DETAILED 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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Kumar et al teaches that the process controller 2600 can function as a server. Thus there is no burden to examine claims 11-14. Therefore, claims 11-14 are rejoined and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a processing unit and memory unit in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the processing unit is being interpreted as being a CPU and memory unit as being a memory as taught in Paragraph 0067, 0068, 0074, Figure 9.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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 its dependent claims 2-11 require “the process controller is configured to determine the compressed air line to be pinched if a delay time between the valve activation signal and movement of the valve is greater than a predetermined delay time”. It is not clear how the controller can determine that the compressed air line is pinched when the delay time can be cause by many known other failure points such as mechanical failure of a valve (sticking, partially opening etc.), a slow leak that slows the activation of the valve, or other failure in the compressed air supply system.
Regarding claim 11 and its dependent claim 12, claim 11 depends from claim 1 which requires “a process controller” and claim 11 requires “a server”. Thus it is not clear if claim 11 requires a process controller and a server, or if the process controller is a server. Also, since the server and the process controller perform the same functions, it is not clear how the process controller and server work together.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al, WO2021/030364 A1 (see US 20220293442 A1 for English equivalent).
Kumar et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus comprising: a reactor 101 for processing a semiconductor substrate 105; a valve to provide gas to the reactor for processing the substrate (Figure 1); a process controller 2600 operationally connected to the valve and provided with a memory 2604 to save a process recipe for processing the semiconductor substrate, the process controller 2600 being arranged and programmed to generate a valve activation signal based on the process recipe and transmit the valve activation signal to the valve to open or close the valve to provide or stop providing the gas to the reactor according to the recipe (Figure 15, Paragraph 0137); and a valve monitor system comprising a sensor to monitor the opening and closing of the valve, wherein the valve monitor system is operationally connected to the process controller to determine a time delay by subtracting timing of the valve activation signal from timing of a valve movement signal, wherein if the time delay is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, the valve is decided as a standard reaction time valve, and if the time delay is greater than the predetermined threshold, the valve is decided as a delayed reaction time valve, and wherein the process controller is configured to compute a correction time for each delayed reaction time valve and generate valve activation signals earlier than the process recipe by as much as the correction time for each delayed reaction time valve. (Paragraph 0100, 0006-0027, Figure 8, 15).
Regarding claim 20, if the time delay for the valve is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, the time delay is defined as standard reaction time and if the time delay for a valve is greater than the predetermined threshold, the time delay is defined as delayed reaction time, and the process controller is further configured to compute correction time for each delayed reaction time valve with equation (eq2) below,eq2) correction time = delayed reaction time - standard reaction time, wherein the standard reaction time in eq2) is an average of standard reaction time of all the standard reaction time valves or the minimum standard reaction time among the valves. (Paragraphs 0006-0027, 0100, Figure 8, 15)
Regarding claim 21, the process controller is further configured to compute correction time for each delayed reaction time valve with equation (eq3) below,eq3) correction time = delayed reaction time - predetermined threshold. (Paragraphs 0006-0027, 0100, Figure 8, 15)
Regarding claim 22, the process controller is further configured to generate valve activation signals according to the process recipe for the standard reaction time valves. (Paragraphs 0006-0027, 0100, Figure 8, 15)
Regarding claim 23, the process controller is further configured to update the process recipe for the delayed reaction time valves so that the valve activation signals for the delayed reaction time valves are to be generated earlier by as much as the correction time in the original process recipe. (Paragraph 0100, Figure 8, 15)
Regarding claim 24, a user interface 1612 which is configured to receive inputs from users and display the time delays of each of the valves, wherein the user interface is further configured to receive and update the predetermined thresholds for the valves. (Paragraphs 0006-0027, 0100, Figure 8, 15)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al, WO2021/030364 A1 (see US 20220293442 A1 for English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar et al teaches a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus comprising: a reactor 101 for processing a semiconductor substrate 105; pneumatic valve actuated by a compressed air line (Paragraph 0100) to provide gas to the reactor for processing the semiconductor substrate (Figure 1); a process controller 2600 operationally connected to the valve and provided with a memory 2604 to save a process recipe for processing the semiconductor substrate, the process controller 2600 being arranged and programmed to generate a valve activation signal based on the process recipe and transmit the valve activation signal to the valve to open or close the valve to provide or stop providing the gas to the reactor according to the process recipe (Figure 15, Paragraph 0137); and a valve monitor system comprising a sensor to monitor the opening and closing of the valve (Paragraph 0100), wherein the process controller is configured to determine an error if a delay time between the valve activation signal and movement of the valve is greater than a predetermined delay time. (Paragraphs 0006-0027, 0100, Figure 8, 15)
Kumar et al differs from the present invention in that Kumar et al does not teach that the error is caused by the compressed air line being pinched.
There are several possible faults or failures that can cause the error including the compressed air line to be pinched. It would be obvious to assign the cause of the error to be a compressed air line to be pinched when the error is detected.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to assign the cause of the error detected by Kumar et al to be that the compressed air line is pinched when the error is detected.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar et al teaches that the sensor operationally coupled to the valve to sense the opening and closing of the valve and the sensor generates a valve movement signal when movement of the valve is sensed. (Paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 3, Kumar et al teaches that the valve monitor system is operationally connected to the process controller to compare the valve activation signal and the valve movement signal with each other by subtracting timing of the valve activation signal from timing of the valve movement signal to determine a delay in response of the valve as shown in equation (eq1) below, eq1) time delay = valve movement signal time - valve activation signal time. (Figure 8, 15)
Regarding claim 4, Kumar et al teaches that the sensor is an optical sensor, and wherein, the valve activation signal activates a compressed air line to the pneumatic valve to open. (Paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al teaches that the valve has a close position mark and an open position mark, and the process controller is configured to monitor the valve and measure a time when a piston of the valve is at the close position mark and a time when the piston of the is at the open position mark, and the process controller is further configured to calculate the delay time by subtracting the time when the piston is at the close position mark from the time when the piston is at the open position mark. (Figure 8, 15; Paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 6, Kumar et al teaches if the time delay for the valve is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, the time delay is defined as standard reaction time and the valve is decided as a standard reaction time valve and if the time delay for a valve is greater than the predetermined threshold, the time delay is defined as delayed reaction time and the valve is decided as a delayed reaction time valve respectively and, the process controller also further configured to compute correction time for each delayed reaction time valve with equation (eq2) below, eq2) correction time = delayed reaction time - standard reaction time, wherein the standard reaction time in eq2) is an average of standard reaction time of all the standard reaction time valves or the minimum standard reaction time among the valves. (Figure 8, 15; Paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 7, Kumar et al teaches the process controller is further configured to compute correction time for each delayed reaction time valve with equation (eq3) below, eq3) correction time = delayed reaction time - predetermined threshold. (Figure 8, 15; paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 8, Kumar et al teaches the process controller further configured to generate valve activation signals earlier than the process recipe as much as the correction time for delayed reaction time valves and to generate valve activation signals according to the process recipe for the standard reaction time valves. (Figure 8, 15; Paragraph 0100)
Regarding claim 9, Kumar et al teaches the process controller is further configured to update the process recipe for the delayed reaction time valves so that the valve activation signals for the delayed reaction time valves are to be generated earlier than as much as correction time in the original process recipe.
Regarding claim 10, Kumar et al teaches a user interface 2612 which is configured to receive inputs from users and display the time delay of each of the valves, wherein the user interface is further configured to receive and update the predetermined thresholds for the valves. (Figure 15, Paragraph 00137-0139)
Regarding claim 11, Kumar et al teaches wherein the valve monitor system comprises: a sensor operationally coupled to the valve to sense the opening and closing of the valve and generate a valve movement signal when movement of the valve is sensed (Paragraph 0100) and a server configured to receive the valve movement signals from the sensor (Paragraph 0137); and a user interface 2612 configured to receive input from users and to display signals, wherein the server is further configured to: compute time delay for every valve according to the following equation, time delay = valve movement signal time - valve activation signal time; and determine whether the received valve movement signals are good or bad based on the computed time delay, such that if the time delay associated with the received valve movement signal is greater than a predetermined threshold saved in the process recipe then the valve activation signal associated with the received valve movement signal is determined to be bad, and if the time delay associated with the received valve movement signal is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold saved in the process recipe then the valve activation signal associated with the received valve movement signal is determined to be good. (Figure 15, Paragraph 100, 0137-0139)).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar et al teaches the server further comprises: a processing unit 2602 and a memory unit 2604, the memory unit 2604 configured to save the valve movement signal and the processing unit configured to process saved valve movement signals for displaying. (Figure 15)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 4, 2026, with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references are part of the family of Kumar et al WO2021/030364 A1 and could be used to reject all of the claims: US 20220293442 A1; CN 114222830 A; or US 12322619 B2.
The following references could be used to reject claim 1: CA 3236692 A1; US 11104997 B2; US 11060190 B2; KR 20180071706 A; or EP 1926009 A2.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights