DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on February 6th, 2026. Claims 16, 19-26, 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 .
Lack of Sample Steps
Throughout prosecution, examiner has made repeated suggestions to applicant that they amend the claims to include steps involving the sample. Applicant continues to claim only steps relating to vacuum evacuation, pressure measurement, controlling of gates, and data processing. The gist of the invention appears to tailoring the vacuum evacuation to a specific sample, and this requires information about how the vacuum evacuation is affected by the presence of different samples. It is strongly suggested that applicant amend the claims to recite that samples are brought into the chamber as part of the process. The recitation of the vacuum evacuation and pressure measurement steps are meaningless without this crucial piece of information, as applicant is effectively claiming pumping down an empty chamber. The determination step is predicated on having information about how the vacuum evacuation is affected by the presence of different samples, and cannot be performed without the omitted elements/steps. Examiner has again made the omitted elements/steps rejections noting the lack of any step involving a sample. Examiner will provide a suggested wording for claim 16 below.
Suggested Claim 16
Given the myriad 112(a) and 112(b) issues, examiner will provide the following suggested reworking of independent claim 16, which would overcome all the 112 issues and appears to correspond with the what examiner believes applicant intends to claim. Examiner focused on clearly reciting each element that appears necessary to communicate the method, in particular filling in omitted steps necessary for the method to function, such as the conveyance of samples (steps a and e) and processing of a second sample and what that entails (step h), so that the information needed for the determination step is known for two samples, as required for a comparison.
Examiner chose to exclude some limitations that appear to be extraneous to the main points of the method, in particular vacuum valve operation and closing the second gate. Applicant may of course amend examiner’s suggested claim to include these elements if desired. This is simply a suggestion of a base claim that clearly conveys the main points of the method. Note that examiner did not include the strikeouts in the computer system control method part of the claim because the rearrangement of the limitations into chronological order made it too difficult to determine where the strikeout portions would be placed.
Claim 16: a vacuum treatment apparatus comprising:
a first vacuum chamber including a first gate valve that connects the chamber with the outside
a second vacuum chamber connected to the first vacuum chamber via a second gate valve;
a vacuum pump that vacuum-evacuates the first vacuum chamber;
a pressure gauge that measures an internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber; and
a computer system that controls the apparatus is configured to:
(a) Convey a sample into the first vacuum chamber;
(b) Perform vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time;
(c) Stop the vacuum evacuation;
(d) Measure the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped;
(e) 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, otherwise repeat steps (b) through (e);
(f) record the total duration of time of vacuum evacuation required for the measured internal pressure to reach the first reference value;
(g) Set the first duration of time equal to the total duration measured in step f;
(h) repeat steps (a) through (f) with a second sample;
(i) determine if the first and second samples are of the same type based on the total duration of time as measured in step f when each of the first and second samples is in the first vacuum chamber;
Although examiner has not provided a suggestion for rewriting claims 26 & 32, the essence of the suggestions relating to claim 16 above should provide a rough guide in rewriting those claims to overcome the 112 rejections as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 feature of Closing the Second Gate
Claims 16 and 19-25 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. The claims recite “the computer system performs vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time, controls the second gate valve to a closed state, stops the vacuum evacuation by closing a vacuum valve while the second gate valve remains in the closed state …”. The claim appears to recite a step of controlling the second gate valve to a closed state between the steps of evacuating for the first duration of time and stopping the vacuum evacuation by closing the gate valve.
The only time the second gate valve is closed, according to the original disclosure, is during the initial setting step. See “First, before step S100, the valve bodies 540 of the four valves facing the LC 102, namely, the gate valve between inside and outside of the apparatus 500, the LC-SC gate valve 510, the TMP valve 520, and the pipe valve 530, are all controlled to the closed state CL.”). After that, the second gate (called the LC-SC gate in the specification) is not operated again until the second to last step (step S109, opens the second gate). The final step is conveying the wafer through the second gate (step S310).
It could be argued that closing the second gate after this final conveying step is implied, though not disclosed. However, even if we assume there is a second gate closing step after step S310, this step would very clearly not be before stopping the vacuum evacuation by closing the gate valve. Hence, there is no support in the original disclosure for claiming a step of controlling the second gate valve to a closed state between the steps of evacuating for the first duration of time and stopping the vacuum evacuation by closing the gate valve.
If applicant wishes for some reason to include the gate closing step that is part of the initial set-up, it is suggested they move the limitation to the start of the claimed method, when it is disclosed to occur, for example;
wherein the computer system controls the second gate valve to a closed state, performs vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time,
It is further suggested that the superfluous clause “while the second gate valve remains in the closed state” be removed, though this is not strictly necessary. It would simply clean up the language without changing the scope. This clause was added after examiner pointed out there was no support for closing the gate at the claimed time, and therefore examiner was treating the limitation to “controlling the gate to close” as though it said “the second gate remains closed” for the purposes of examination of the merits. It is already taken as a given that the second gate remains closed until the much later opening step, so there is no reason to add this clause. Hence, the preferred text would be;
wherein the computer system controls the second gate valve to a closed state, performs vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time,
Along with the other changes as shown in the suggested claim 16 above.
The Problem of Determining Total Duration Before Setting First Duration
Claims 16, 19-26, and 29-31 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims recite a computer system that “sets the first duration of time equal to the recorded total duration of time in processing the subsequent sample determined as a sample of the same type by the computer system” or the equivalent method step.
Setting the first duration must happen early in the processing of the subsequent sample, because this value is used in step S416 (see fig. 11B), but the determination as to whether the subsequent sample is of the same type is claimed to be based on “total duration of … the subsequent sample”, which is not known until near the end of the process (total duration becomes known when step S305 results in a yes, see fig. 11B). The claimed method therefore requires the total duration to be known before the first duration is set, which is a logical impossibility. Hence the claimed setting cannot be determined in the claimed manner and no amount of experimentation would make this possible.
It is noted that a determination about the whether the sample is of the same type based on T2, or the “third duration” as claims 19-20 and 29-30 call it, is possible before the first duration is set (see step S411). However, claims 16 & 26 specifically require the determination of type to be based on total duration, not T2. Hence, the method involving determination based on T2 is outside the scope of the claims.
Support for Time Required for Conveyance
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites “a time required for the conveyance is set to an A-th duration of time”. The original disclosure makes no mention of setting a time “required for conveyance”. The original disclosure does include several time settings, such as wait times Ta, Tb, and Tc, but these relate to evacuation or outgassing steps, not conveyance steps. There is no disclosure of any setting that could reasonably be considered to read on a limitation to “a time required for conveyance”.
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.
Given the unusually large number of 112(b) issues, examiner has re-organized the rejections into types and provided clear demarcations, starting with the simplest to address (indefinite terminology, lack of antecedent basis) and moving down to more complex issues like omitted elements and incoherent claims. Within each section, the rejections are still organized by claim number.
Indefinite Terminology and Unusual Grammar
Claims 16, 19-25, and 32 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.
Claims 16 & 32 recite a limitation a "subsequent sample". It is unclear what the sample is “subsequent” to. The most obvious answer is that applicant intends to claim a sample processed “subsequent to” the current sample (“the sample”). However, this would mean the sample has not yet been processed, hence it would be impossible to know the total duration for such a sample. Therefore, it appears applicant actually intends to claim the current sample, and “subsequent” is meant to show that the sample is processed after the “previous sample”. If this is true, it is suggested that applicant amend to make it clear that the "subsequent sample” is not a future sample yet to be processed but “the sample”. Suggested language for doing this is shown in the suggested claim 16 above, which uses the terms “first” and “second” sample, rather than “previous” and “subsequent”. Other options would be to use “previous” and “current” or just “previous sample” and “the sample”.
Claim 32 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 32 recites the limitation “the measurement” in the clause relating to a determination loop processing. It is unclear what is being measured.
Claim 32 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 32 recites “the computer system controls to repeat an opening and closing operation of the vacuum valve”. This limitation makes no grammatical sense, as the infinitive clause “to repeat an opening and closing operation of the vacuum valve” has no clear relation to the main clause “the control system controls (controls what?)”. Examiner’s best guess is applicant intends to claim the computer system controls the operation of the vacuum valve, in which case it is suggested that applicant amend to “the computer system controls
Claim 32 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 32 recites “the computer system controls … adjustment of the degree of opening while the sample stays in the first vacuum chamber”. It is unclear what opening is being adjusted. Examiner’s best guess is applicant intends to claim the computer system controls a degree of opening of the vacuum valve, in which case it is suggested that applicant amend to “the computer system controls … adjustment of the degree of opening of the vacuum valve”.
It is noted that the clause “while the sample stays in the first vacuum chamber” does not add anything to the claim and should be removed for clarity. Either a computer system that controls a degree of opening of a valve is present in an apparatus or it isn’t. If an apparatus has such a computer system, the computer system will continue to be part of the apparatus regardless of whether a sample is the vacuum chamber or not, hence, any apparatus that includes such a computer system, inherently includes such a computer system “while the sample stays in the first vacuum chamber”.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claims 16 and 19-25 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 16 recites the limitation "the previous sample" in the final clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 19-25 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 16 recites the limitation "the subsequent sample" in the final clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 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 32 recites the limitation "the vacuum evaluation" in the clause relating to a determination loop processing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed the word “evaluation” is a typo and applicant intends to claim “the vacuum evacuation”, but even so the claim only previously recites a vacuum pump, there is no prior recitation of a “vacuum evacuation” as part of any computer implemented process.
Claim 32 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 32 recites the limitation “the measurement” in the clause relating to a determination loop processing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Unclear Meaning of the “For a Sample” and “Of a Sample” Limitations
Claims 16 and 19-25 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 16 recites “The computer system 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 the sample”. It is unclear what the phrase “for the sample” is meant to convey. At best, the limitation could be said to recite the material worked upon during intended use (see MPEP 2115 for more on this type of limitation). As such, the clause does not appear to limit the apparatus claim in any way. It is noted that a control to carry out a process that would otherwise be an intended use could be claimed, but the phrase “for the sample” does not even specify the use, just the material worked upon, so examiner cannot interpret as a process step or function of one.
Claims 16 and 19-25 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 16 recites a computer system that “determines whether the previous sample and the subsequent sample are of a same type, based on total duration of time of each of the previous sample and the subsequent sample”. In is unclear what the phrase “of (a sample)” is meant to convey. The total duration of time is claimed to be the duration of time measured for the internal pressure of a vacuum chamber to reach the first reference value. Nothing in the claim, besides the indefinite and non-limiting phrase “of the sample”, suggests that this duration is connected to a sample, much less to two different samples. Hence, no claimed function, structure, or action involving a sample can be connected to the “total duration”, and to the extent that anything is specified by the phrase, it is the material worked upon in any unspecified intended use.
Claims 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the computer system measures, for each of the previous sample and the subsequent 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”. It is unclear what the clause, “for each of the previous sample and subsequent samples” is meant to convey. See discussion of a similar phrase “for the sample” in claim 16 above (paragraph 16)
Claim 20 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 20 recites “wherein the computer system for a second sample, stops the vacuum evacuation after having been performed by the vacuum pump for the first duration of time reflecting the total duration of time, and determines whether the internal pressure measured in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped reaches the first reference value”. It is unclear what the clause, “for a second sample” is meant to convey, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to “for the sample” and “for each of the previous sample and the subsequent sample”.
Lack of Specificity of “Processing” and Connection to Setting
Claims 16, 19-25, and 32 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.
Claims 16 & 32 recite setting a duration “in processing the subsequent sample determined as a sample of the same type.” It is unclear what it means for a setting to be set “in processing the subsequent sample”. Processing is a generic term covering any number of possible manipulations of a sample, and the claim does not make clear what actions constitute “processing a sample” or how the setting relates to those actions.
Omitted Steps or Elements
Claim 16 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: any step involving a sample.
Claim 16 recites a computer system that “determines whether the previous sample and the subsequent sample are of a same type, based on total duration of time of each of the previous sample and the subsequent sample”. Putting aside the indefiniteness issue for the moment, in order for the duration to be “of (a sample)”, whatever that means, at a minimum a sample must be present. However, the steps claimed to be performed by the computer system, prior to this determination, consist entirely of vacuum evacuation steps, valve actuation steps, and pressure measuring steps. The computer is not claimed to ever convey a sample into or out of the chamber, nor is there any indication that a sample is ever present. Even if there was a sample present in the initial state, that would, at most, suggest that a total duration can measured “of” a single sample, not two different samples. It is suggested that applicant amend the claim to include steps related to conveying at least two samples into the vacuum chamber, and make clear that the total duration is measured at least two different times, once with the first sample present, and again with the second sample present. Suggested language for this is provided above.
Claims 16 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a vacuum valve.
Claim 16 recites a computer system that “stops the vacuum evacuation by closing a vacuum valve” but the recitation of elements of the apparatus does not include a vacuum valve, the only valves recited are a first gate valve and a second gate valve.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a computer with the programming to measure a time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time.
Claim 32 recites a computer system that “determines whether a previous sample and a subsequent sample are of a same type, based on the response characteristic, wherein the response characteristic includes … a time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time”. In order for the determination to be “based on” such a time, that time must be known. However, the claim does not include a computer system programmed to measure, store, or receive this information.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the fact that the response characteristic of “a time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time” reflects a duration of vacuum evacuation.
Claim 32 recites a response characteristic of “a time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time”. As disclosed in the specification and discussed in the remarks filed on February 6th, 2026, this response characteristic relates to the duration of vacuum evacuation required to reduce the pressure to a reference value, and the fact that it measuring duration of vacuum evacuation is key to understanding the invention because this is how it measures the differences in outgassing between samples, leading to the ability to differentiate between sample types. However, the limitation does not mention that the claimed time relates to a duration of vacuum evacuation.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the fact that the response characteristic of “a time required for the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber to reach a predetermined reference value from a predetermined start time” is measured with a sample present.
As disclosed in the specification and discussed in the remarks filed on February 6th, 2026, this response characteristic relates to the duration of vacuum evacuation required to remove the components outgassed from a sample present in the chamber, which is key to understanding the invention because this is how it measures the differences in outgassing between samples, leading to the ability to differentiate between sample types. However, the limitation does not mention that the claimed time is measured with a sample present.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a computer with the programming to carry out loop processing.
Claim 32 recites a computer system that “determines whether a previous sample and a subsequent sample are of a same type, based on the response characteristic, wherein the response characteristic includes … (ii) a number of repetitions of a determination loop processing including the vacuum evaluation and the measurement”. In order for the determination to be “based on” the number of repetitions, the number of repetitions must be known. However, the claim does not include a computer system programmed to carry out loop processing and count repetitions.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the presence of a sample during loop processing.
Claim 32 recites a computer system that “determines whether a previous sample and a subsequent sample are of a same type, based on the response characteristic, wherein the response characteristic includes … (ii) a number of repetitions of a determination loop processing including the vacuum evaluation and the measurement”. In order for a determination whether a previous sample and a subsequent sample are of a same type to be made based on the determination loop processing, samples must be present during the loop processing. However, the limitation does not mention that the claimed loop processing occurs with a sample present, much less with two (previous and subsequent) samples present.
Incoherent Limitations or Claims
Claims 16 and 19-25 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 16 recites a computer system that “performs a loop processing of performing the vacuum evacuation for a second duration of time and measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber while the vacuum evacuation is stopped, if the measured internal pressure does not reach the first reference value, until the measured internal pressure reaches the first reference value”. It is unclear what this means. The grammar and logic of this limitation is too convoluted for examiner to follow. Looking at the flow chart, the only loop processing that would appear relevant is the loop shown in figure 9 & 11B, which involves steps S303-307, so examiner will assume that is what applicant intends to claim.
Claims 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.
Claim 26 is generally narrative and indefinite, including multiple limitations to the same step and reciting the steps in a random order. The claim is so jumbled and incoherent that examiner is unable to examine on the merits.
As an example of the random order, step S310, the final step in the method as disclosed in the specification, comprises lines 11-12 of the claim (“controlling the conveyance of the sample from the first vacuum chamber to a second vacuum chamber via the second gate valve,”), but 9 different limitations to other steps are claimed after this final step, and in a manner that does not make clear that the order is not chronological. In fact, the step recited directed after the final step is the first step (“controlling the second gate valve to a closed state” which occurs “before step S100”, according to the original disclosure).
Regarding multiple limitations to the same step, measuring the internal pressure at step S305 is recited 3 separate times (“measuring, by a pressure gauge, an internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber;” line 10, “measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped,” lines 17-18, and “measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped until the measured internal pressure reaches the first reference value;” lines 27-29). Note that only the last of these occurs after the claim to beginning the loop processing, hence it does not appear to claim the single step repeated in a loop that is supported by the specification, but 3 separate steps, with the final one being looped.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 19 and 29 both recite that the determination as to whether the two samples of the same type is made by comparing the measured third durations. However, the claims depend from claims that recite that the determination as to whether the two samples of the same type is made by comparing the measured total durations. These two limitations are mutually exclusive; therefore, the dependent claims are an attempt to remove a limitation from the parent claim and replace it with a different limitation of entirely non-lapping scope. If applicant means to claim two separate and unrelated determination steps, such as making an initial determination based on the third duration and a final determination based on total duration, they will need to use differing language for the two steps to make clear that the determinations are separate, and clarify which determination is being referenced by the limitations that depend on the determination.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims Not Examined on the Merits
Claim 32 now includes a whole new slew of 112 issues, and examiner is unable examine on the merits until at least most of those issues are dealt with. Claims 26 and 29-31 are so jumbled and incoherent that they cannot be examined on the merits either. Claims 19-20 and 29-30 do not further limit the parent claims and in fact represent a much broader scope than the parent claims, and examiner is unable to examine them on the merits either. Claims 16 and 21-25 are examined 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 and 21-25 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 performs vacuum evacuation for a first duration of time (fig. 4, step 320), controls the second gate valve to a closed state (‘After receiving the wafer the exchange chamber is sealed’ P 3), stops the vacuum evacuation (fig. 4, step 330), after having controlled the second gate valve to the closed state (‘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.’), measures 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), controls the second gate valve to an open state 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 performs a loop processing of performing the vacuum evacuation for a second duration of time and measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber while the vacuum evacuation is stopped, if the measured internal pressure does not reach the first reference value, 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),
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 the computer system being configured to 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 the sample, determines whether the previous sample and the subsequent sample are of a same type, based on total duration of time of each of the previous sample and the subsequent sample, and sets the first duration of time equal to the recorded total duration of time in processing the subsequent sample determined as a sample of the same type by the computer system.
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 the sample, determines whether the previous sample and the subsequent sample are of a same type, based on total duration of time of each of the previous sample and the subsequent sample (“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.”).
Regarding the limitation to setting the first duration of time equal to the recorded total duration of time in processing the subsequent sample determined as a sample of the same type by the computer system, this is logically impossible for the reasons discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, but setting the first duration equal to a recorded total duration for a subsequent sample already known to be of the same type would be obvious because it would be expected to require approximately the same amount of time.
Regarding claim 21, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the vacuum treatment apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the computer system defines an upper limit for the number of repetitions of the loop processing based on user settings (‘The number of iterations may be set in advance and step 370 may include determining whether the predetermined number of iterations was reached.’ P 100).
Regarding claim 22, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the vacuum pump is a turbomolecular pump (TMP). Turbomolecular pumps are 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 a turbomolecular pump because it is one of a finite number of known vacuum pumping technologies that are functionally equivalent and which can be swapped with a reasonable expectation of success (obvious to try).
Regarding claim 23, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the claimed invention except for switching between measuring the internal pressure of the first vacuum chamber in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is stopped or in a condition in which the vacuum evacuation is being performed, depending on the type of the sample. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to install such a switch in the apparatus of Weisz et al. so that pressure could be measured continuously in the case that the switch is flipped to measuring during evacuation and the evacuation could be ended immediately upon reaching the desired vacuum level, increasing throughput.
Regarding claim 24, Weisz et al. in view of Gunji et al. discloses the vacuum treatment apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the vacuum treatment apparatus is a charged particle beam apparatus that irradiates the sample conveyed to the second vacuum chamber with a charged particle beam (fig. 2, element 80).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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