3DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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) 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 10,056,274) in view of Beudon et al. (US 6,146,267)
Regarding claim 1, Rice et al. teaches an apparatus comprising:
a vacuum chamber comprising a first vacuum zone, 110, and a second vacuum zone, 120;
a first component, 125, disposed in the first vacuum zone at an interface, 114, with the second vacuum zone;
a second component, 112, disposed in the second vacuum zone at the interface, 113, and separated from the first component by a gap, wherein the second component is movable relative to the first component, see column 4, lines 55+; and
a gas injector configured to inject a buffer gas in the gap between the first component and the second component from at least one hole in the second component, see figure 5;
wherein the buffer gas provides a dynamic seal between the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone during movement of the second component relative to the first component, see column 5, lines 47+.
Rice et al. does not teach that the gas injector is configured to inject a buffer gas in the gap between the first component and the second component from also at least one hole in the first component, as amended by applicant.
Beudon et al. teaches an apparatus for separating two zones with different environments, the apparatus comprising a first component and second component forming a gap therebetween and a means for injecting gas, 120 and 120a, in the gap between the components from holes in both the first and second components, see abstract and figure 2, column 5m, lines 6+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the second set of holes, as taught by Beudon et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of forming an impassable barrier to seal first vacuum zone from the second vacuum zone.
Regarding claim 2, Rice et al. teaches the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone are pumped by separate vacuum pumps, 220 and 230.
Regarding claim 3, Rice et al. teaches at least one of the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone are at an ultra-high vacuum pressure, see column 2, lines 19+.
Regarding claim 4, Rice et al. and teaches the at least one hole comprises a plurality of holes, see figure 5.
Regarding claim 5, Rice et al. teaches the plurality of holes are configured to direct the buffer gas towards the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone, see figure 5.
Regarding claim 7, Rice et al. teaches the second component is movable parallel to the first component along the interface, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, Rice et al. teaches the first component comprises an aperture, and the second component covers the aperture, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 9, Rice et al. teaches an inspection tool, 170, configured to inspect a sample disposed on the second component.
Regarding claim 10, Rice et al. teaches the first component is a shielding plate and the second component is a stage, 130.
Regarding the method of claims 11-15 and 17-20, the combination of Rice et al. and Beudon et al. teaches the method, as claimed, see figure 7 and claims of Rice et al. and figure 2 of Beudon et al.
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) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 10, 056,274) in view Beudon et al. (US 6,146,267) and further in view of Hughes (US 2007/0075501).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Rice et al. does not teach the seal, as claimed. Hughes teaches a seal, 154, between two bodies, see paragraphs 0045-0047. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the seal of Hughes with the dynamic seal of Rice et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the seal effectiveness between the two interfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
In light of the applicant’s amendment, adding the feature of at least one hole in the second component, new prior art to Beudon et al. was applied. Beudon et al. teaches a dynamic air seal with a gas injector to inject buffer gas into a gap between two components, where the gas is injected from a hole in the first and second component. In light of this new prior art, the applicant’s claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon show other examples of two vacuum chambers and seal between the two chambers. The cited prior art is considered the best prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
8 January 2026