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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Kang in addition to previously relied on references 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 limitation(s) is/are:
First opening/closing device (opening/closing blades, first frame, para. [0021]) in at least claims 1-17.
Second opening/closing device (opening/closing door structure, second frame, para. [0026]) in at least claims 1-17.
Opening/closing door structure (opening/closing door, door seal, para. [0029]) in at least claims 1-17.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Seal structure (bellows seal, magnetic fluid seal, para. [0033]) in at least claims 8-17.
(first second third) power unit(s) (motor, para. [0035-0037]) in at least claims 10, 12, 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation " further comprising a third power unit configured to drive the bellows seal " in the claim. The bellows is not driven by the third power unit, but rather, the third power unit drives the second opening and closing device, and the bellows is compressed or stretch because of the movement of the second opening and closing device (see para. [0033] of instant specification). Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by KR 20180001320A to Kang.
Claim 1: Kang discloses a process chamber (10/30 [processing unit]/[pressure regulating unit], Fig. 4) comprising: a housing (10/30) defining a process space (106 [processing space]) where plasma processing is performed (para. [0026]), the process space (106) being located inside the housing (10/30, Fig. 4); a first opening/closing device (630 [first opening and closing member], Fig. 6) in a side wall of the housing (bottom side of wall of 10/30), the first opening/closing device (630) including a first frame (632 [rotating ring]) and at least one opening/closing blade (634 [adjusting blades/vanes]) connected to the first frame (632); and
a second opening/closing device (650/652, Fig. 4) on an outside of the side wall of the housing (outside bottom side wall of 10/30) of and on a same line as the first opening/closing device (630), the second opening/closing device (650/652) including a second frame (frame of 650 [second opening and closing member]) and an opening/closing door structure (652 [opening and closing plate]) connected to the second frame (frame of 650), wherein the first opening/closing device (630) and the second opening/closing device (650/652) are configured to maintain a vacuum state of the process space (para. [0032]).
Claim 2: Kang discloses wherein the first opening/closing device (630, Fig. 6, Kang) has an aperture shape (Fig. 7, para. [0030]), the at least one opening/closing blade (634]) includes a plurality of opening/closing blades (634, para. [0030]), respective inner portions of the plurality of opening/closing blades (634) together form a first opening (opening of 634, Fig. 7, para. [0030]), and a diameter of the first opening varies with a movement of the plurality of opening/closing blades (634, para. [0030]).
Claim 3: Kang discloses wherein the second frame (frame of 650, Fig. 6, Kang) has a second opening (opening of frame of 650) having a circular shape (para. [0019], Fig. 7-8), and the opening/closing door structure (652) is configured to block or open the second opening in a sliding manner (para. [0031]).
Claim 6: Kang discloses wherein the second frame (frame of 650, Fig. 6, Kang) has a second opening having a circular shape (para. [0031] where diameter is mentioned), and a diameter of the opening/closing door structure is greater than or equal to a diameter of the second opening (615 or opening of frame of 650, para. [0031]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claims 1-3, 6 above, and in view of US 5948704 to Benjamin.
Claims 4-5, 7: Kang discloses (claim 4) wherein the opening/closing door structure (652, Fig. 6, Kang) includes an opening/closing door (652, Fig. 6-8).
However Kang does not disclose (claim 4) and a door seal surrounding the opening/closing door; (claim 5) wherein the door seal includes an O-ring seal configured to maintain the vacuum state of the process space; (claim 7) further comprising an O-ring seal between the second opening/closing device and the side wall of the housing
Benjamin discloses (claim 4) and a door seal (182 [o-ring], Fig. 9, 8) surrounding the opening/closing door (180 plate]); (claim 5) wherein the door seal (182) includes an O-ring seal (182) configured to maintain the vacuum state of the process space (c. 11, l. 35-55); (claim 7) further comprising an O-ring seal (182) between the opening/closing device (180) and the side wall of the housing (sidewall of 10); for the purpose of providing vacuum sealing and be removably attached (c. 11, l. 35-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Benjamin with motivation to provide vacuum sealing and be removably attached.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20180001320A in view of US 20140030433 to Ranish.
Claim 8, 16-17: Kang discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a process chamber (10/30 [processing unit]/[pressure regulating unit], Fig. 4) including a housing (10/30) providing defining a process space (106 [processing space]) where plasma processing is performed (para. [0026]), the process space (106) being located inside the housing (10/30, Fig. 4), a first opening/closing device (630 [first opening and closing member], Fig. 6) in a side wall of the housing (outside bottom side wall of 10/30), the first opening/closing device (630) including a first frame (632 [rotating ring]) and at least one opening/closing blade (634 [adjusting blades/vanes]) connected to the first frame (632),
wherein an inner portion of the at least one opening/closing blade (634) forms a first opening (opening of 634, Fig. 7, para. [0030]), and a second opening/closing device (650/652, Fig. 4) on an outside of the side wall of the housing (outside bottom side wall of 10/30) of and on a same line as the first opening/closing device (630), the second opening/closing device (650/652) including a second frame (frame of 650 [second opening and closing member]) having a circular shape (Fig. 4, 6-7) and an opening/closing door structure (652 [opening and closing plate]) connected to the second frame (frame of 650);
a substrate support (200 [substrate support unit], Fig. 4) inside the process chamber (10/30) and configured to support a substrate (W [substrate], para. [0020]); an upper electrode (400 [plasma source]) above the substrate support (200) and spaced apart from the substrate support (Fig. 4); a power generator (430 [power source]) configured to apply, to the upper electrode (400), source power for generating plasma in the process space (106) of the process chamber (10/30); wherein the first opening/closing device (630), the second opening/closing device (650/652) are configured to maintain a vacuum state of the process space (para. [0030]).
However Kang does not disclose (claim 8) and a seal structure connected to the second opening/closing device, wherein the first opening/closing device, the second opening/closing device, and the seal structure are configured to maintain a vacuum state of the process space; (claim 16) wherein the seal structure includes a bellows seal and a magnetic fluid seal; (claim 17) further comprising a third power unit configured to drive the bellows seal.
Ranish discloses (claim 8) a seal structure (174/130/212, Fig. 2B) connected to a device (170/140); (claim 16) wherein the seal structure (174/130/212) includes a bellows seal (“bellows configuration,” para. [0023]) and a magnetic fluid seal (212 [ferrofluidic seal], para. [0023]); (claim 17) further comprising a third power unit (130 [actuator]) configured to drive the bellows seal (174); for the purpose of facilitating sliding of the device and accommodating movement of the device (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Ranish with motivation to facilitate sliding of the device and accommodate movement of the device.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish discloses wherein the first opening/closing device has an aperture shape (Fig. 7, para. [0030]), the at least one opening/closing blade (634]) includes a plurality of opening/closing blades (634, para. [0030]), and a diameter of the first opening varies with a movement of the plurality of opening/closing blades (634, para. [0030]).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish discloses further comprising a second power unit (not shown but disclosed as “motor,” para. [0031], Ranish) configured to move the opening/closing door structure (652).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ranish as applied to claims 8, 9, 12, 16-17 above, and in view of US 20190136364 to Zheng.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish does not disclose further comprising a first power unit configured to move the at least one opening/closing blade.
Zheng discloses further comprising a first power unit (12 [driver], Fig. 1Ci-1Cii) configured to move the at least one opening/closing blade (15 [blades]) for the purpose of having an array that rotates between a retracted position and a closed position to define an aperture (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Zheng with motivation to have an array that rotates between a retracted position and a closed position to define an aperture.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ranish as applied to claims 8, 9, 12, 16-17 above, and in view of US 5948704 to Benjamin.
Claims 11, 14, 15: The apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish discloses (claim 4) wherein the opening/closing door structure (652, Fig. 6, Kang) includes an opening/closing door (652, Fig. 6-8).
However the apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish does not disclose (claim 11) and a door seal surrounding the opening/closing door, and the door seal includes an O-ring seal configured to maintain the vacuum state of the process space; (claim 14) wherein the seal structure is configured to be removable from the second opening/closing device; (claim 15) further comprising an O-ring seal between the seal structure and the second opening/closing device.
Benjamin discloses (claim 11) a door seal (182 [o-ring], Fig. 9, 8) surrounding the opening/closing door (180 plate]), and the door seal (182) includes an O-ring seal (182) configured to maintain the vacuum state of the process space (c. 11, l. 35-55); (claim 14) wherein the seal structure (182) is configured to be removable from the opening/closing device (180); (claim 15) further comprising an O-ring seal (182) between the seal structure (182) and the opening/closing device (180); for the purpose of providing vacuum sealing and be removably attached (c. 11, l. 35-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Benjamin with motivation to provide vacuum sealing and be removably attached.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ranish as applied to claims 8, 9, 12, 16-17 above, and in view of US 20080184584 to Sogard.
Claim 13: The apparatus of Kang in view of Ranish does not disclose wherein each of the first opening/closing device and the second opening/closing device is at a higher vertical level than the substrate support.
However Sogard discloses vacuum devices (906A, 906b, Fig. 5) at a higher vertical level than the substrate support (910, 940) for the purpose of being arranged to enable desired vacuum levels to be established and maintained within respective chambers (para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Sogard with motivation to be arranged to enable desired vacuum levels to be established and maintained within respective chambers.
Claims 18-20: (Cancelled).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240096606 discloses a plasma shutter (3, Fig. 3-4) may include a shield door (31), a connection block (33), and a gasket (35, para. [0054]). US 20190136364 discloses shutter (9, Fig. 1C) comprises a mechanical iris shutter (9c), which is configured to be actuatably coupled to a driver (12); iris shutter 9c can be coupled to substrate holder 6 such that the iris portion (e.g., aperture) overlaps with substrate 8 (para. [0036]). (Different Embodiment) Shutter (9) comprises a segment of a flexible, flat material that is wound around a spool (not shown), which is rotatably coupled to a driver (12); shutter (9) is slidably coupled to one or more rails (30) and extends along the surface of substrate holder (6, para. [0035]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights