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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/02/2026.
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) 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5584971 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘971) in view of United States Patent No. 5478429 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘429).
In regard to Claim 1, ‘971 teaches a substrate treating apparatus Fig. 1 comprising: a process chamber 11 having a treatment space for treating a substrate; an inner pipe 311 Fig. 17 connected to the process chamber and for supplying a heat exchange fluid to an interior of the process chamber (interior as being the mounting table 15); a cooler 324 connected to the inner pipe, and for cooling the heat exchange fluid and supplying the cooled heat exchange fluid to the inner pipe; an outer pipe 315 disposed on an outer side of the inner pipe while surrounding the inner pipe to form a suction space 313 between the inner pipe and the outer pipe; an intake part 370, 371 connected to the suction space, and for sucking the suction space (Col. 3 line 39-Col. 30 line 35).
‘971 does not expressly teach a spacing maintaining part disposed in the suction space, and for maintaining a spacing distance between the inner pipe and the outer pipe.
‘429 teaches a pipe 5 Fig. 2 with an inner pipe 51 and an outer pipe 52, with a vacuum 93 attached to the space between the inner and outer pipes, wherein there is a spacing part 7, 8 for maintaining/fixing the relative positions of the inner conductive rod and the outer conductive pipe in relation to each other (Col. 5 lines 16-29), the spacing maintaining part having holes 72 that connect the opposite sides of the space maintaining part, the spacing maintaining part 7 extends while forming a path having at least one bent 52, 71 Fig. 3, the spacing maintaining part 8 includes: a connecting body 83 coupled to each of the inner pipe and the outer pipe and formed in plural; and a cylindrical body (center body of 8) coupled between the connecting bodies the spacing maintaining part makes the inner pipe be spaced apart at a certain extent of the suction space to make a center axis of the inner pipe match or be adjacent to a center axis of the outer pipe as shown in Fig. 2 (Col. 4 line 10-Col. 21 line 1). ‘429 teaches the fixing members or space maintaining parts keep the inner and outer pipes at the same position in the longitudinal direction and as such no discharge can occur in the space between the inner and outer pipes (Col. 6 lines 43-59).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘971 by adding space maintaining parts in the space between the inner and outer pipes, as per the teachings of ‘429. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing discharge in the vacuum space, as per the teachings of ‘429. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regard to Claim 2, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the spacing maintaining part makes the inner pipe be spaced apart at a certain extent of the suction space to make a center axis of the inner pipe match or be adjacent to a center axis of the outer pipe, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regard to Claim 3, ‘971 teaches the inner pipe and the outer pipe is not in direct contact with each other, as shown in Fig. 17.
In regard to Claim 4, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the spacing maintaining part is provided with a passage area 72 formed so that the suction spaces located on both sides of the spacing maintaining parts communicate with each other, as per the rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 5, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the spacing maintaining part extends while forming a path having at least one bent 52, 71 Fig. 3 of ‘429 from the inner pipe to the outer pipe, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regard to Claim 6, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the spacing maintaining part includes: a connecting body 83 coupled to each of the inner pipe and the outer pipe and formed in plural; and a cylindrical body (center body of 8) coupled between the connecting bodies, as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘429.
In regard to Claim 7, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the connecting body is coupled only to a partial region when is coupled to the cylindrical body, as broadly recited in the claim, as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘429.
In regard to Claim 8, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the connecting bodies include at least two connecting bodies that are not aligned on the same line based on an outer peripheral direction of the inner pipe and the outer pipe, as broadly recited, there being more than one connecting bodies on different sides of the cylindrical body, as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘429.
In regard to Claim 9, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the cylindrical body is provided with a through-hole 72.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the through holes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regard to Claim 10, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches the spacing maintaining part is coupled to the inner pipe and is coupled to the outer pipe, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in view of Fig. 3 of ‘429.
In regard to Claim 13, ‘971 in view of ‘429 teaches a purge port part 359 connected to a branch point of the inner pipe to purge a heat exchange fluid flowing in the inner pipe to an outer side of the outer pipe, and forming a path bent multiple times on the outer side of the inner pipe (as there is a bend on the left and the right sides forming 248, as broadly recited in the claim).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5584971 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘971) in view of United States Patent No. 5478429 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘429), as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0207021 to Izawa.
The teachings of ‘971 in view of ‘429 are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 11, ‘971 in view of ‘429 does not expressly teach a temperature sensor unit coupled to the outer pipe and for measuring a temperature of the outer pipe; and a leak detection unit which is interlocked with the temperature sensor unit and generates a leak alarm when the temperature of the outer pipe falls below a preset temperature value.
Izawa teaches a leak judgement method based on temperature detection and apparatus Fig. 1A, 1B placed on the exhaust line (which is analogous to the outer pipe of ‘971 in view of ‘429 as that outer pipe is also exhausted), wherein there is a temperature sensor unit 101 that is coupled to the outer pipe 103 and for measuring a temperature of the outer pipe is used for leak detection, and generates a leak alarm when the temperature of the outer pipe falls below a preset temperature value, which is done as the detection of the leak is found from the temperature sensor and the system is adjusted for the leak, the alarm being broadly interpreted as the response to shut down the leak [0025-0113]. Izawa teaches that this also prevents any fire, explosion or exposure to gas leakage [0056].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘971 in view of ‘429 with the teachings of Izawa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result preventing any fire, explosion or exposure to gas leakage. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5584971 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘971) in view of United States Patent No. 5478429 to Komino (hereinafter referred to as ‘429), as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0313144 to Meng et al.
The teachings of ‘971 in view of ‘429 are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 12, ‘971 in view of ‘429 does not expressly teach a pressure sensor unit connected with the suction space while being in communication with the suction space, and for measuring a pressure of the suction space; and a leak detection unit which is interlocked with the pressure sensor unit and generates a leak alarm when the pressure of the suction space is higher than a preset pressure.
Meng teaches a pressure sensor unit 172a that is connected to an outer pipe 162i.e., a suction space, for measuring the pressure in said suction space and a leak detection unit 500 which is interlocked with the pressure sensor unit and generates a leak alarm when the pressure of the suction space is higher than a preset pressure [0035, 0009-0053]. Meng teaches that this provides for enhanced safety [0015].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of ‘971 in view of ‘429 with the teachings of Izawa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result preventing any fire, explosion or exposure to gas leakage. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claim 14 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination does not teach the purge port part includes: a valve for purge installed between the branch points of the inner pipe; a pipe for purge having one end connected with the valve for purge and the other end exposed to an outer side of the outer pipe, and forming a path bent multiple times on the outer side of the inner pipe; and a reflector placed in the suction space and wrapping around an outer side of the pipe for purge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 2009/0064765 to Megawa, which teaches a pressure based leak detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights