DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on Jun 1st, 2026. Claims 16, 19-20, 23, 25-26, and 29-32 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of the claims recites “the computer system sets the first duration of time for the second sample”. It is unclear what it means for a first duration of time to be “for a second sample”. The first duration of time is a predetermined period of vacuum evacuation. While a second sample may be present in the chamber during such vacuum evacuation, the duration of time is not a property of the sample. It is a setting relating to a specific processing step. It is suggested applicant amend to use the language of claim 26, that is, specifying that the first duration of time is set “for processing the second sample”, which ties the duration of time to a processing step applied to the second sample, rather than to the second sample itself.
Claims 16-20, 23, 25-26, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of the claims recites setting the first duration of time “based on the total duration of time for the first sample.” It is unclear what it means for total duration of time to be “for the first sample”. The total duration of time is the length of vacuum evacuation required for the pressure in the vacuum chamber to reach a reference value. The first sample may be present in the vacuum chamber during the vacuum evacuation, and may affect the time required, but the duration is a time measurement relating to the length of a specific processing sequence, not a particular sample. The same sample will require different total durations for different processing sequences (different pumping speeds, different reference values, etc.). Time of evacuation is simply not a property of a sample. It is believed applicant intends to claim the total duration of vacuum evacuation recorded when the first sample was processed. It is suggested that applicant amend the claims to clarify that the total duration of time relates to a measured duration of a processing sequence, rather than a measured property of the first sample.
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims both recite “the measured internal pressure for the second sample”. It is unclear what it means for the measured internal pressure to be “for the second sample”. The measured internal pressure is property of the vacuum chamber, not a property of the sample. It is suggested applicant simple remove the clause “for the second sample”.
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims both recite “third durations of time are equivalent for the second sample and the third sample that is treated following the second sample”. It is unclear what it means for the third durations of time to be “for the second sample and the third sample”. The third duration of time is the length of an evacuation process, not a property of a sample. It is suggested applicant simple remove the clause “for the second sample and the third sample”, such that the claim limitation reads “determines that a third sample is of the same type as the second sample if the measured internal pressure reaches the first reference value and the third durations of time are equivalent”.
Claim 23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites a computer system that “selects the condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped for a sample type that requires suppressing deterioration of vacuum in the second vacuum chamber.” It is unclear what this means, since suppressing deterioration of vacuum in the second vacuum chamber is the purpose of vacuum evacuation in the first chamber in every case, regardless of sample type, and indeed regardless of whether a sample is present at all, since the gases that enter the first sample chamber when the first gate valve is opened will cause deterioration of vacuum in the second chamber when the second gate valve is opened if not removed first, even if no sample is ever conveyed. Examiner is so unable to determine the intended meaning she was not evaluated the claim on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19-20, 25-26, and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0004951 (Weisz et al.) in view of US 2015/0060694 (Gunji et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Weisz et al. discloses a vacuum treatment apparatus comprising:
a first vacuum chamber including a first gate valve to be opened and closed depending on conveyance of a sample to/from outside the apparatus (fig. 1-2, elements 112 and 52);
a second vacuum chamber connected to the first vacuum chamber via a second gate valve (fig. 1-2, elements 111 & 51);
a vacuum pump that vacuum-evacuates the first vacuum chamber (fig. 1-2, element 72);
a pressure gauge that measures an internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber (fig. 1-2, element 60); and
a computer system that controls conveyance of the sample through the second gate valve from the first vacuum chamber to the second vacuum chamber (fig. 1-2, element 40), wherein the computer system is configured to:
control the second gate valve to a closed state before performing vacuum evacuation of a first duration of time (‘After receiving the wafer the exchange chamber is sealed’ P 3),
control the first gate valve to an open state and convey the sample into the first vacuum chamber (“Robot 50 may move specimen 90 through first sealing element 52 (when opened) and between front end 113 and exchange chamber 112.” P 41),
perform vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time (fig. 4, step 320),
stop the vacuum evacuation (fig. 4, step 330),
measure the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber by using the pressure gauge in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped (fig. 4, step 340, wherein ‘The exchange chamber may be configured to stop a reduction of the exchange chamber pressure during the measurement period.’ abstract),
control the second gate valve to an open state and convey the sample into the second vacuum chamber if the measured internal pressure reaches a first reference value (fig. 4, steps 360 & 362, wherein ‘Step 360 may include determining that the specimen is dry enough. If the specimen is dry enough then step 360 is followed by step 362.’ P 88), and
if the measured internal pressure does not reach the first reference value, repeat a loop processing including (i) performing the vacuum evacuation for a second duration of time, (ii) stopping the vacuum evacuation, and (iii) measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber while the vacuum evacuation is stopped, until the measured internal pressure reaches the first reference value (‘Step 360 may include determining, if the specimen is not dry enough, that another iteration of steps 320, 330 and 340 is required. When another iteration of steps 330 and 340 is required then step 360 is followed by step 320.’ P 92),
wherein the first vacuum chamber is a load lock chamber (‘Wafers may be positioned within an exchange chamber before entering the specimen chamber of the SEM. After receiving the wafer the exchange chamber is sealed and the exchange chamber starts to constantly evacuate gas within the exchange chamber—until the exchange chamber pressure reaches a low enough level.’ P 3).
Weisz et al. does not disclose a vacuum valve provided between the first vacuum chamber and the vacuum pump or specify that the vacuum evacuation is stopped by closing such a valve, but the use of vacuum valves to control vacuum evacuation is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include one to prevent gases from entering the vacuum pump when not desired.
Weisz et al. does not disclose the computer system being configured to measure and record a total duration of time of the vacuum evacuation required for the measured internal pressure to reach the first reference value while the sample is in the first vacuum chamber, and for a second sample that is determined to be of a same type as a first sample in which the loop processing has previously occurred, the computer system sets the first duration of time for the second sample based on the total duration of time for the first sample.
Gunji et al. discloses a vacuum treatment apparatus that measures and records a total duration of time of the vacuum evacuation required for the measured internal pressure to reach the first reference value for a sample (“a time counting unit that counts time taken when a measurement result by the vacuum gauge has reached a predetermined degree of vacuum,” abstract) and setting a duration of time for a vacuum evacuation step based on the sample type (“changing a value for determining completion of exchange chamber vacuum exhaust for each of a specimen that emits a large volume of a gas and a specimen that emits a small volume of a gas,”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Weisz et al. to include the measuring and recording of the total duration of time as in Gunjii et al. and setting the first during based on duration as measured for a sample of the same type so that the duration of evacuation could be chosen to best balance the demands of throughput and vacuum deterioration, as disclosed in Gunjii (“More specifically, by changing a value for determining completion of exchange chamber vacuum exhaust for each of a specimen that emits a large volume of a gas and a specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, stoppage or long suspension of the processing due to a decrease in the degree of vacuum of the specimen chamber is suppressed for the specimen that emits a large volume of a gas, and besides, increase in the exhaust time in the exchange chamber is prevented for the specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, so that the device that appropriately maintains throughput for both specimens can be provided.”).
Regarding claim 19, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the computer system measuring, for each of the first sample and the second sample, a third duration of time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a second reference value of a pressure lower than the first reference value from a predetermined start time, and determines whether the second sample is of the same type as the first sample based on the third duration of time.
Gunjii discloses a computer system measuring, for each of a first sample and the second sample, a duration of time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a reference value of a pressure from a predetermined start time, and determines whether the second sample is of the same type as the first sample based on the duration of time (“It is determined either that the gas emission volume from the specimen is large or small by comparing time required when the vacuum reaches a previously-set degree of vacuum for determining completion of the exhaust with a previously-set predetermined time.” P 18).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Weis to include the comparison step of Gunji so that the vacuum evacuation of the second chamber could be pre-planned, as disclosed in Gunji (“More specifically, by changing a value for determining completion of exchange chamber vacuum exhaust for each of a specimen that emits a large volume of a gas and a specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, stoppage or long suspension of the processing due to a decrease in the degree of vacuum of the specimen chamber is suppressed for the specimen that emits a large volume of a gas, and besides, increase in the exhaust time in the exchange chamber is prevented for the specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, so that the device that appropriately maintains throughput for both specimens can be provided.”).
It would further have been obvious to use a third duration required to reach a pressure lower than the first reference value so that the type could be determined prior to outgassing that can occur after vacuum evacuation is stopped and which raises the pressure, and the expected outgassing accounted for in the setting of the first duration.
Regarding claim 20, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses claimed invention, where claim 20 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 19, applied to a third sample.
Regarding claim 25, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the vacuum treatment apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the computer system controls conveyance of the sample from the first vacuum chamber to the second vacuum chamber, based on the amount of change or response characteristic of the measured internal pressure within the loop processing (fig. 4, step 366), wherein the response characteristic includes a rate of increase of the internal pressure during a predetermined wait time after stopping the vacuum evacuation (“When comparing between the exchange chamber pressure changes (illustrated by curves 521, 522 and 523 respectively) of the three learning periods—the outgassing of the specimen decrements over time. The decrement may be indicative of diffusion rates and/or a contaminant (outgassing element) aggregate size.” P 117).
Regarding claims 26 & 29-31, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. disclose the claimed invention (see analysis with respect to claims 16, 19-20, & 25).
Regarding claim 32, Weisz et al. discloses a vacuum treatment apparatus comprising:
a first vacuum chamber including a first gate valve to be opened and closed depending on conveyance of a sample (fig. 1-2, elements 112 and 52);
a second vacuum chamber connected to the first vacuum chamber via a second gate valve (fig. 1-2, elements 111 & 51);
a vacuum pump that vacuum-evacuates the first vacuum chamber (fig. 1-2, element 72);
a pressure gauge configured to measure a degree of vacuum or an internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber (fig. 1-2, element 60); and
a computer system that controls conveyance of the sample from the first vacuum chamber to the second vacuum chamber through the second gate valve (fig. 1-2, element 40),
wherein the first vacuum chamber is a load lock chamber (‘Wafers may be positioned within an exchange chamber before entering the specimen chamber of the SEM. After receiving the wafer the exchange chamber is sealed and the exchange chamber starts to constantly evacuate gas within the exchange chamber—until the exchange chamber pressure reaches a low enough level.’ P 3),
wherein the computer system is configured to:
control the vacuum pumping to repeat an on and off of the vacuum pump or to repeatedly adjust a degree of pumping during a control period while the sample stays in the first vacuum chamber (fig. 4, steps 320, 330, 363, 364);
measure, using the pressure gauge, the degree of vacuum or the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber during the control period (fig. 4, step 340);
control the second gate valve to a closed state before performing vacuum evacuation of a first duration of time (‘After receiving the wafer the exchange chamber is sealed’ P 3),
convey the sample from the first vacuum chamber to the second vacuum chamber based on (i) a result of a comparison between the degree of vacuum or the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber within the control period and a predetermined threshold value, or (ii) an amount of change or response characteristic of the degree of vacuum or internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber within the control period (fig. 4, steps 360 & 362, wherein ‘Step 360 may include determining that the specimen is dry enough. If the specimen is dry enough then step 360 is followed by step 362.’ P 88).
Weisz et al. does not specify whether the on and off of the vacuum pumping or repeated adjustment of degree of pumping is control by opening and closing or adjusting an opening of a vacuum valve. The use of vacuum valves to control vacuum evacuation is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the opening and closing or degree of opening of a vacuum valve to control the evacuation because this is one of two well known methods of performing such control, the other being the adjustment of the settings of the pumps themselves. Either option is equally obvious (obvious to try).
Weisz et al. does not disclose the computer being configured to determine whether a first sample and a second sample are of a same type based on a response characteristic measured for each of the first sample and the second sample while each sample is in the first vacuum chamber; wherein the response characteristic includes at least one of: (i) a time required for the measured internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time, the time being measure by the computer system while the sample is in the first vacuum chamber; or (ii) a number of repetitions of a determination loop processing including vacuum evacuation and measurement of the internal pressure, the number of repetitions being counted by the computer system while the sample is in the first vacuum chamber.
Gunji et al. discloses a vacuum treatment apparatus that determines whether the previous sample and the subsequent sample are of a same type, based on such response characteristics (“It is determined either that the gas emission volume from the specimen is large or small by comparing time required when the vacuum reaches a previously-set degree of vacuum for determining completion of the exhaust with a previously-set predetermined time.” P 18). It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Weis to include the comparison step of Gunji so that the vacuum evacuation of the second chamber could be pre-planned, as disclosed in Gunji (“More specifically, by changing a value for determining completion of exchange chamber vacuum exhaust for each of a specimen that emits a large volume of a gas and a specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, stoppage or long suspension of the processing due to a decrease in the degree of vacuum of the specimen chamber is suppressed for the specimen that emits a large volume of a gas, and besides, increase in the exhaust time in the exchange chamber is prevented for the specimen that emits a small volume of a gas, so that the device that appropriately maintains throughput for both specimens can be provided.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weisz and Gunji do not teach or suggest various limitations, does not point out any particular flaws in examiner’s analysis. Examiner holds that each of the limtiations is disclosed in or obvious over the arts for the reasons discussed above.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights