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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant did not elect, but rather amended the claims to preclude a proper restriction as the claims are presently presented. This action is acceptable. However, Examiner points out that if in the future the claim set is amended and again diverges in a way that is excessively burdensome and restriction is again proper, a restriction may again be required of Applicant.
Presently, all claims are examined and the previous restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show (and label) every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the opening in the top wall of the bottom portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,240,263 to Nicholson.
Regarding claims 1 and 14: Nicholson discloses a pressure seal (i.e. sealing ring) comprising: a ring-shaped bottom portion having a cross-sectional width, a cross-sectional height, a bottom wall and a top wall defining a height of the bottom portion, the bottom portion having a bottom sealing surface; a ring-shaped compressible middle portion having a dynamic height extending from the top wall of the bottom portion to a top wall of the compressible middle portion; and a top portion having walls extending from the top wall of the compressible middle portion, the walls having an arc-shape extending from he top wall of the compressible middle portion to a top end of the top portion and to an inner end of the wall of the top portion. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, in Nicholson, the top wall of the bottom portion includes an opening allowing access to an inside of the bottom portion. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 3, in Nicholson, the compressible middle portion has an open center aligned with the opening in the top wall of the bottom portion. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 4, in Nicholson, the walls of the top portion are aligned with the open center of the compressible middle portion. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 5, in Nicholson, the top portion has two walls having symmetrical arc-shapes. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 6, in Nicholson, the two walls are spaced apart at a center point. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claims 7-8 and 15, as illustrated in Fig. 21 and described in column 8, rows 19-22, the pressure seal may have a height in a range of from about 0.25 inches to about 1 inch and a width in a range of from about 0.25 inches to about 1 inch.
With respect to claim 9, in Nicholson, the compressible middle portion comprises undulating walls extending from the top wall of the bottom portion to the top wall of the compressible middle portion. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 10, in Nicholson, the compressible middle portion has a dynamic cross-sectional height and a dynamic cross-sectional width that are capable of being changeable upon compression of the middle portion moving the top wall of the middle portion toward the bottom portion or expansion of the middle portion moving the top wall away from the bottom portion. See, e.g., Figs. 8-10 and column 5, row 39 through column 6, row 21. Examiner notes that this claim limitation includes features relating to an intended use thereof, wherein the courts have ruled it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 11, in Nicholson, the compressible middle is elastic and is capable of returning to its original position after compression of the middle portion moving the top wall of the middle portion toward the bottom portion and/or or expansion of the middle portion moving the top wall away from the bottom portion. See, e.g., Figs. 8-10 and column 5, row 39 through column 6, row 21.
Examiner notes that this claim limitation includes features relating to an intended use thereof, wherein the courts have ruled it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 12, in Nicholson, the compressible middle portion defines a bellows shape that oscillates (or capable of oscillating) between a first width and second width greater than the first width. See annotated figure above and Figs. 8-10 and column 5, row 39 through column 6, row 21. Examiner notes that this claim limitation includes features relating to an intended use thereof, wherein the courts have ruled it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 17, in Nicholson, one or more of the ring-shaped bottom portion, the compressible middle portion, or the ring-shaped top portion may be welded together. See, e.g., claim 8 of Nicholson. Note: this is considered a product-by-process limitation. See MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson as applied to claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 and as further set forth below.
Nicholson discloses the pressure seals substantially as claimed and as set forth above. Additionally, Nicholson discloses that the pressure seal may comprise stainless steel (see, e.g., column 9, rows 19-27).
However, Nicholson fails to explicitly teach the pressure seal has a thickness less than or equal to 5 mils, but it does teach that in all instances a thickness of the metal of the pressure seal may be adjusted to suit both a pressure to be applied and a radial section of the pressure seal (see, e.g., column 9, rows 16-18). Additionally, the courts have ruled In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have optimally selected and provided the pressure seal with a thickness less than or equal to 5 mils in order to suit a pressured to be applied during an intended use and a radial section of the pressure seal as taught by Nicholson.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 5,730,801 to Tepman et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,240,263 to Nicholson.
In Figs. 1-5, Tepman et al. disclose a processing chamber substantially as claimed and comprising: a chamber body having a top wall (e.g., 12), a bottom wall (e.g., bottom of 14), and a sidewall (e.g., sidewalls of 14), the chamber body having a slit valve side (i.e. outside chamber body) and a pump port side (i.e. inside chamber body); a pumping liner (20) having a ring-shaped body having a top surface, bottom surface, an inner dimeter surface, and an outer diameter surface, the pumping liner aligned with the slit valve side; a pressure seal (25); and an edge ring (72) having an outer diameter surface positioned within the pumping liner so that there is a gap between the outer diameter surface of the edge ring and the inner diameter of the pumping liner, wherein the pressure seal is positioned in the gap between the outer diameter surface of the edge ring and the inner diameter of the pumping liner to isolate a lower position of the chamber body.
However, Tepman et al. fail to disclose the pressure seal with the detail specifically claimed.
Nicholson discloses a pressure seal (i.e. sealing ring) comprising: a ring-shaped bottom portion having a cross-sectional width, a cross-sectional height, a bottom wall and a top wall defining a height of the bottom portion, the bottom portion having a bottom sealing surface; a ring-shaped compressible middle portion having a dynamic height extending from the top wall of the bottom portion to a top wall of the compressible middle portion; and a top portion having walls extending from the top wall of the compressible middle portion, the walls having an arc-shape extending from the top wall of the compressible middle portion to a top end of the top portion and to an inner end of the wall of the top portion. See annotated figure below. The pressure seal is provided as detailed above for the purposes of, inter alia, providing an efficient sealing function even when exposed to excessively high pressures and/or providing an effective seal that is not prone to scuffing and/or providing a seal that adjusts to accommodate dimensional variations in sealing surfaces between which it is meant to provide a sealing effect (see, e.g., column 1, rows 58-64; column 2, rows 11-15; column 3, rows 3-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a pressure seal in Tepman et al. claimed and as described above in order to provide an efficient sealing function even when exposed to excessively high pressures and/or to provide an effective seal that is not prone to scuffing and/or to provide a seal that adjusts to accommodate dimensional variations in sealing surfaces between which it is meant to provide a sealing effect as taught by Nicholson.
With respect to claims 19-20, which are drawn to intended uses of the claimed apparatus, it is noted that the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents and Patent Pubs. RE24478; 4,067,585; 4,813,692; 5,687,975; 6,322,087; 7,441,525; 4,762,559; 8,052,155; 2011/0150635; and 2013/0228980 disclose pressure seals of various relevant/similar configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716