DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The following phrase has a typo “adjusting he inner pressure”, specifically the bold term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 19, the claim recites “reducing the inner pressure of the process chamber, based on information from the pressure sensor, from an atmospheric pressure to the vacuum pressure within the predetermined vacuum range by using the first exhaust line and the second exhaust line”. However, this process/arrangement is not clearly depicted in drawings supplied by the applicant or disclosed in the applicants’ specification.
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 14 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.
In regards to claim 14, the phase of “opening the first valve without adjusting the opening degree of the first valve” is deemed vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the first valve be opened without a change in the opening degree of the first valve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yukio (JP2015183985, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claims 1 and 19, Yukio teaches a substrate processing system comprising:
a vacuum gauge (46, pressure sensor) which detects the pressure inside a process chamber (20) (fig. 7; para. 38-39);
a first exhaust line with a first pipe is provided as a (fig. 7; para. 63-64)
a regulating valve-45 (first valve) is provided along the piping section-43B (fig. 7; para. 39, 63-66);
a second exhaust line with a second pipe is provided as piping section-42C (fig. 7; para. 63-65);
a regulating valve-44 (second valve) is provided along piping section-42C (fig. 7; para. 37, 39, 65-66, 69);
a control unit (50, controller) which controls the regulating valve-45 and the regulating valve-44 (fig. 7; para. 65-69);
where the control unit is configured to be capable of the process of adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber from a vacuum pressure within a predetermined vacuum range to a process pressure by performing:
reducing the inner pressure of the process chamber, based on information from the vacuum gauge (46, pressure sensor), from an atmospheric pressure to the vacuum pressure within the predetermined vacuum range by using the first exhaust line and the second exhaust line (fig. 3, 7; para. 66, 69); and adjusting either an opening degree of the regulating valve-45 (first valve) or an opening degree of the regulating valve-44 (second valve) by switching an exhaust path between the first exhaust line and the second exhaust line according to the process pressure (fig. 3, 7; para. 66, 69).
In regards to claim 2, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) to cause changes to the pressure within the processing chamber (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
The control unit is capable of the process of reducing the inner pressure of the process chamber through the second exhaust line by adjusting the opening degree of the regulating valve-44 (second valve) until the inner pressure of the process chamber reaches a first pressure from the atmospheric pressure, the first pressure being higher than the vacuum pressure within the predetermined vacuum range (fig. 3, 7; para. 44).
In regards to claim 3, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) to cause changes to the pressure within the processing chamber (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
The control unit is capable of the process of when the inner pressure of the process chamber reaches the first pressure, reducing the inner pressure of the process chamber through the first exhaust line by switching the exhaust path from the second exhaust line to the first exhaust line, by closing the regulating valve-44 (second valve) and opening the regulating valve-45 (first valve), until the inner pressure of the process chamber reaches a second pressure lower than the first pressure (fig. 3, 7; para. 45).
In regards to claim 4, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
Yukio teaches the control unit is capable of switching the exhaust path from the first exhaust line to the second exhaust line according to the process pressure with reference to the second pressure by closing the regulating valve-45 (first valve) or the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 3, 7; para. 45-46).
In regards to claims 7-8, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
Yukio teaches the control unit controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) to be closed (fig. 3, 7; para. 44-45), where closed means the opening degree the regulating valve-45 is 0%.
In regards to claims 9-10, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
Yukio teaches the control unit controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) to be open, where open means the opening degree the regulating valve-45 is 100% and the regulating valve-45 (first valve) to be closed (fig. 3, 7; para. 44-45), where closed means the opening degree the regulating valve-45 is 0% (fig. 3, 7; para. 45).
In regards to claim 11, Yukio teaches the piping section-41B, the piping section-41C, and the piping section-43B are connected to piping section-42C
In regards to claim 16, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44, 65-66, 69).
Yukio teaches a first period of time (t0-t1) where the pressure reduced at a lower/slower rate than the next period of time (t1-t2) (fig. 3).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukio as applied to claims 1-4, 7-11, 16 and 19 above.
In regards to claims 5-6, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44-46, 65-66, 69).
Yukio does not explicitly teach the process of adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure by adjusting the opening degree of the first valve installed at the first exhaust line when the process pressure is higher than the second pressure; and adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure by adjusting the opening degree of the second valve installed at the second exhaust line when the process pressure is lower than the second pressure.
However, Yukio teaches the control unit measures the pressure of the process chamber using the vacuum gauge and controls the pressure using the regulating valve-45 regulating valve-44.
The apparatus of Yukio is capable of the process of adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure by exhausting an inner atmosphere of the process chamber via the first exhaust line by controlling the regulating valve-45 (first valve), when the process pressure is higher than the second pressure;
and adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to the process pressure by exhausting the inner atmosphere of the process chamber via the second exhaust line, by controlling regulating valve-44 (second valve), when the process pressure is lower than the second pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
In regards to claim 12, Yukio teaches the piping section-41B, the piping section-41C, and the piping section-43B have a first diameter and the piping section-42C has a second diameter (fig. 7). Yukio teaches first diameter is larger than second diameter.
Yukio does not explicitly teach the ratio of the first diameter to the second diameter is 1.0 : 0.2 or more and 1.0 : 0.8 or less.
Yukio does show the diameter of the pipe within the piping section-42C is half of the diameter of the pipe along the piping section-41B, the piping section-41C, and the piping section-43B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have sized the ratio of the first diameter to the second diameter is 1.0 : 0.2 or more and 1.0 : 0.8 or less , 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 (MPEP-2144.05-II-A).
In regards to claim 13, Yukio does not explicitly teach piping section-42C comprises a diameter of 80 to 100-mm.
However providing piping with diameter within the range of 80 to 100-mm is well known for vacuum piping .
It has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP2144.04-IV-A). In addition, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the claimed diameter of second pipe.
In regards to claims 14-15, Yukio teaches the control unit is configured to communicate with the vacuum gauge and controls the regulating valve-45 (first valve) and the regulating valve-44 (second valve) (fig. 7; para. 42, 44-46, 65-66, 69).
Yukio does not explicitly teach the process of adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber to reach a high-vacuum pressure lower than the process pressure by opening the first valve without adjusting the opening degree of the first valve or the process pressure is higher than a high-vacuum pressure.
However, as Yukio teaches the control unit measures the pressure of the process chamber using the vacuum gauge and controls the pressure using the regulating valve-45 regulating valve-44, the apparatus of Yukio is capable of the process of the inner pressure of the process chamber to reach a high-vacuum pressure lower than the process pressure by opening the regulating valve-45 (first valve) without adjusting the opening degree of the first valve or the process pressure is higher than a high-vacuum pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukio as applied to claims 1-16 and 19 above, and further in view of Saito (US 2004/0007186).
In regards to claim 17, Yukio as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach the controller is further configured to be capable of supplying a purge gas while the inner pressure of the process chamber is being reduced from the atmospheric pressure to the vacuum pressure within the predetermined vacuum range.
However, Saito teaches a controller (32, 132) which controls the pressures within the processing furnace (101/102) (fig. 1, 5; para. 66, 116-117). Saito teaches a purging/inert gas of nitrogen is supplied to the furnace using gas-introducing pipes (110) (para. 110, 120).
Saito teaches a process comprising a vacuuming operation includes a cycle-purging step, where a purge/inert gas such as nitrogen is supplied into the processing furnace (101) in order to prevent that a natural oxidation film during reduction of the pressure (para. 120-121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gas-introducing pipes and purging process of Saito onto the apparatus of Yukio because Saito teaches it will prevent oxidation.
In regards to claim 18, Yukio as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach a second pressure sensor configured to be capable of detecting a pressure equal to or lower than the second pressure, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of adjusting the inner pressure of the process chamber from the second pressure to the process pressure based on information from the second pressure sensor.
However, Saito teaches a pressure sensor-22 and a pressure sensor-23 are provided along a gas-discharging pipe-13 (fig. 1, 3; para. 61, 64-66). Saito teaches the pressure sensor-22 that detects a while a treatment is carried out under a normal pressure and the pressure sensor-23 detects pressure while a treatment is carried out under a reduced pressure (para. 64, 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the pressure sensors of Saito onto the apparatus of Yukio because Saito teaches it allow for accurate pressure control (para. 81).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights