DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on February 5, 2026. Claim 1 is amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art, Luo, fails to teach the newly recited feature of “fixing bolts configured to prevent vacuum breakage due to excessive loosening of the…adjustment bolts.” Because Luo does not employ the claimed configuration of a spacer and associated seal members, it does not even require the concepts of fixing bolts (p. 8).
In response, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive because, as claimed, there is no structural distinction between the adjustment and fixing bolts. As such, the examiner may arbitrarily designate one of Luo’s adjustment bolts (405) as a “fixing bolt,” observing that this bolt is capable of satisfying the imperative of maintaining a vacuum seal.
Now, Luo depicts only three adjustment bolts, whereas claim 1 recites a “plurality” of both adjustment and fixing bolts. The designation, then, of only one adjustment bolt as a “fixing bolt” fails to result in the claimed “plurality.” Even so, Luo prefaces the elaboration of the adjustment bolts with the qualifier of “at least one,” and it is the examiner’s position that the single instance of replication necessary to achieve the claimed plurality is within the scope of ordinary skill: it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). The previous 102 rejections, then, have been revised as 103 rejections in view of the preceding analysis. The examiner has also drafted a second grounds of rejection in view of the amendments, fully elaborated below.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to invoke “the first seal” and “the second seal,” but these terms lack antecedent basis. Correction is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret these terms as further clarifying the “first seal member” and “second seal member,” respectively, which are recited earlier within the body of claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
According to a First Grounds of Rejection:
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al., US 2019/0032214.
Claim 1: Luo discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A vacuum container (201) (Fig. 1);
A placing part (223) provided inside the vacuum container and having a placing surface for a substrate (13);
A ceiling member provided above the placing part, including:
A fixed member (502) fixed to the vacuum container (Fig. 3A);
A movable member (508) attached to the fixed member and having a first facing surface facing the placing surface [0035];
A spacer (506) sandwiched between the fixed (502) and movable (508) members;
A first seal member (504) provided between the fixed member (502) and the spacer (506) [0036];
A second seal member (514) provided between the movable member (508) and the spacer (506) [0035];
A plurality of adjustment bolts (405) screwed into the first member through the movable member [0038].
Regarding the new material reciting a “plurality of fixing bolts configured to prevent vacuum breakage,” the examiner observes that there does not appear to be a structural distinction between the claimed fixing and adjustment bolts. As such, one of Luo’s adjustment bolts (405) may be arbitrarily designated as a “fixing bolt,” given the capacity of this bolt to satisfy the imperative of maintaining a vacuum seal.
Now, Luo depicts only three adjustment bolts, whereas claim 1 recites a “plurality” of both adjustment and fixing bolts. The designation, then, of only one adjustment bolt as a “fixing bolt” fails to result in the claimed “plurality.” Even so, Luo prefaces the elaboration of the adjustment bolts with the qualifier of “at least one,” and it is the examiner’s position that the single instance of replication necessary to achieve the claimed plurality is within the scope of ordinary skill: it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 2: Luo provides a bottom plate (316) including a first facing surface and a ceiling plate (510) oriented above the bottom plate and having a second facing surface facing an upper surface of the fixed member (502) (Fig. 3A). As shown, the spacer (506) is disposed between the fixed member (502) and the second facing surface of the ceiling plate (510).
Claim 3: Providing an additional spacer would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 7: Luo’s spacers have a vertical extent which runs perpendicular to the first facing surface.
Claim 9: Luo’s ceiling member is a showerhead (211) which injects a gas into the vacuum container [0021].
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Taguchi, US 2020/0365594.
Claims 4, 8: Luo provides three adjustment bolts (405) at different radial positions [0032]. The reference’s ceiling member, however, is situated within an apparatus having a fixed placing part rather than the claimed rotary placing part. Other designs are known, as Taguchi evidences. With reference to Figure 2, Taguchi positions a ceiling member (30) within a processing apparatus having a rotary table design. The rotary table (2) has a plurality of placing surfaces for bearing a corresponding number of substrates (W) [0026]. It would have been obvious to situate Luo’s ceiling member within a rotary table processing apparatus, since combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 5: Luo ceiling member is a showerhead (211) which injects a gas into the vacuum container [0021].
Claims 6, 10: Luo is silent regarding the matter of a window, but Taguchi contemplates an embodiment in which windows (30w) are formed through the body of a showerhead (30) to permit measurements via laser displacement gauges (110a) [0031]. The displacement gauges, in turn, are configured to measure the height position of the showerhead to determine the gap distance between a wafer and the showerhead’s bottom surface [0032]. Given that Luo shares this desideratum, it would have been obvious to integrate laser displacement gauges and the attendant windows to achieve the predictable result of gap determination.
According to a Second Grounds of Rejection:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Madsen, US 2015/0225854.
Claim 1: Luo discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A vacuum container (201) (Fig. 1);
A placing part (223) provided inside the vacuum container and having a placing surface for a substrate (13);
A ceiling member provided above the placing part, including:
A fixed member (502) fixed to the vacuum container (Fig. 3A);
A movable member (508) attached to the fixed member and having a first facing surface facing the placing surface [0035];
A spacer (506) sandwiched between the fixed (502) and movable (508) members;
A first seal member (504) provided between the fixed member (502) and the spacer (506) [0036];
A second seal member (514) provided between the movable member (508) and the spacer (506) [0035];
A plurality of adjustment bolts (405) screwed into the fixed member (502) through the movable member (508), where a bolt changes the compression rates of the seal members by adjusting its screwing amount [0038];
A plurality of fixing bolts (512) configured to prevent vacuum breakage due to loosened the adjustment bolts.
Below is an annotation of Figure 3A, indicating an undesignated feature understood by the Office as an O-ring interposed between the lowermost surface of the fixed member (502) and an upper mating surface of the top plate (303). Madsen discloses a related apparatus by the same Applicant, where Figure 4 depicts an analogous feature (409) that is explicitly named as an “O-ring” [0030]. Given this, the examiner believes there is sufficient warrant to conclude that the undesignated feature of Luo is, in fact, an O-ring or, at the very least, that it would be obvious to form an O-ring between these two surfaces for purposes of sealing.
PNG
media_image1.png
187
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Armed with this premise, the examiner observes that Luo’s fixing bolts apply a compressive force against the O-ring to prevent vacuum breakage between the fixed member (502) and the top plate (303), thereby satisfying the terms of the final paragraph of claim 1.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Agarwal et al., US 2020/0063259. Agarwal discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a vacuum container (204), a placing part (212) having a placing surface for a substrate (208), and a ceiling member (224) provided above the placing part ([0015]; Fig. 2B). The ceiling member contains various actuating mechanisms permitting the tilting of the showerheads in order to change the gap spacing between the face of the showerhead and the placing surface ([0032]; Fig. 5).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716