DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (2017/0098557) in view of Fukutomi (2003/0217695).
Shimizu teaches a system comprising:
- a semiconductor processing chamber, see 105a, Fig. 2 and 20,
- a valve module configured to receive a fluid from the process chamber and selectably direct a flow – see vacuum, indicated in both – it is generally understood that a vacuum system will include some type of a valve, and therefore the vacuum system meets the broad requirements of a “valve module to receive fluid” (see implicit disclosure per MPEP 2144.01 wherein it is stated that it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference),
- a cooling apparatus – see wherein cooling water per Fig. 2 and cooling unit 109 per Fig. 20 are described and provide cooling fluid to the chamber, but
the teachings do not explicitly include that the parts are stacked.
However, Fukutomi teaches that in semiconductor processing systems, it is useful to stack components to better use space in a clean room [0007]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to stack any of the components in the semiconductor system of Shimizu as Fukutomi teaches that such a rearrangement allows for better use of cleanroom space. Further, as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality – in this case, Fukutomi shows the motivation for the modification.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed arrangement is obvious over the rearrangement of parts as noted above.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings include a (single) power source and power supply system [0004-05].
Regarding claim 8, further as per MEP 2144.04 VI. B., a duplication of parts is obvious. In this case, the suggested saving of space as per Fukutomi is further motivation to duplicate process regions within a singular apparatus as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The teachings applied are the closest known prior art – the teachings of Kadobe (2020/0227287) and Qui (WO2004/008052), also of record are pertinent, but along with Kim (2020/0203198), which teaches an an arrangement with a valve and cooling chamber below a process chamber, do not teach any motivation to have a (common) pneumatic source for both the valve module and cooling apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights