DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/19/2026.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim 17 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 are examined herein on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that each of claims 1-16 recite the ionic liquid as an intended use of the respective system/apparatus, thus the ionic liquid itself is not a structurally limiting feature of the claims. The Examiner notes ionic liquids are known in the prior art to be used as lubricants (see Kamimura – US 8,318,644).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation: “wherein the gate valve includes: … a floating body pressed upward in the vertical direction by the gate shutter; and a fluid bearing, supplied with the ionic liquid from the liquid circulation system, and configured to support the floating body be pressing the floating body downward in the vertical direction” in the context of the other limitations of the claim.
The Examiner notes Walters (US Patent 4,383,546) is the closest single piece of prior art to the inventive concept as claimed above. Walters teaches, amongst other concepts, a two-body valve with fluid supplied to a surface thereof (Figs. 2-3, #50 provided with conduits #58 to introduce pressurized air.
The limitation above is not met by Walters because it does not disclose an ionic liquid provided by a recirculation system.
The Examiner respectfully submits that ionic liquids and their properties are well-known in the art (see Schwarz – US 6,048,388: C8, L61 to C9, L12), as are liquid recirculation systems (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
However, the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA would have no motivation or reasoning to modify Walters to provide an ionic liquid via such a system without the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure. Walters describes where the pressurized gas is utilized for cleaning surfaces of the seal prior to closure, where an ionic liquid would not be an obvious alternative for purposes of cleaning. Walters does not describe where the disclosed valve would be in need of a fluid bearing, thus would not be modified in another way to comprise such a bearing without an additional piece of prior art disclosing a similar structure with such a problem and solution.
Additionally, gate valves with pressure-activated seals are not novel, as evidenced by Kruse (US 1,868,147, Figs 2, 5, and 6) and Westenberg (US 4,776,564, Fig. 2).
In fact, the prior appears to specifically teach away from the claimed invention, as evidenced by Kon (US Pub. 2018/0315629): “[a]lthough the ionic liquid 23 may not be held at certain areas … e.g. the gate valves GV” (par. [0032]).
As a final note, the prior art does describe where a problem with conventional shutter valves is the vapor pressure of lubricants used therein (see Yoo – US 6,395,648 col. 1, lines 30-42). The Examiner respectfully submits a PHOSITA would reasonably know wherein ionic liquids are advantageously utilized in many fields for their extremely low vapor pressure (Schwarz), and thus could reasonably conceive where an ionic liquid could remedy the problems identified by the prior art.
However, arriving at the structural features of the claimed invention utilizing this rationale does not appear to be possible without substantial benefit of the instant disclosure. Particularly, the two-body gate shutter/floating body with ionic liquid fluid bearing structure does not appear to be reasonably suggested by the prior art.
For at least these reasons, the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Specification
The Specification is objected to because the title of the invention is not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The Examiner notes that method claim 17 has been withdrawn due to a non-elected invention, thus the title should be amended to delete “AND LIQUID CIRCULATION METHOD” UNLESS Applicant amends claim 17 to incorporate the features of allowable claim 15. In this situation, no further action is required by the Applicant – the Examiner will withdraw the objection upon the next Office Action
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.
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 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Pub. 2003/0216045) in view of ‘430 (JP2016530430, using the machine translation provided by Applicant 6/9/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a liquid circulation system for recovering an ionic liquid supplied into a vacuum chamber and returning the recovered ionic liquid back again into the vacuum chamber (see elements as follows), the liquid circulation system comprising: a storage tank ([0046] and Fig. 1, reservoir #233), having an opening communicating with an inside of the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, upper opening communicating with chamber #202/#208), and configured to store the ionic liquid recovered from the inside of the vacuum chamber through the opening (see Fig. 1); a pump provided below the storage tank in a vertical direction ([0046] and Fig. 1, pump #242); and a pipe configured to supply the ionic liquid inside the storage tank into the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, piping #244).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the pump is a viscosity pump.
However, ‘430 teaches a viscosity pump (Fig. 1, pump #8, par. [0009] describes it as a progressive cavity pump, a known viscosity pump).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the pump is connected to a lower end of the storage tank (see Fig. 1, connected via tank bottom).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the pump is a viscosity pump.
However, ‘430 teaches a viscosity pump (Fig. 1, pump #8, par. [0009] describes it as a progressive cavity pump, a known viscosity pump).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, ‘430 teaches wherein the viscosity pump includes a cylindrical housing, and a rotor configured to rotate inside the housing with a center axis of the housing as a rotation axis thereof (see Fig. 1, cylindrical housing with internal rotor).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the pump is provided below a liquid level of the ionic liquid in the vertical direction (see Fig. 1, #242 lower than #233).
Wang does not teach wherein the pump comprises a rotor.
However, ‘430 teaches wherein the viscosity pump includes a cylindrical housing, and a rotor configured to rotate inside the housing with a center axis of the housing as a rotation axis thereof (see Fig. 1, pump #8 cylindrical housing with internal rotor).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, ‘430 teaches wherein a spiral groove is formed in an outer peripheral surface of the rotor (see Fig. 1, pump #8 internal rotor depicted with a spiral groove).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim
However, ‘430 teaches wherein a gap is provided between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and an inner peripheral surface of the housing (see Fig. 1, pump #8 gap between internal rotor and housing).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Regarding claim 7, Wang appears to teach wherein the storage tank has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1, #233 shown in the same was as the circular chamber above and the rotational shaft therein, thus would convey to a PHOSITA that the tank is most likely cylindrical).
Wang modified by ‘430 does not explicitly teach wherein the storage tank has an inner diameter greater than or equal to an inner diameter of the housing.
However, the Examiner notes that the only deficiency of the prior art is a recitation of the relative size of the storage tank (Wang) and the housing (‘430).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the size of the storage tank and/or housing of modified Wang to the claimed relation since the courts have held that such a difference is not patentably distinct. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a flow rate controller configured to control a flow rate of the ionic liquid flowing through the pipe (Fig. 1, any of valves along #244).
Regarding claim 10, Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, ‘430 teaches a sensor configured to detect a pressure inside the pipe, wherein a flow rate controller controls the flow rate based on the pressure detected by the sensor (‘430 Fig. 1: either transducer #20 and/or #22, par. [0104] describes control over pressure using transducers via a control unit #24).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wang apparatus to comprise the sensor and control scheme of ‘430 in order to control the pumps to supply fluid at a controlled amount and pressure (‘430 – [0104]).
Regarding claim 13, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Wang apparatus would be capable of being operated at whatever pressure is desired since the claim does not structurally require any device to perform the function.
Additionally, the Examiner notes the preamble of the claim is drawn to a liquid circulation system and not a substrate processing apparatus. As such, features and/or operation of an external apparatus are of no consequence to the scope of the claims as limited by the preamble.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a vacuum chamber configured to process a substrate (Fig. 1, chamber bounded by #202 and #208); a liquid circulation system for recovering an ionic liquid supplied into a vacuum chamber and returning the recovered ionic liquid back again into the vacuum chamber (see elements as follows), the liquid circulation system comprising: a storage tank ([0046] and Fig. 1, reservoir #233), having a first opening communicating with an inside of the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, upper opening communicating with chamber #202/#208), and configured to store the ionic liquid recovered from the inside of the vacuum chamber through the first opening (see Fig. 1); a pump provided below the storage tank in a vertical direction ([0046] and Fig. 1, pump #242); and a pipe configured to supply the ionic liquid inside the storage tank into the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, piping #244).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the pump is a viscosity pump.
However, ‘430 teaches a viscosity pump (Fig. 1, pump #8, par. [0009] describes it as a progressive cavity pump, a known viscosity pump).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Pub. 2003/0216045) and ‘430 (JP2016530430, using the machine translation provided by Applicant 6/9/2025), as applied to claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 above, and further in view of Yau (US Patent 3,683,678).
The limitations of claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, ‘430 teaches a diaphragm pump provided between the viscosity pump and the pipe (‘430 – Fig. 1, pump #12 between pump #8 and outlet pipe).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of Wang to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid (‘430 – [0130]), and to provide the second pump of ‘430 in order to increase its pressure (‘430 – [0130]).
Modified Wang does not teach wherein the second pump is a diaphragm pump (‘430 teaches a gear pump).
However, Yau teaches wherein diaphragm pumps and gear pumps are an art-recognized equivalent device (Yau – C4, L18-24).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wang apparatus to utilize a diaphragm pump instead of the gear pump since Yau recognizes the two as equivalent devices, which the courts have held would be obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Pub. 2003/0216045) and ‘430 (JP2016530430, using the machine translation provided by Applicant 6/9/2025), as applied to claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 above, and further in view of Hara (US Pub. 2007/0119476).
The limitations of claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Hara teaches a splash shield configured to shield splash from the inside of the storage tank from entering into the vacuum chamber (Hara – [0148] and Fig. 2, bottom edge of liquid guiding part #42 overlying the hole for pipe #35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wang apparatus to comprise the splash shield of Hara in order to collect scattered liquid and direct it toward a drain (Hara – [0023]).
Regarding the limitation: “provided at the opening of the storage tank”, the limitation would be met by the combination of references above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Pub. 2003/0216045) and ‘430 (JP2016530430, using the machine translation provided by Applicant 6/9/2025), as applied to claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-14 above, and further in view of Behnke (US Pub. 2015/0056820).
The limitations of claims are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Behnke teaches a temperature controller configured to control a temperature of the liquid inside the storage tank (Behnke – [0040] and Fig. 8, temperature controlled storage area #90).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wang apparatus to comprise the temperature controller of Behnke in order to maintain a desired temperature of the stored liquid (Behnke – [0040]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US Pub. 2018/0369881) in view of Uozumi (US Pub. 2020/0188962), Wang (US Pub. 2003/0216045), and ‘430 (JP2016530430, using the machine translation provided by Applicant 6/9/2025).
Regarding claim 16, Saito teaches a substrate processing apparatus ([0029] and Fig. 1, processing apparatus #100) comprising: a vacuum chamber ([0030], [0035] and Fig. 1, chamber #1) configured to process a substrate (Fig. 1, wafer W);
a rotary stage provided inside the vacuum chamber ([0030] and Fig. 1, rotary stage #4); a rotating shaft ([0030] and Fig. 1, rotating shaft #5), connected to a lower portion of the rotary stage (see Fig. 1), and configured to rotate the rotary stage ([0030]).
Saito does not teach a bearing housing having a hollow shape, with the rotating shaft inserted into a hollow portion of the bearing housing; and a fluid bearing, supplied a liquid from a liquid circulation system, and configured to support the rotating shaft with respect to the bearing housing, or wherein the fluid bearing is supplied with a liquid from the liquid system.
However, Uozumi teaches this limitation (Uozumi – [0026] and Fig. 1, outer member #10 has hollow interior with shaft #200 and bearing part #40; second supply part #120 provides liquid to bearing part #40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Saito apparatus to comprise the bearing assembly of Uozumi in order to provide lubrication to the shaft member while minimizing leakage of the lubricant (Uozumi – [0003]-[0005]).
Modified Saito does not teach a liquid circulation system configured to recover an ionic liquid supplied into the vacuum chamber and return the ionic liquid back again into the vacuum chamber, wherein the liquid circulation system includes: a storage tank, having a first opening communicating with an inside of the vacuum chamber, and configured to store the ionic liquid recovered from the inside of the vacuum chamber through the first opening; a pump provided below the storage tank in a vertical direction; and a pipe configured to supply the ionic liquid inside the storage tank into the vacuum chamber.
However, Wang teaches a liquid circulation system for recovering an ionic liquid supplied into a vacuum chamber and returning the recovered ionic liquid back again into the vacuum chamber (see elements as follows), the liquid circulation system comprising: a storage tank ([0046] and Fig. 1, reservoir #233), having a first opening communicating with an inside of the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, upper opening communicating with chamber #202/#208), and configured to store the ionic liquid recovered from the inside of the vacuum chamber through the opening (see Fig. 1); a pump provided below the storage tank in a vertical direction ([0046] and Fig. 1, pump #242); and a pipe configured to supply the ionic liquid inside the storage tank into the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, piping #244).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Saito apparatus to include the liquid circulation system of Wang in order to recycle the liquid while removing deleterious particles/agglomerated material (Wang – [0046]).
Modified Saito (Wang) does not explicitly teach wherein the pump is a viscosity pump.
However, ‘430 teaches a viscosity pump (Fig. 1, pump #8, par. [0009] describes it as a progressive cavity pump, a known viscosity pump).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the pump of modified Saito to be a viscosity pump in order to meter a fluid and increase its pressure (‘430 – [0044],[0066).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parks (US 10,077,844 teaches a two-body gate valve (Fig. 3). Singh (US 2014/0357092 and US 2014/0335698) teaches using an ionic liquid to create a protective barrier inside a process chamber (Fig. 2A and 2H, respectively). Trott (US 7,946,556) teaches using a closed liquid cavity inside a resilient valve seal (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
