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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 9/16/2025, have been fully considered by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 9/16/2025, have been considered and reviewed by the examiner but are deemed unpersuasive and moot in view of the added claim requirement that is specifically addressed hereinafter.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Specification nor drawings illustrate each of the bore holes are “further radially cut tangent to the top surface toward the outer diameter of the annular ring”, the examiner cannot locate any explicit or implicit disclosure of such a requirement and thus this claim language appears to lack antecedent basis in the original disclosure.
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) 1-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102777347A, hereinafter CN 347 with CN 217354658 A, hereinafter CN 658 and US 4546613 by Eacobacci et al. and further with US 3232031 by Simons.
Claim 1: CN 347 discloses a louver for a semiconductor processing apparatus (0003) comprising an annular ring having a top surface and a bottom surface, the annular ring having a plurality of cutaways (Figure 3 and accompanying text, mounting structure), the top surface of the annular ring having an upper outer portion and a lower inner portion (Figure 3 and accompanying text); a plurality of rib supports disposed on and supported by the lower inner portion of the annular ring (Figure 3 and accompanying text, “0106 “each louver 38 is mounted to the cross support member”); and a plurality of louver fins having a truncated conical shape, a bottom surface of the louver fins supported in a recess formed in a top surface of the rib supports, each of the plurality of louver fins disposed between adjacent concentric louver fins has an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of the outwardly adjacent louver fin (0106 as it relates to the truncated cone shape and concentric circles and specifically discloses that there is mutually overlap of the circles so there is no gap when viewed, i.e. meets the requirement with respect to the diameter relationship as claimed).
CN 347 discloses the rib supports; however, fails to disclose the supports have recesses in the top surface of the supports. CN 658, also discloses a louver for vacuum pumps and discloses support for the concentric conical and discloses using a support with recesses formed in the top surfaces of the support (Figure 2-5) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified CN 347 to use the recess to hold the louver fin as set forth by CN 658.
CN 347 with CN 658 fails to explicitly disclose the annular ring as claimed. However, Eacobacci, also in the art of cryopump and louver, discloses using an annular ring/support for the louvers for fitting into the chamber (Figure 2 and accompanying text). Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified CN 347 with CN 658 to include the annular ring as claimed as Eacobacci explicitly discloses louvers with an annular ring are known and suitable in the art.
Eacobacci discloses the bracket for attaching the louver to the cryopump includes an annular ring that includes an upper outer portion and lower inner portion (see e.g. annular ring with L bracket to hold the louver ring), wherein the ring supports are supported by the lower inner portion (i.e. by being supported and held in position by the lower inner surface of the L bracket); however, fails to disclose that the bracket is a ring shaped and thus having an annular upper surface and annular lower surface. However, Simons, also in the art of a louver supported in a pumping system and discloses supporting the louver using a ring bracket (see Figure 2 and accompanying text). Simons discloses the ring bracket and supporting the louver rings on the ring bracket (44) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified the prior art to include a annular bracket to support the louver as suggested by Simons to reap the benefits of attaching the louver to the walls of the pump and because Simons discloses a known method for attaching a louver to a pump wall includes using an annular ring that includes an annular outer upper surface and annular inner lower surface. Simons would include an upper annular outer surface (see e.g. “56”) and supporting the louver on an inner lower annular surface (see e.g. 44). Additionally, the combination of Simons with Eacobacci would meet the requirement of an annular upper outer surface and an annular lower inner surface as Eocabacci discloses using a louver support that includes an upper outer surface to attach to the wall and lower inner surface for supporting the louver and combining this feature with the annular arrangement of Simons would have been obvious as a predictable method of supporting the louver as well as attaching the bracket to the wall.
Claim 2: CN 347 discloses an angle approximate to 45o; however, fails to explicitly disclose the angle of the fins; however, the angle is directly related to the gas flow therethrough and the determination of the angle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 3: Eacobacci discloses a recess in the annular ring between the outer and inner diameter (see Figure 2) and the term “seal” is intended use and not required by the claims and the prior art includes a material that seals the ring to the chamber (see e.g. bolt).
Claim 4: CN 658 discloses the rib support having a recess to configure to couple to a crossing rib support (Figures 3-5) and using this arrangement for the supports would have been obvious as providing a known method for supporting louver fins.
Claim 5: CN 347 fails to disclose the thickness of the louver; however, the louver thickness would be recognized by one of ordinary skill as a result effective variable (too thick or too thin will detrimentally affect the louver purpose, i.e. gas flow will be inhibit if too large, insufficient structure if too thin) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum thickness of the louver to reap the benefits of providing an optimum louver for the apparatus as envisioned by CN 347.
Claim 7-8: Each of CN 347 and CN 658 discloses a bore hole and therefore using a bore hole for attaching the louver would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Directionality of the bore hole would have been obvious to successfully achieve the attachment.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20080088182, KR 182 taken with CN 347 with CN 658, Eacobacci and Simons as applied above.
Claim 9: KR 182 discloses a system for semiconductor processing comprising: a chamber comprising one or more sidewalls, a bottom wall, and a lid enclosing a chamber interior volume; a substrate support pedestal disposed within the chamber volume (Figure 1 and accompanying text); a vacuum pump coupled to the chamber and in fluid communication with the chamber interior volume (cryopump); a valve positioned between the chamber and the vacuum pump and configured to isolate the vacuum pump from the chamber interior volume (Figure 1, gate valve 40);
a louver particle shield positioned between the vacuum pump and the chamber (louver 26, Figure 1),
KR 182 fails to discloses the particulars of the louver as claimed. However, the louver for pumping systems is made obvious over CN 347 and CN 628 for the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1 above and therefore using the known louver structure would have been obvious as made CN 347 with CN 628, as CN 347 and CN 628 discloses louver fin structure for pumping.
Claim 12, 15-16 and 20: These claims are made obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 10, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 182 taken with CN 347 with CN 658, Eacobacci and Simons and further with JP 05-312149, hereinafter JP 149.
Claims 10, 13, and 19 each individually require aluminum for components of the louver and the prior art is silent with respect to the material. JP 149 discloses a cryopump with a louver (baffle) and discloses such can be made from aluminum or aluminum alloy (see 0007) and therefore it would have been obvious to use the known material for the louver. As for the requirement of polished or machined, the aluminum of JP 149 can reasonable be considered “polished” or “machined” as those are process steps without any specific indication that they would materially affect the product (how much polishing or how much machining is required and could be met by mere aluminum).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 182 taken with CN 347, CN 658, Eacobacci, Simons and JP 149 as applied above and further with US Patent Application 20070163713 by Kasai et al.
KR 182 taken with C CN 347, CN 658, Eacobacci, Simons and JP 149 as applied above and discloses aluminum and discloses each support is a single sheet (see e.g. CN 658); however, reference fails to disclose bending to form a recess. However, Kasai, also in the art of baffle plates discloses forming members by bending aluminum (0202) and therefore it would have been obvious to have utilized bent aluminum as a known and suitable technic for forming baffle members.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 182 taken with CN 347 with CN 658, Eacobacci and Simons as applied above and further with US Patent 5231840 by Yagi et al.
KR 182 taken with CN 347 with CN 658, Eacobacci and Simons discloses all that is taught above and discloses a cryopump system; however, fails to disclose a screen as claimed. The examiner notes the scope of the term screen and the its breadth and therefore anything that has holes can reasonably be considered a screen as claimed. As such, Yagi discloses a cryopump with sequential baffle plates (3a and 4a) and thus using multiple baffle plates, each of which can be considered a screen within the scope of the broadly drafted claim requirement would have been obvious as predictable for the functioning of a cryopump. Here, the first baffle plate (i.e. screen) will be between the valve and the second baffle (i.e. claimed particle filter) as well as between the valve and the vacuum pump as claimed.
Conclusion
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718