DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were filed with the amendment dated 03/10/2026. Claims 1-6 were previously withdrawn from examination.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8-11 have removed the claims from interpretation under 35 USC 112f.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 7 under 35 USC 102 and claims 8-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0111304 (“Takahashi”). Takahashi is relied on for teaching repeating a stepped pressure adjustment a plurality of times until a final chamber pressure value is reached.
Applicant argues that U.S. Pat. No. 11,527,421 (“Liang”) teaches away from a stepped pressure control (see Remarks at page 10 and at page 13). However, Liang is not relied upon for specific pressure control. Rather, Liang is relied upon for teaching a boosting pump and chamber pressure transmitter.
The rejection is made FINAL.
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.
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 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,351,952 (“Yabe”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0111304 (“Takahashi”).
With regard to claim 7, Yabe discloses a dual-chamber pressure control device (Fig 1), comprising: a dual-chamber member (1) comprising: an external chamber (16; col. 4, line 42) configured to accommodate an inert gas (inert gas is argon; col. 10, lines 62-63); and an internal chamber (14) adjacent to the external chamber (16, see Fig 1) and not communicating with the external chamber (16) (14 is sealed from and does not communication with 16 when hood 12 is closed on 11 as shown by solid lines in Fig 1; see col. 6, lines 48-52), and configured to accommodate a reactive gas (reactive gas is NO at 52; col. 6, line 64 to col. 6, line 4); an external chamber pressure control module (module is met by V5/10/26) connected to the external chamber (connected via 56 and 25) and configured to adjust an external chamber pressure of the inert gas (argon) in the external chamber (16) (V5/10/26 controls amount of argon flowing into and out of 16, which inherently controls the pressure) such that an external chamber pressure value of the external chamber (16) changes with time; and an internal chamber pressure control module (V2/10/34) connected to the internal chamber (14) and configured to adjust an internal chamber pressure of the reactive gas (NO) in the internal chamber (V2/10/34 controls amount of NO flowing into and out of 14 which inherently controls the pressure) such that an internal chamber pressure value of the internal chamber changes with time.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yabe discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing such that an external chamber pressure value of the external chamber changes with time to show a stepped external chamber pressure adjustment line by repeating a stepped pressure adjustment a plurality of times and that an internal chamber pressure value of the internal chamber changes with time to show a stepped internal chamber pressure adjustment line by repeating a stepped pressure adjustment a plurality of times.
Takahashi discloses a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus, similar to that of Yabe, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a pressure control for chambers to include a stepped chamber pressure adjustment line by repeating a stepped pressure adjustment a plurality of times (see Fig 5 showing repeating stepped pressure adjustments for different gasses and chambers, see for example, Ar gas and HF gas in two different chambers) in order to better control pressure differences between processing parts/chambers (see para [0096]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a repeating stepped pressure adjustment a plurality of times, such as taught by Takahashi, in the external and internal chambers of Yabe, for the purpose of providing better pressure control, such as taught by Takahashi (para [0096] and Fig 5).
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Yabe and Takahashi disclose all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a pressure adjustment value of each step of the stepped external chamber pressure adjustment line is 0.01 bar to 20 bar; and wherein a pressure adjustment value of each step of the stepped internal chamber pressure adjustment line is 0.01 bar to 20 bar.
The combination of Yabe and Takahashi disclose stepped pressure adjustment, but are silent as to the value of pressure for each step.
Applicant has not disclosed that having a pressure adjustment value of each step of the stepped external or internal chamber pressure adjustment line is 0.01 bar to 20 bar solves any stated problem.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a pressure adjustment value of each step of the stepped external or internal chamber pressure adjustment line be any suitable amount, such as 0.01 bar to 20 bar because the value of each step does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Yabe and Takahashi disclose all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the external chamber pressure control module and the internal chamber pressure control module are configured such that a difference obtained by subtracting the internal chamber pressure value from the external chamber pressure value is maintained within a range from -5 bar to 5 bar at each stage of the stepped pressure adjustment.
The combination of Yabe and Takahashi disclose stepped pressure adjustment, but are silent as to the value or range between the internal chamber and external chamber pressure. Takahashi does disclose that the pressure differences should be prevented between apparatus (i.e., chambers 11a, 11b), which would make a range of 0 bar (see para [0094]).
Applicant has not disclosed that having a range of different between the internal and external chambers from -5 bar to 5 bar at each stage of the stepped pressure adjustment solves any stated problem.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a difference obtained by subtracting the internal chamber pressure value from the external chamber pressure value is maintained within a range, such as from -5 bar to 5 bar, at each stage of the stepped pressure adjustment because the range value of the difference of each step does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,351,952 (“Yabe”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0111304 (“Takahashi”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,527,421 (“Liang”).
With regard to claim 8, Yabe (as modified above) discloses an external chamber pressure regulator (26; col. 6, lines 55-58) connected to the external chamber (16) and configured to control the external chamber pressure value (by controlling removal of gas from 16, controls pressure within 16); and an internal chamber pressure regulator (34) connected to the internal chamber (14) and configured to control the internal chamber pressure value (col. 5, lines 8-15) (by controlling removal of gas from 14, controls pressure within 14).
Yabe discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the external chamber pressure control module comprises: an external boosting pump connected to the external chamber and configured to increase the external chamber pressure value; an external chamber pressure transmitter connected to the external chamber and configured to measure the external chamber pressure value; and the internal chamber pressure control module comprises: an internal boosting pump connected to the internal chamber and configured to increase the internal chamber pressure value; an internal chamber pressure transmitter connected to the internal chamber and configured to measure the internal chamber pressure value.
Liang discloses a dual chamber pressure control device with an external chamber (204) and an internal chamber (202), similar to that of Yabe, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the dual chamber pressure control device to include an external boosting pump (“booster pump”, col. 8, lines 41-43) connected to the external chamber (204) and configured to increase the external chamber pressure value; an external chamber pressure transmitter (pressure sensor 282) connected to the external chamber and configured to measure the external chamber pressure value (col. 10, lines 39-43; see fig 2; and col. 11, lines 1-3 – sensor transmits pressure), an internal boosting pump (“booster pump”, col. 8, lines 41-43) connected to the internal chamber (202) and configured to increase the internal chamber pressure value; an internal chamber pressure transmitter (sensor 282 within 202, see fig 2) connected to the internal chamber (202) and configured to measure the internal chamber pressure value (col. 10, lines 39-43; and col. 11, lines 1-3 – sensor transmits pressure).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize internal and external boosting pumps and internal and external pressure transmitters for better control of the gas within the chambers, such as taught by Liang (see Fig 2; col. 8, lines 41-55; and col. 10, lines 39-43).
With regard to claim 9, Yabe, as modified by Liang above for claim 8, discloses that each of the external boosting pump and the internal boosting pump is a boosting pump, a combination of the boosting pump and a mass flow meter, or a combination of the boosting pump and a mass flow controller (booster pump, col. 8, line 42).
With regard to claim 10, Yabe, as modified by Liang above for claim 8, discloses that each of the external chamber pressure transmitter and the internal chamber pressure transmitter is a pressure transmitter, or a combination of the pressure transmitter and a differential pressure transmitter (282 is a pressure sensor, which is a pressure transmitter, see fig 2, col. 10, lines 39-43).
With regard to claim 11, Yabe discloses that each of the external chamber pressure regulator (26) and the internal chamber pressure regulator (34) is a pressure regulator, an pressure control valve, or a combination of the pressure regulator and the electronic pressure control valve (26 and 34 are pressure control valves which are regulators because they regulate the pressure; see col. 6, lines 45-48; col. 5, lines 11-15).
With regard to claim 12, Yabe, as modified above by Takahashi and Liang above for claim 8, discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the external chamber pressure control module comprises: an external chamber pressure protection component connected to the external chamber, wherein a set pressure value of the external chamber pressure protection component is greater than a set pressure value of the external chamber pressure control component by 0.3 bar to 3 bar; and the internal chamber pressure control module comprises: an internal chamber pressure protection component connected to the internal chamber, wherein a set pressure value of the internal chamber pressure protection component is greater than a set pressure value of the internal chamber pressure control component by 0.3 bar to 3 bar.
Liang discloses a dual chamber pressure control device with an external chamber (204) and an internal chamber (202), similar to that of Yabe, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the dual chamber pressure control device to include pressure protection components (276) in different chambers/locations (col. 10, lines 13-23) for the purpose of relieving excess pressure above desired amounts (col. 10, lines 17-18).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add pressure protection components to any of the chambers, such as the external chamber and the internal chamber of Yabe, such as taught by Liang, for the purpose of relieving excess pressure above desired amounts (see Liang at col. 10, lines 17-18).
The combination discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing specifically that a set pressure value of the external chamber pressure protection component and the internal chamber pressure protection component is greater than a set pressure value of the external chamber pressure control component by 0.3 bar to 3 bar.
Liang does teach that the pressure protection component can have a set pressure value at a desired level (“permissible levels” col. 10, lines 15-23).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the set pressure values of the external chamber and the internal chamber in any suitable pressure range, such as from about 0.3 bar to 3 bar, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
With regard to claim 13, Yabe, as modified above for claim 8, discloses that the dual-chamber member comprises: an external chamber body (15); an internal chamber body (11+12+13) disposed in the external chamber body (15, see fig 1); and a seal disposed between the external chamber body (15) and the internal chamber body (11+12+13), and configured to isolate the inert gas in the external chamber and the reactive gas in the internal chamber (“thus, the processing space 14 is partitioned from the buffer region 16 and sealed” col. 6, lines 50-52).
Yabe, above for claim 8, discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the seal is a sealing ring.
Liang teaches that it is known in the art to modify a dual-chamber member, similar to that of Yabe, to include a sealing ring (O-ring) for the purpose providing a seal between two different locations (col. 13, line 66 to col. 14, line 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a sealing ring (O-ring), such as taught by Liang, at the seal location between the external chamber and internal chamber body of Yabe for the purpose of reinforcing the seal of containment (see Liang at col. 13, line 66 to col. 14, line 2).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,351,952 (“Yabe”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0111304 (“Takahashi”) and U.S. Pat. No. 11,527,421 (“Liang”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0297955 (“Anbai”).
With regard to claim 14, Yabe (as modified above for claim 8) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the internal chamber body is a component made of a non-metallic material or an anti-pollution metal material.
Anbai discloses a dual chamber pressure control device, similar to that of Yabe, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the internal chamber body (2) to be made of a non-metallic material (“reference numeral 2 designates a cylindrical reaction vessel formed from a non-metallic material, for example, quartz”; para [0026]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an internal chamber body made of a non-metallic material taught by Anbai in place of the material for the internal chamber body of Yabe, since the internal chambers and materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the internal chamber body made of any suitable material, such as a non-metallic material as taught by Anbai, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 15, Yabe (as modified above by Anbai for claim 14) discloses that a material of the internal chamber body comprises quartz, ceramics, glass, silicon carbide, or nickel alloy (“reference numeral 2 designates a cylindrical reaction vessel formed from a non-metallic material, for example, quartz”; Anbai at para [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,529,603 and 11,749,555 disclose dual chamber pressure control devices.
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights