Detailed Correspondence
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’s election without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 08/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2025.
Claim Interpretations
The “a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line and the first differential pump line” of claim 11 is as shown in Applicants’ Fig. 3, i.e., the first differential pump line 70 refers to the portion within the dynamic seal 50. Note Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, the differential pump line symbol 70 is pointing to the portion not surrounding by the dynamic seal. Similar interpretation of the second differential pump line 80 is applied to claim 7.
The “a vacuum chamber within a process module” of claims 1 and 14 and ”said first leak sensor is mounted outside the process module” of claim 4 and 14, Applicants’ drawing does not show where is the boundary of a process module, Applicants’ Specification does not disclose what structure the first leak sensor is (at least the portion that has to be outside the process module) and the drawing does not show leak sensor being outside the process module. Therefore, a process module can be any container containing the chamber and the leak sensor is considered either the hardware that does the leak detection or the software processing the leak signal.
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.
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 1-18 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 1 and 18 each recites “An improved dynamic seal system”, it is not clear what dynamic seal system is being compared with.
Claim 1 and 18 will be examined inclusive “a dynamic seal system”.
Claims 2 and 12 each recites “wherein the wafer stage is mounted on another motion axis”, it is not clear what this is different from “a/first motion axis” or lack antecedent basis.
Claims 2 and 12 will be examined as “wherein the wafer stage is mounted on a motion axis”.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-18 are also rejected under USC 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (JP 2007063645, from IDS, hereafter ‘645).
‘645 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: in FIG. 1, the state of the rotary seal mechanism 101 when the cooling water circulation is performed by the cooling water circulation pump P is illustrated (English translation, [0027], includes the claimed “An improved dynamic seal system for a vacuum processing system comprising”):
The vacuum processing apparatus 100 includes a substantially cylindrical rotary sealing mechanism 101 and a box-shaped vacuum chamber 10 ([0028], includes the claimed “a vacuum chamber within a process module”);
the rotary seal mechanism 101 is configured to rotate the substrate holder 40 that holds the substrate during the film deposition process on the substrate so as to make the film deposited on the substrate uniform ([0031], includes the claimed “a rotational wafer stage within the process module”);
the cooling water cooled to an appropriate temperature flows through the first cooling water inner pipe 57. A disposed in the hollow portion 102 corresponding to the inside of the hollow rotary shaft 25 of the rotary seal mechanism 101 ([0029], includes the claimed “a first fluid line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage”);
the casing member 23 is provided with a third through hole H3 extending from a chilled water machine (not shown) and connected to the second cooling water outer pipe 13B ([0044]), According to the cylindrical movable body 113 described above, the first and the first from the cooling water circulation pump P by the movement of the cylindrical movable body 113 in the direction of the central axis 105 (the direction of the central axis 105 of the hollow rotary shaft 25). The contact pressure between the rotary seal members 50, 51, 52 and the hollow rotary shaft 25 can be appropriately changed according to whether or not the cooling water supplied to the two annular water passages S1, S2 is supplied ([0108], includes the claimed “a first differential pump line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; and a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line and the first differential pump line”).
Claim 2: The holder 40 rotates about a central axis 105 ([0039], includes the claimed “wherein the wafer stage is mounted on another motion axis”).
Claim 3: The notification leakage volume (L1) shown in FIG. 4 corresponds to the first reference load current (α1) for reporting the coolant leakage detection to the operator, and this value is the value of the rotary seal members 50, 51, 52. It means that the deterioration of the cooling water sealing performance is ongoing ([0086], includes the claimed “further comprising a first leak sensor operatively connected to the first differential pump line”).
Claim 4: the control device 80 of the rotary seal mechanism 101 includes, for example, a CPU (central processing unit; not shown) ([0079], Fig. 1 shows the control device 80 is outside of chamber 10), The CPU displays a message notifying the operator of detection of cooling water leakage on the display unit (step S308), and ends the present routine ([0105], includes the claimed “wherein said first leak sensor is mounted outside the process module”, note the flow rate sensor 78 is also outside of the chamber 10).
Claim 5: the report leakage volume (L1) described here corresponds to an amount that can effectively exert the water draining function by an appropriate drain hole (not shown). It is unlikely that serious problems such as cooling water intrusion into the internal space 12 of the vacuum chamber 10 will occur ([0087], the drain hole has to be or lead to outside the chamber 10 to avoid contamination, includes the claimed “further comprising a drain operatively connected to the first differential pump line, said drain is mounted outside the process module”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants admitted prior art (Fig. 1, hereafter AAPA), in view of OTSUKA et al. (JP 2005033140, hereafter ‘140).
In case Applicants argue that the “a first fluid line” has to include both an inlet line and an outlet line and therefore the “a first differential pump line” has to be another line other than the inlet line or the outlet line.
AAPA Fig. 1 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: As shown in FIG. 1, a typical vacuum chamber 20 of an ion beam system 10, has a ferrofluidic rotational vacuum seal 30 for a rotatable wafer stage 40 that rotates on one axis. In an atmospheric part of the vacuum chamber 20, a dynamic seal(s) 50 surrounds a first fluid line in, a first fluid line out, a second fluid line in and a second fluid line out to the wafer stage. The first fluid can be a liquid such as water and the second fluid can be a cooling gas such as helium ([0003], includes the claimed “A dynamic seal system for a vacuum processing system comprising: a vacuum chamber within a process module; a rotational wafer stage within the process module; a first fluid line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; and a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line”).
AAPA does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: An improved dynamic seal system:
a first differential pump line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage;
(a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line) and the first differential pump line.
‘140 is analogous art in the field of SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE (title), the heat dissipation substrate 2 that supports the circuit board 3 is referred to as a circuit support surface or surface, and the opposite surface is referred to as the back surface of the heat dissipation substrate 2 (Fig. 1, English translation [0011]), A part of the coolant flow path formed in the cooling case 6 is a cooling recess 7 that opens on the heat dissipation substrate 2 side ([0013], 2nd sentence), Second seal portions 11 and 12 are provided, respectively. As these 1st and 2nd sealing parts 11 and 12, sealing materials, such as an O-ring, are used, for example, These sealing materials are respectively in the sealing material accommodation recessed parts 13 and 14 provided in the back surface side of the thermal radiation board 2 ([0015], 2nd sentence). ’140 teaches that Further, the cooling case 6 is located on the outer peripheral side of the cooling recess 7, and when the coolant leaks from the cooling recess 7 for some reason, the leaked coolant is transferred to the outside of the cooling case 6. A liquid escape groove 8 for discharging is provided. The liquid escape groove 8 is provided in the cooling case 6 so as to surround the cooling recess 7, and a part thereof penetrates in the thickness direction of the cooling case 6. The coolant leaking from the cooling recess 7 is transferred from the portion of the liquid escape groove 8 penetrating the cooling case 6 to the back surface of the cooling case 6 (surface opposite to the mounting surface to the heat dissipation board 2). It flows and is discharged to the outside of the cooling case 6. Corresponding to the liquid escape groove 8 provided in the cooling case 6, a recess 9 continuous with the liquid escape groove 8 is provided on the back surface side of the heat dissipation substrate 2 ([0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added liquid escape groove 8 to the first fluid line of water coolant of AAPA, for the purpose of prevent coolant leak to critical component, as taught by ‘140 ([0014]).
AAPA further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: Fig. 1 shows the claimed “wherein the wafer stage is mounted on another motion axis”).
Claim 3: there is a water sensor 60 within the atmospheric part of the vacuum chamber 20 to detect leaking water from the first fluid line ([0003], 4th sentence, includes the claimed “further comprising a first leak sensor operatively connected to the first differential pump line”).
Claim 6: a second fluid line in and a second fluid line out to the wafer stage ([0003], includes the claimed “further comprising a second fluid line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage, the dynamic seal surrounding the second fluid line”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and ‘140, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Dietle et al. (US 5823541, hereafter ‘541).
AAPA teaches the leaking water sensor 60 inside the vacuum chamber 20. The combination of AAPA and ‘140 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 4: wherein said first leak sensor is mounted outside the process module.
‘541 is an analogous art or solving similar problem in the field of Rotary seals 23 and 27 provide a dynamic seal with respect to the lower seal running surface 28 of the wear sleeve 19 and together define a second lubricant filled sealed chamber 29. The rotary seals 21, 25 and 27 are preferably hydrodynamic seals each having a circular sealing lip in sealing contact with the rotary shaft as shown at 23a (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 48-54). ’541 teaches that The first lubricant chamber 25 is connected to a first leakage sensor 35 such as a pressure sensing switch by communication means 31 which may take any convenient form, such as the tube which is illustrated. The second sealed chamber 29 is connected to a second leakage sensor 36 such as a pressure sensing switch by a communication means 33, such as a tube (col. 6, lines 5-11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the leaking water sensor 60 of AAPA to outside the chamber or module, as taught by ‘541. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
The combination of AAPA, ’140, and ‘541 further teach the limitations of:
Claim 5: It would have been obvious to remove the leaked cooling water to outside the process module for avoiding contamination to the process module (includes the claimed “further comprising a drain operatively connected to the first differential pump line, said drain is mounted outside the process module”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and ‘140, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Bergman et al. (US 4448799, hereafter ‘799). Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, in view of ’140 and ‘799.
The combination of AAPA and ‘140 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 7: further comprising a second differential pump line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage, the dynamic seal surrounding the second differential pump line.
‘799 is an analogous art in the field of Electric Arc Vapor Deposition Coating Systems (title), or solving similar problem of dynamic seal (col. 7, line 4), Referring to FIG. 1, there is generally illustrated at 10, a vapor vacuum deposition chamber having an outer shell or chamber 10a and a lower base member 10b connected together with appropriate seal means (not illustrated) to enclose an inner cavity 11 which defines the deposition chamber in which substrates are to be coated … Other general purpose inlet ports opening into the inner cavity 11 may also be provided, but are not illustrated, for example, for introducing reactive gasses or other elements into the deposition chamber (col. 8, lines 41-54, i.e. the seal to prevent gas leakage). ’799 teaches that An annular nylon spacer member 67 is mounted between the seals 21.1 and 21.2, and radially addresses the vacuum pump port 60g, permitting differential pumping between the seal members 21.1 and 21.2 (Fig. 3, col. 13, lines 40-44), If, however, over a period of time the first seal 21.1 of the multi-seal arrangement were to become damaged or to leak, the vacuum line and pump provided through the vacuum port 60g and the vacuum line 62 enables the multi-seal arrangement to be differentially pumped to maintain the vacuum of the chamber vacuum. Such differential pumping between the seals also provides for removal of atmospheric gases that might otherwise be introduced into the chamber as a result of using a single trigger shaft seal that becomes leaky or damaged (col. 16, lines 55-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a vacuum port 60g of ‘799, to the second helium cooling fluid line of AAPA, to prevent leaking if the seal is damaged, as taught by ‘799 (col. 16, lines 56-57).
AAPA Fig. 1 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 11: As shown in FIG. 1, a typical vacuum chamber 20 of an ion beam system 10, has a ferrofluidic rotational vacuum seal 30 for a rotatable wafer stage 40 that rotates on one axis. In an atmospheric part of the vacuum chamber 20, a dynamic seal(s) 50 surrounds a first fluid line in, a first fluid line out, a second fluid line in and a second fluid line out to the wafer stage. The first fluid can be a liquid such as water and the second fluid can be a cooling gas such as helium ([0003], includes the claimed “A dynamic seal system for a vacuum processing system comprising: a vacuum chamber within a process module; a rotational wafer stage within the process module; a first fluid line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; a first fluid line in operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; a first fluid line out operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; a second fluid line in operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage; a second fluid line out operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage;
and a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line in, the first fluid line out, the second fluid line in, the second fluid line out”).
AAPA does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 11: An improved dynamic seal system: (11A) a first differential pump line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage and operatively connected to the first fluid line in and the first fluid line out;
(11B) a second differential pump line operatively connected to the rotational wafer stage and operatively connected to the second fluid line in and the second fluid line out;
(a dynamic seal surrounding the first fluid line in, the first fluid line out, the second fluid line in, the second fluid line out), (11C) the first differential pump line, and (11D) the second differential pump line.
‘140 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added liquid escape groove 8 to the first fluid line of water coolant of AAPA (the limitation of 11A and 11C), for the purpose of prevent coolant leak, as taught by ‘140 ([0014]).
‘799 is an analogous art or solving similar problem as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a vacuum port 60g of ‘799, to the second helium cooling fluid line of AAPA (the limitations of 11B and 11D), to prevent leaking if the seal is damaged, as taught by ‘799 (col. 16, lines 56-57).
Claims 12-13 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2-3 rejection above.
The combination of AAPA, ’140, and ‘799 further teaches the limitation of:
Claim 17: It would have been obvious to remove the leaked cooling water to outside the process module for avoiding contamination to the process module (includes the claimed “further comprising a drain operatively connected to the first differential pump line, said drain is mounted outside the process module”).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799, as being applied to claim 7 rejection above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220165588, hereafter ‘588).
The combination of AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 8: further comprising a second leak sensor operatively connected to the second differential pump line.
Claim 9: wherein said second leak sensor is mounted outside the process module.
Claim 10: further comprising a vacuum gauge operatively connected to the second differential pump line, said vacuum gauge is mounted outside the process module.
‘588 is an analogous art in the field of SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING SUBSTRATE (title). ’588 teaches that the exhaust module 120 may further include a leakage detection part 124 provided in the sealing case 122 to detect the leakage of the exhaust gas of the exhaust tube 121 (Fig. 1, [0038]), The exhaust module 120 may further include a vacuum sensor 127 connected to the exhaust tube 121 (e.g., to the first exhaust tube) to measure a vacuum degree of the process tube 110 ([0056]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a leakage detection part 124 and the a vacuum sensor 127 of ‘799 outside of the process tube, as taught by ‘588, to the vacuum pump port 60g of ‘799 and then combined with AAPA and ‘140, for the purpose of leakage detection, as taught by ‘588 ([0038]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799, as being applied to claim 13 rejection above, further in view of ‘541.
The combination of AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 14: wherein said first leak sensor is mounted outside the process module.
‘541 is an analogous art or solving similar problem as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the leaking water sensor 60 of AAPA to outside the chamber or module, as taught by ‘541. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799, as being applied to claim 11 rejection above, further in view of ‘588.
The combination of AAPA, ‘140, and ‘799 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 18: further comprising a vacuum gauge operatively connected to the second differential pump line, said vacuum gauge is mounted outside the process module.
‘588 is an analogous art or solving similar problem as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a leakage detection part 124 and the a vacuum sensor 127 of ‘799 outside of the process tube, as taught by ‘588, to the vacuum pump port 60g of ‘799 and then combined with AAPA and ‘140, for the purpose of leakage detection, as taught by ‘588 ([0038]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, ‘140, ‘799, and ‘541, as being applied to claim 14 rejection above, further in view of ‘588.
The combination of AAPA, ‘140, ‘799, and ‘541 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 15: further comprising a second leak sensor operatively connected to the second differential pump line.
Claim 16: wherein said second leak sensor is mounted outside the process module.
‘588 is an analogous art or solving similar problem as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a leakage detection part 124 and the a vacuum sensor 127 of ‘799 outside of the process tube, as taught by ‘588, to the vacuum pump port 60g of ‘799 and then combined with AAPA and ‘140, for the purpose of leakage detection, as taught by ‘588 ([0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170037848 is cited for pressure sensor 160 as leakage past dynamic seals 144 (Fig. 11, [0202]), and reservoir 164 that function as a drain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716