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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-15 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2/B3 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 16 is generic, all species should be prosecuted in one application for efficiency, and the species represent similar ways of obtaining the same desired results. This is not found persuasive because the species have mutually exclusive structural features. Therefore, a search of the different species would require different search terms and/or syntaxes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 16 and 18-22 are 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.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the door" [line 6]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[[the]] a door”.
Regarding claim(s) 18-19 and 22:
Claim(s) 18-19 and 22 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the magnetic force units are mounted" in claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 merely sets forth a single magnetic force unit. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting claim 20 to mean "the magnetic force comprises a plurality of magnets mounted"
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the plurality of magnets" in claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting claim 21 to depend from claim 20 as amended above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lew et al (KR 20150086831A) in view of Bruning et al (WO 2022/128112).
Regarding claim 16:
Lew teaches a high pressure substrate processing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 1-4b) [fig 1-4b & 0032] comprising: a chamber (5) including a housing (body of 5), and a door opening (9) and closing the housing (body of 5) [fig 1-4b & 0038, 0051, 0053]; a fastening module (opening and closing portion, 20) configured to fasten the housing (body of 5) with a door (9) [fig 1-4b & 0038, 0051, 0053]; and a contact area between the housing and the door for their fastening (contact of first locking projection and second locking projection via rotation) [fig 1-4b & 0016, 0053-0054].
Lew does not specifically teach a capture module disposed to be adjacent to a contact area, and configured to capture a foreign material.
Bruning teaches a capture module (magnetic traps) disposed to be adjacent to a contact area, and configured to capture a foreign material (trapping of particles at a predetermined position for a substrate processing system – e.g. at a contact surface of a carrier) [0056, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lew to comprise the capture module disposed to be adjacent to a contact area, as in Bruning, such that product maintenance can be simplified [Bruning – 0090].
The claim limitations “to maintain a process gas injected into the chamber at a pressure higher than an atmospheric pressure” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “configured to capture a foreign material” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Lew the capture module (magnetic traps) includes a magnetic force unit including a magnet (permanent magnet) adsorbing the particle (trapping of particles at a predetermined position for a substrate processing system – e.g. at a contact surface of a carrier) [Bruning - 0056, 0060].
The claim limitations “wherein the foreign material includes a metal particle” do not impart any additional structure. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). Said limitations are NOT a structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19:
Lew teaches the fastening module (opening and closing portion, 20) includes a support protrusion (23) connected to the housing (body of 5), and a locking protrusion (first locking protrusion, 22) connected to the door (9), and supported by the support protrusion by transition from a first relationship where the locking protrusion is offset from the support protrusion to a second relationship where the locking protrusion corresponds to the support protrusion (contact of first locking projection and second locking projection via rotation) [fig 1-4b & 0016, 0053-0054].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “the metal particle is formed by contact between the support protrusion and the locking protrusion while the support protrusion performs a relative rotation with respect to the locking protrusion for the transition from the first relationship to the second relationship” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 20-21:
Modified Lew teaches one of the housing (body of 5) and the door (9) has a plurality of outer surfaces (see fig 1) [Lew - fig 1-4b & 0038, 0051, 0053], and the magnetic force unit (permanent magnet) comprises a plurality of magnets mounted on two or more outer surfaces among the plurality of outer surfaces (two or more magnetic traps at different sides) [Bruning - 0056, 0060]; and wherein the plurality of magnets (two or more magnetic traps) form a circular arrangement around a central axis of the door (trapping of particles at a predetermined position for a substrate processing system – e.g. at a contact surface of a carrier) [Bruning - 0056, 0060].
10. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lew et al (KR 20150086831A) in view of Bruning et al (WO 2022/128112) as applied to claims 16 and 18-21 above, and further in view of Bluck et al (US 2015/0170947).
The limitations of claims 16 and 18-21 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 22:
Modified Lew does not specifically disclose the magnetic force unit includes a coating layer coated on the magnet with at least one material selected from nickel, magnesium, titanium, tungsten, and chromium.
Bluck teaches a coating layer coated on the magnet with at least one material selected from nickel, magnesium, titanium, tungsten, and chromium (magnetic drive bars 240 may be nickel plated) [0063].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of modified Lew to include a coating layer thereon, as in Bluck, to enhance cleanliness of the system [Bluck – 0063].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gregerson (US 2007/0175792) and Mazzocco et al (US 2016/0340947) teach a magnetic force unit [fig 4b and 1A, respectively].
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights