3DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (1/23/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-6, 9-14, 19-24, 26 and 31) were examined in a Non-Final on 8/11/2025. A Final office action in response to applicant’s submission of 11/5/2025 was mailed on 2/11/2026. Claims 1 and 3-4 were amended so that claims 1-6, 9-14, 19-24, 26 and 31 were examined. This office action is a second Final office action and includes response to Applicants remarks submitted on 4/10/2026. Also included is consideration of IDS dated 2/9/2026.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Response to applicants remarks in this section is in addition to earlier remarks in Final dated 2/11/2026. The rejection of that date is maintained. Applicant submits that the last office action, a final, was improper. Examiner does not agree. However, in order to give the applicant more time and to provide some more clarity, this office action is a second Final.
Applicant states as below
Completely absent from the Office's response was any showing that the limitation that "the movable bodies are transitionable between at least a first configuration and a second configuration, the movable bodies, in the first configuration, are positioned proximate the valve seat to provide a first amount of flow restriction, and the movable bodies, in the second configuration, are displaced in the same direction from the positions the movable bodies were in in the first configuration and are positioned at spaced-apart locations along the first axis and relative to each other and the valve seat to provide a second amount of flow restriction less than the first amount of flow restriction" was taught or suggested by Tahmassebpur and Takahashi. (P11)
In response, it is noted that the two configurations are nothing but positioning the movable bodies at different locations in order to control the flow conductance. It is noted that this functional limitation is fully capable of being executed by the structure proposed in the rejection.
Applicant’s repetition of inadequate response to sec 112(b) rejection is not persuasive. Applicant remarks at the end are not even relevant. See the added clarity in current 112 (b) rejection.
Applicants statement that in Takahashi upper valve 31 is movable.
It is noted from Takahashi et al as below.
The gas flow rate adjusting valve 6 is composed of two disk-shaped plates, and is composed of a ring-shaped lower valve 30 and a disk-shaped upper valve 31 whose center is hollowed out. The upper valve 31 is fixed to the center by a thin support frame 32 made up of several pieces. The distance between the upper valve 31 and the lower valve 30 is controlled by an adjustment shaft 34 that can be moved in the vertical direction by a drive system 33. (underlined for emphasis.)
It is clear from above that relative motion of the two enable controlling conductance.
It is further noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
In this case the teaching provided by Takahashi is that the conductance could be controlled by the relative displacement of plural bodies so that such incorporation in Tahmassebpur would provide additional control of conductance.
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites average lateral cross-section dimension for movable intermediary body. Regarding above, Applicant states that this is explained through para 95-125 which refers to Fig 4. Intermediary body is a ring structure disclosed in Fig 3A at 220 where its cross-sectional area is disclosed as hashed area.
Paragraph 95 “average” related to gap 414. In para 99 “average” appears to refer to volume of the processing chamber. In para 125 “average” appears to refer to width as related to chamber and disclosed in Fig 9A-9C.
The plain meaning of cross-sectional dimension of intermediary body would be the one as visible in Fig 3A and Fig 4. This does not tell what is an average lateral cross-section dimension for movable intermediary body.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-14, 19-24, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahmassebpur et al (US 20140072452) in view of Takahashi et al (JP 2009212177).
Tahmassebpur et al disclose an apparatus, usable for semiconductor processing (Para 4), comprising a poppet valve (104), including a valve seat (126) including a gas-permeable region (112) and a gas impermeable region (around the region 112) and a movable center body (104, 110) including a gas- impermeable region (110). The movable body is movable using lifting part 148 and attached wing part (Seen more clearly in Fig 2). Flow path 122 is disclosed around 110 and going to pump through open part 118.
Tahmassebpur et al also disclose pressure control by using the actuator to adjust the height of the movable body, by increasing gap (increase conductance) to reduce pressure and to reduce gap (decrease conductance) to increase pressure in the process chamber (See at least para 37-40).
Tahmassebpur et al do not disclose intermediate movable body.
Takahashi et al disclose an apparatus, usable for semiconductor processing using plasma (See background-art), (Fig 2 and description) comprising a vacuum pump (5) and a stack of movable valve elements 21 below the substrate support electrode and a flow adjusting valve 6 between the valve 21 and pump opening corresponding to valve seat. The adjusting valve 6 comprises upper valves 31 and lower valve 30. Upper valve 31 is disk shaped with a hollowed out center and lower valve 30 is a ring shaped as seen in Fig 5. The distance between upper valve and lower valve and the distance to the pump opening is adjustable using shaft 34 and drive 33 to be able to control conductance (See best-mode paragraph).
Therefore, having an intermediate valve element in the poppet valve of Tahmassebpur et al would have provided additional control of valve conductance and more precise pressure control.
Regarding the limitation of main body of movable center body (corresponding to 210) being smaller than that of another intermediate body (corresponding to 221) it is noted that Upper body 110 in Tahmassebpur is smaller than lower body 126 for the convenience of movability. Similarly upper body 31 is smaller than the lower body 30 in Takahashi. Further for the functioning of the valve, size of opening is more relevant.
“It is noted that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not
patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The claim recites first configuration of valve adjustment as having higher restriction by being closer to the valve seat (proximate the pump). The second configuration requires larger space to provide lesser restriction. Both possibilities and the visibility claimed gaps are discussed above. The restriction as explained in the Takahashi et al and Tahmassebpur et al is reduced going from first configuration to second configuration.
Regarding claim 2 it would be possible to find additional configuration in between the two with the expected reduction of restriction. It is noted however that these are functional limitations fully supported by the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 3 wing is disclosed as more explicitly in Tahmassebpur et al (Fig 2) and less in Takahashi in Fig 5 (32). Actuators are disclosed in both references.
Regarding claim 4 apart from actuators, claimed mechanical coupling would be obviously similar to that of the coupling between valve elements 30 and 31. Moreover mechanical fixturing of this type is conventional and routine for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5 foreline being the pipe connection between the valve and pump would be an obvious member. The prior art apparatus disclosed above is usable for semiconductor processing and gas flow system (Takahashi-4) is disclosed.
Regarding claim 9 when poppet valve of Tahmassebpur et al is modified according to the teaching of Takahashi et al both references teach actuators. Therefore, one of ordinary skill could provide independent actuators as already given or combine. Making integral or separable was established as being obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 19-20 as was discussed placing the valve elements in a third configuration between first configuration of higher restriction and second configuration of lower restriction is afunctional limitation. Regarding one actuator engaging with movable center body intermediate body, shaft and actuator disclosed in Takahashi engages with valve 31 (corresponding to movable center body) and 30 (corresponding to intermediate body) to control distance between the two. Placement for third configuration between first and second is however a functional limitation.
Regarding claim 12 seals are disclosed in Tahmassebpur et al (124). It is also noted that for a situation of high restriction sealing contact must be maintained between all the valve plates to restrict flow only through sides. Having seals on all valve elements which could be detachably coupled in the modified poppet valve of Tahmassebpur et al would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 13 and 14 which figuratively disclose the situation of claim12, the claimed placement is merely a functional statement. It is noted that openings in both references of the prior art have a common axis and so overlapping in a stack for high restriction would have been obvious. It is also noted that the size of opening of valves would be an optimizable parameter.
Regarding claim 21 movable center body as in Tahmassebpur et al has a disk shape. This would also correspond to valve 31 in Takahashi.
Claims 22 and 23 recites a functional limitation as the degree of motion and relationship. The modified poppet valve of Tahmassebpur et al would allow any motion profile in vertical direction.
Regarding claim 24, first configuration as in claim 1 is high restriction and will allow flow only from side in maximum proximity as also discussed in relationship to claim 12.
Claim 26 includes indefinite limitation as discussed above. The claim recites some average cross-sectional dimensions. As stated above in regards to claims 13 and 14, lateral size would only be an optimizable feature and hence has been held obvious.
Claim 31 recites limitation regarding cross-sectional dimensions among other limitations which are discussed above. It is noted that cross-sectional area is according to the location of moving bodies and is only a functional limitation since one of ordinary skill could have controlled that to control the conductance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahmassebpur et al (US 20140072452) in view of Takahashi et al (JP 2009212177) and further in view of Azumano (US 20200105506).
Claim 6 requires a substrate support arm coupled to a wall of the chamber. This is however a preferred way of installation for some applications for some convenience.
Tahmassebpur et al or Takahashi et al do not disclose this limitation but disclose other limitations of this claim.
Azumano disclose a substrate support arm coupled to a wall of the chamber in a chamber with poppet valve.
It would have been obvious to have this substrate support in the prior art of Tahmassebpur et al or Takahashi et al as being a preferred way of installation for some convenience of connecting utilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 includes limitation of a specific lift actuator comprising stepped shaft. This would be allowable in the context of other limitations including that of the parent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tappan et al (US 8735765) disclose a substrate support arm coupled to a wall of the chamber.
Ichino et al (US 20180211893) disclose a poppet valve (Fig 3, 261) and a valve seat 260 with seals on the movable body 261 and below the seat on the pump 270. Valve seat has both gas permeable region and gas-impermeable region.
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights