DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takebayashi (2022/0081770).
Takebayashi teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
- a processing container, see Fig. 6 (201) and related text,
- a process gas supplier – see supplier including 133 and related structure,
- a process gas supply pipe connect to the supplier and container, see various portions of 310(a-c) that feed from 133 to the container 201,
- an exhauster provided on the processing gas supply pipe, see exhauster, the pipe indicated by Exhaust1 and/or Exhaust2 (further as Exhaust1/2), and
- a controller for controller exhauster to discharge remaining gas out of the processing gas supply pipe – the teachings include that controller 121 is used to control the flow of gases such as to evacuate Exhaust1 and 2 [0137].
Regarding claim 2, as presented, Exhaust2 is closer to the processing container than to the processing gas supplier.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, each Exhaust includes pipe and a valve (AV06/AV11).
Regarding claim 5, the valve is made of some material – there is no particular defined temperature of the processing gas, but it is understood that the valve selected is suitable for the purpose. As per MPEP 2144.01 it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference. In this case, the valve would necessarily be made of an appropriate to handle whatever temperature of the gases that are fed.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the remaining gas is not so particularly defined, initially the exhauster is capable of exhausting any and all gas, but in any case the “remaining” gas is any portion of the gas and the controller is described as managing all aspects of the steps carried out in the apparatus (see 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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi in view of Inada (2020/0347498).
The teachings of Takabayashi are described above, the teachings are silent on the composition of the exhaust pipe. Inada teaches that an exhaust pipe of a semiconductor processing apparatus is usefully made of metal, and including a corrosion resistant coating [0024]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the exhaust pipe in the manner of Inada as Takabayashi is silent on the composition and Inada teaches that metal with a corrosion resistant coating is useful. It is further noted that per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi in view of Morita (2015/0368794).
The teachings of Takabayashi are described above, the teachings do not include that the controller measures a remaining gas exhaust time or provides a notification. Morita, however, teaches a system including a cleaning of an exhaust pipeline, the controller works on a predetermined time frame [0276-279]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include the upper and lower limits and time measurement of Morita in the process controller steps of Takabayashi as one would know when the process is readily done. While the teachings do not expressly include a notification, the condition for the notification is not required to exist and therefore the claim limitation is met.
Additionally/alternatively, in any case the Examiner takes Official Notice that such notifications (i.e. alarms) are well known in the art on such equipment. Morita teaches various system alarms when the system indicates an issue, [0120, 146-149], and therefore to include an alarm when the exhaust time runs over would be within the scope of the capability of the system.
Regarding claim 8, the system includes a computer readable medium understood to include a memory with the ranges [0279] (to the extent that the teachings teach predetermined upper and lower limits).
Regarding claim 9, the system generally records history data [0084].
Regarding claim 10, again, the unusual event is not required to be triggered, but in any case the teachings include a display wherein alarms would pop up [0137].
Regarding claim 11, this claim again does not require the condition, but also requires no action and Morita does not teach any warning if the process is within limits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights