first valve after the first period of time,
Where [controlling the flow of the second gas] is opening a second valve that controls the second gas entry into the pump, while the valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber is closed and after the first valve has been closed.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose switching from a first cleaning/removing radical gas to a second cleaning/removing radical gas. Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches switching cleaning/removing gases in order to have “a larger effect of removing the deposited product” (par 0172). Yamamoto broadly teaches in order to increase the removing effect, switching from inert gas, to high temperature gas, to high-energy gas “and the like” (id.). The phrase “and the like” reasonably suggests that there are other reasonable switches between removing gases in order to increasing the removing effect.
Therefore, Yamamoto makes it obvious to try switching from a first radical gas to a second radical gas in order to increase removing effect. Something is obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143). In this case, Yamamoto clearly gives a finite number of removing gases to select from: an inert gas, a high-temperature gas, or a high-energy gas such as a radical gas (Par 0137). Yamamoto explicitly indicates that each can be used as a removing gas (par 0137) as well as suggests methods of using said gases to remove deposited product (par 0172). Therefore the use of each gas is a predictable solution as a removing gas. There is a reasonable expectation of success of increasing removing effect by switching from a high-energy radical gas to another high-energy radical gas because Yamamoto recognizes that different gases of different molecular weight have different removal effects (par 0138).
Regarding the opening and closing of valves, Yamamoto teaches controlling the injection time, and flow of the cleaning gas into the pump by using valves BL1-BL4 (par 0147, 0153, 0154).
Valves are ubiquitous in the art, and the plain meaning of a valve is “a device that opens and closes to control the flow of liquid or gases (See definition of “valve” obtained from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/valve on 21 August 2025).” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use opening and closing of said valves BL1-BL4 and duplicated valves on a second gas supply means to control the injection time and flow of gas to the pump as the predictable result of using a valve for its intended use.
Regarding the second valve controlling the second gas, Yamamoto teaches switching to a second cleaning gas (par 0172) but does not disclosing using a second valve system to control said gas.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the control valves (BL1-BL4) to supply a second gas as a duplication of parts (See MPEP 2143). A duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, Yamamoto already discloses controlling a secondary cleaning gas as explained above, it is reasonable to conclude that adding second set of control valves for the secondary cleaning gas produces a predictable result because the second set of valves is used for cleaning gas control in the same way as the first set of valves.
Regarding opening the second valve after the first valve has been closed, Yamamoto teaches switching to a second cleaning gas (par 0172). The plain meaning of the term “switch” is to stop usage of one thing and then change to the use of another. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that closing the first valve ends the use of the first cleaning gas, and opening the second valve starts the use of the second cleaning gas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use opening of the second valve and closing of the first valves to control flow of the first and second cleaning gas as the predictable result of using a valve for its intended use.
Kwan teaches an analogous method for cleaning a wafer system and turbomolecular pump (abstract),
With a clearing system comprising a first radical supply means (RF generator 152, c 4 ln 46-65)
a second radical supply means being separated from the first radical supply means (remote plasma source 150a with an ADDITIONAL SIDE PORT, c 4 ln 66 – c 5 ln 6; the additional supply port for only the second gas is interpreted as “separate”),
the second radical supply means comprising:
a second radical supply port located in the housing (additional side port, c 5 ln 1); a second radical generation source (remote plasma source 150, c 4 ln 67) for generating the radicals of the second radical type (remote provided fluorine gases, c 5 ln 4-5), the second radical generation source being a separate radical generation source from the first radical generation source (the remote source 150A is different from the RF generator, c 4 ln 46-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the second radical supply means of Yamamoto by adding the second radical supply means taught by Kwan thereby adding a secondary source of cleaning plasma that is not dependent on the same supply as the first source, thereby creating a redundant cleaning gas supply system.
Choi teaches a vacuum pump (130) with a housing (housing for pumps are implicit, pump housings are conventionally required for operation of a pump) comprising: a first radical supply port (fig 3, discharge of plasma chamber 310 to 110, par 0026), a second radical supply port (a second plasma chamber 310 to 110, par 0026; a plurality of plasma chambers is disclosed, par 0011, 0026, claim 1) … that are capable of supplying a plurality of types of radicals (chlorine or fluorine radicals, par 0024, 0026) including a first radical and a second radical (chlorine or fluorine radicals, par 0024) into the housing (cleaning residue from the operating surface of the pump is implicitly the cleaning of the pump interior, par 0022); a radical supply means (radical generator 220, par 0024, which contains a plurality of plasma chambers 310, par 0011, 0026, claim 1) for supplying the first radical to the first radical supply port and for supplying the second radical to the second radical supply port (the plurality of plasma chambers 310 would have connections to exhaust 110, similar to the single connection depicted in fig 3), a controller (210) and a valve between the vacuum pump and a process chamber (gate valve 100, par 0006)
Regarding the controller configured to determine that the valve between the vacuum pump and the process chamber is closed.
Choi does teach that the main benefit of the invention, is adding the separate line for cleaning gas, separate from the reaction chamber, eliminates the need to change process conditions of the reaction chamber when cleaning the vacuum pump (par 0029). Furthermore, Choi allows the pump cleaning to be done both whether or not the reaction chamber (100) is being used with the main process (par 0027). These disclosures would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the intention of Choi is to allow the pump cleaning process to be isolatable from the process in the reaction chamber (100). A person of ordinary skill in the art would note that Choi’s gate valve (fig 2, 120, par 0006) is depicted between the reaction chamber (100) and the cleaning gas section (110) and that this position would suggest that gate valve (120) is used to isolate the process chamber (100) from the cleaning gas section (110). Furthermore, gate valves are known in the art as valves that function to either fully open or fully close a passage, which aligns with the obvious intended purpose of the gate valve in either fully separating or fully connecting the process chamber and the reaction chamber.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that Choi’s gate valve (120) may be fully closed in order to allow the cleaning of pump (130) to occur without needing to change any parameters in the reaction chamber (100, par 0029), because it is reasonable to conclude that conventionally the fully closed valve (120) would isolate pump (130) from reaction chamber (100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path between vacuum pump and process chamber of Yamamoto by adding the gate valve (100) of Choi in order to allow cleaning of the vacuum pump without affecting the pressure level of the process chamber as suggested by Yamamoto (par 0143) and also suggested by Choi (par 0029). It would be further obvious to modify the control of Yamamoto to monitor and integrate opening and closing the gate valve (100) in order to prevent not affect the vacuum of the process chamber while using the cleaning gas method of Yamamoto which is suggested by Yamamoto intended to prevent affecting the vacuum of the external device M by limiting cleaning to times when the external device M is giving a maintenance permission signal (par 0143-0146). Furthermore, the use of a valve to prevent gas flow between devices is the primary function of a valve in the mechanical arts; using the valve in the above manner produces a predictable result as it is obvious that the valve is used in the same manner in the combination that it would be used in the references individually.
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1. Yamamoto does not disclose further comprising a power supply configured to drive the first and second radical generation source.
Choi teaches wherein the radical supply means includes a first and second radical generation source adapted to generate the plurality of types of radicals (Choi, plurality of plasma chambers 310 with antennas 310, par 0011, 0026) and a power supply configured to drive the first and second radical generation source (Choi, RF power is provided to antenna 340 in order to produce radicals, par 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the first and second radical supply means of Yamamoto by using the power supply and multiple radical generation sources of Choi for the expected result of producing cleaning gas in a radical state (Yamamoto, par 0137) and to switch to different types of removing gas (Yamamoto, par 0172) as suggested by Yamamoto. As a result, the combination meets the claim limitation because the first and second radical generation means which are obvious under Yamamoto, produce radicals via the power supply and first and second radical generation sources of Choi.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi in view of Kao (US 6,125,859).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 15. Yamamoto does not disclose wherein at least a part of a power supply serves also as a power supply for pump control.
Choi further teaches a power supply configured to drive the radical generation source for the plurality of types of radicals (Choi, RF generator uses electricity to produce radicals, par 0011, 0015, 0022). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the radical supply means of Yamamoto by using the power supply and radical generation source of Choi for the expected result of producing cleaning gas in a radial or in a plasma state as suggested by Yamamoto (par 0137).
Yamamoto in view of Choi is silent on the electricity source serves also as a power supply for pump control.
Kao teaches the system controller (34) being a conventional single-board computer with conventional processor (37), hard drives, and CRT monitors (c 9 ln 12-36). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these computer systems are known in the art as electrical systems.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrical source to provide power to both the radical generation source and the controller for the predictable result of providing electrical power. An electrical system providing electrical power to multiple electrical system is the conventional use of an electrical power source.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi in view of Watson (2008/0041414).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1. Yamamoto is silent wherein the controller is configured to, when a current value of a motor for driving and rotating the rotor shaft as the operation data exceeds a predetermined threshold value, determine that deposition of by-products is in progress and that the radicals need to be supplied to clean off the by-products.
Watson teaches an analogous cleaning process for a vacuum pump wherein the controller (Watson, 26) is configured to, when a current value of a motor (Watson, “monitor … the current drawn by a motor of the pump,” para 0009) for driving and rotating the rotor shaft as the operation data exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Watson, “monitored characteristic, for example if the current drawn exceeds a predetermined amount,” par 0009), determine that deposition of by-products is in progress and that the radicals need to be supplied to clean off the by-products (Watson, par 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yamamoto in view of Choi to monitor the current drawn by the motor of the pump as taught by Watson in order to detect when a cleaning cycle should be applied to the pump.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1. Yamamoto is silent wherein the controller is configured to, when a current value of a motor for driving and rotating the rotor shaft as the operation data is substantially equal to a pre-stored current value of the motor in no-load operation, control opening and closing control of the first valve.
Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches cleaning the pump during no-load operation (maintenance signal for cleaning is sent when vacuum pump is under maintenance, par 0142-0143).
Watson teaches an analogous cleaning process for a vacuum pump wherein the controller (Watson, 26) is configured to, when a current value of a motor (Watson, “monitor … the current drawn by a motor of the pump,” para 0009) for driving and rotating the rotor shaft as the operation data exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Watson, “monitored characteristic, for example if the current drawn exceeds a predetermined amount,” par 0009), determine that deposition of by-products is in progress and that the radicals need to be supplied to clean off the by-products (Watson, par 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yamamoto in view of Choi to monitor the current drawn by the motor of the pump as taught by Watson in order to detect when a cleaning cycle should be applied to the pump.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of the combination to detect the current value at no-load operation in order to perform the cleaning while the pump is in a maintenance period (Yamamoto, par 0143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi in view of Bailey (WO 2019/122873).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 1. Yamamoto is silent wherein the controller is configured to, when a pressure value of the vacuum pump as the operation data is substantially equal to a pre-stored pressure value of the vacuum pump in no-load operation, control opening and closing of the first valve.
Bailey teaches a vacuum pump cleaning method where the control circuitry (30) receives pressure sensor data (pg 8 ln 8-10) in order determine that particular process byproducts are present (pg 8 ln 10-11) and thereby initiate a cleaning cycle of the pump with radicals (pg 8 ln 11-14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of Yamamoto in view of Choi with the pressure cleaning control of Bailey in order to trigger a cleaning cycle when pressure at the pump is higher, thereby improving the efficiency of the pump when pressure is affected. As a result, the combination teaches control of opening and closing of the first valve in order to start a cleaning cycle.
Bailey is silent on the pressure monitoring data is substantially equal to a pre-stored pressure value of the vacuum pump in no-load operation.
Nevertheless, Bailey teaches that pressure is monitored to detect the presence of byproducts in the pump (Bailey, pg 8 ln 10-11); which indicates that the pre-stored threshold value of the vacuum pump in no-load operation is a result effective variable which indicates that by-products are present in the pump (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, any particular pressure threshold value is obvious as nothing more than an optimization or workable range that predicts the presence of byproducts in the pump.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi in view of Sugawara (US 2008/0236629).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto in view of Kwan in view of Choi teaches the vacuum pump according to claim 15.
Yamamoto is silent on , wherein each of the first and second radical generation source has a replaceable electrode and generation of various types of radicals is achievable by replacing the electrode, the power supply for the first and second radical generation sources has a voltage output variable function.
Choi further teaches …, the power supply for a radical generation source has a voltage output variable function (Choi, variable capacitor 330a,b comprises the RF supply, par 0013, 0024; variable capacitors conventionally are used to change resonance frequency of a RF voltage supply according to the conventional formula for a resonant circuit “f = 1 / (2π√(LC))”), and generation of various types of radicals is achievable by adjusting a voltage output of the power supply (Choi, RF supply is selected for cleaning using RF switch 240, par 0026; RF matching and selection also uses variable capacitors 330a/330b, par 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the first and second radical supply means of Yamamoto by using the power supply and multiple radical generation sources of Choi for the expected result of producing a variety of cleaning gas in a radical state (Yamamoto, par 0137) by adjusting the voltage output of the power supply (Choi, RF supply is adjusted para 0024, 0026).
Therefore, the combination meets the limitation “the power supply for the first and second radical generation sources has a voltage output variable function (Choi, par 0024-0026), and generation of various types of radicals is achievable by adjusting a voltage output of the power supply (Choi, par 0024-0026).”
Sugawara teaches detachable electrode (28) in chamber (par 0080) where electrical power is applied to the electrodes to produce radicals (par 0083).
Examiner notes that Choi’s antenna (340) is another term for an electrode (28) as both are structurally identical and accomplish the same function by receiving RF voltage to convert a gas into its ionized / plasma form (Choi, par 0026; Applicant’s spec par 0022-0023).
It would be further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode / antenna (340) for the first and second radical generation sources of Yamamoto in view of Choi by making the electrodes/antenna detachable as taught by Sugawara in order to ease maintenance. Furthermore, since the electrode/antenna (340) of the combination is replaceable and is capable of producing radicals, the limitation “generation of various types of radicals is achievable by replacing the electrode” is an intended use recitation and does differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (See MPEP 2114). As it has been held, "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 ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, 3 February 2026) with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and 14-16 have been considered.
Pg 1, Applicant argues that neither Yamamoto or Choi show or suggest two supply means each with its own generation source, valve and port, where the generation sources produce radicals of different types and the supply means are separated from each other. New reference, Kwan has been added to address the supply means including a separate port for the different radical supply means. Examiner notes that a separate supply means was rejected above as new matter. The new reference Kwan was added as a teaching reference for what was also identified as new matter.
Applicant includes no further arguments to any other combinations or references.
Conclusion
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746