DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 04/26/2024.
Claim(s) 1-10 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-10 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1-10 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 01/17/2025 and 01/29/2026 has/have been considered by examiner.
Also note, reference(s) mentioned in the IDS has/have been utilized by the examiner (however, full translation of the description for each has been acquired separately by examiner).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/018147 filed 11/13/2023. Acknowledgment is also made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no KR10-2023-0087022 filed 07/05/2023 and also from another application no KR10-2023-0117592 filed 09/05/2023. The certified copy for each of these has been filed in instant application no 18/704,992 on 04/26/2024.
Specification
The disclosure filed 04/26/2024 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 04/26/2024 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are objected to due to having minor informalities:
Claim 2 and claim 3 in L1 recite: The butterfly valve control device of claim 1, wherein; …”, which should be “The butterfly valve control device of claim 1, wherein:”. Meaning, the semi-colon should be replaced with a colon for both claims.
Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are in Claim(s) 1 – a valve drive unit that provides; a valve control unit that provides; the valve drive unit to control; a first sensing unit that senses; the valve control unit controls;
Claim(s) 3 – the valve control unit controls; the valve control unit generates;
Claim(s) 4 – the valve control unit determines;
Claim(s) 5 – the valve control unit, determines;
Claim(s) 6 – the valve control unit configures;
Claim(s) 9 – a second sensing unit that generates; the second sensing unit is configured to analyze;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A valve drive unit has/have been interpreted in light of the examples such as “Specifically, referring to FIG. 4(a), the valve drive unit 150 includes an encoder 151, a motor 152, a gear box 153, and a coupler 154.”, as in specification (instant application’s PGPUB), [0054].
A second sensing unit has/have been interpreted in light of the description/examples such as “The second sensing unit 130 may be configured as a vision sensor and may generate a plate image by imaging a current state of the plate 101. The second sensing unit 130 may include a first image analysis model that generates the second rotation angle information by analyzing the plate image.”, as in specification (instant application’s PGPUB), [0057].
Note, for the term(s) “a valve control unit”, and “a first sensing unit”, no examples or specific definitions have been found based on a review of the specification and drawings. See below in “35 U.S.C. 112” sections(s) for the details of examiner’s interpretations of the abovementioned claim limitations in light of applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-9 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) contain(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 – a valve control unit that provides; a first sensing unit that senses; the valve control unit controls;
Claim(s) 3 – the valve control unit controls; the valve control unit generates;
Claim(s) 4 – the valve control unit determines;
Claim(s) 5 – the valve control unit, determines;
Claim(s) 6 – the valve control unit configures;
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
The abovementioned features, based on the way they are written, consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Note, while claim(s) 2, and 7-8 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency (of independent claim 1).
If applicant believes there is sufficient written description in the disclosure, applicant is advised to point to the portion of the disclosure that describes the structure(s) that perform the abovementioned claimed functionalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 – a valve control unit that provides; a first sensing unit that senses; the valve control unit controls;
Claim(s) 3 – the valve control unit controls; the valve control unit generates;
Claim(s) 4 – the valve control unit determines;
Claim(s) 5 – the valve control unit, determines;
Claim(s) 6 – the valve control unit configures;
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of compact prosecution to apply prior art, examiner would interpret these units to be any hardware and/or software that is/are able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Note, while 2, and 7-8 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency (of independent claim 1) and so this/these inherit(s) the above interpretations as well.
Appropriate corrections are required.
In addition:
Claim(s) 1-10 are also rejected for the following reasons:
The term “high-speed rotation information” in the 5th and 6th limitation(s) of claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To promote compact prosecution, “high-speed rotation information” is being interpreted as to read, rotation information.
Claim 3 (in 2nd to last line), claim 6 (2nd to last line), and claim 10 (2nd and last limitation) is/are also rejected based on similar reasons shown for claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-9 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
(For the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) driven 112(b) rejections above) Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura (KR 20210098850 A – Translated version).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses:
A butterfly valve control device, comprising: (Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and 6.)
a butterfly valve placed on a conduit line through which fluid communicates with an inside of a chamber and comprising a valve body in which a valve passage communicating with the conduit line is defined through an inner wall and comprising a plate that is connected to the valve body through a shaft and adjusts a flow rate of fluid passing through the valve passage according to rotation of the shaft in an axial direction; (See Fig. 1-4 and 6 along with 0045, 0085 & 0087 that teach a butterfly valve (1) positioned on a pipeline for allowing fluid communication with the inside of a vacuum chamber (32), the butterfly valve (1) including a valve body (8) in which a valve passage communicating with the pipeline is defined through the inner wall surface thereof, and a butterfly valve element (9) connected to the valve body (8) through a rod (10), and adjusting a flow rate of the fluid passing through the valve passage according to the rotation of the rod (10) in the axial direction. See also 0018 for further details related to these structures and functions.)
a valve drive unit that provides a rotational force to rotate the shaft; (0043, 0045 & 0047 teach, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the non-closing type butterfly valve 1 includes a drive unit 2, the DD motor 11 has a rotating shaft 11a, and the rotational center of the rotating shaft 11a is the axis RA and also teach, the rotation angle of the rotation shaft 11a corresponding to an arbitrary target pressure or the like (that is, the rotation angle of the rod 10 to be described later) is stored. 0067 & 0069 also teach the details of the rod’s rotation driven by the driving unit.)
a valve control unit that provides a control signal to the valve drive unit to control a pressure in the chamber according to rotation of the plate in an axial direction; (See 0043, 0045, 0083, 0085 teach a control board (13) for providing a control signal to the driving part (2) so as to control the pressure of the vacuum chamber (32) according to the rotation of the butterfly valve element (9). See reducing and increasing pressure of the vacuum chamber 32 in 0083 and 0085, more specifically. Also as above, for axis, see 0043 teaches the degree of vacuum pressure control by the non-closed butterfly valve 1 is increased. Further, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the DD motor 11 has a rotating shaft 11a, and the rotational center of the rotating shaft 11a is the axis RA.)
a first sensing unit that senses the pressure in the chamber and generates pressure information; and (See 0045 teaches a pressure gauge (35) for detecting/sensing the pressure in the vacuum chamber 32.)
a memory that stores high-speed rotation information for each pressure in the chamber, (See 112(b) rejection and interpretation above; See 0045 teaches a storage means (131) for storing pressure-specific rotation angles of the vacuum chamber (32). More specifically, it teaches, the rotation angle of the rotation shaft 11a corresponding to an arbitrary target pressure or the like (that is, the rotation angle of the rod 10 to be described later) is stored and also see 0085 and 0087 for the increase or reduction of pressure’s effect to the flow path area based on the stored information.) wherein the valve control unit controls an internal pressure of the chamber through at least one of a first control mode for generating a first control signal based on the high-speed rotation information for each pressure and controlling a rotation angle of the plate according to the first control signal, and a second control mode for generating a second control signal such that the pressure information follows a target pressure and controlling the rotation angle of the plate according to the second control signal. (See 112(b) rejection and interpretation above; As above, see 0045, 0085 and 0087 that teach storing pressure-specific rotation angles of the vacuum chamber (32), wherein the control signal is generated based on the pressure-specific rotation angles, and the rotation angle of the butterfly valve element (9) is controlled according to the control signal such that the pressure inside the vacuum chamber (32) is controlled.)
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Nishimura further discloses wherein: the plate controls an operation between a closed state in which the valve passage is closed as the shaft does not rotate and an open state in which the valve passage is open as the shaft rotates, the plate is placed such that a gap of a predetermined width with the inner wall is formed in the closed state, and the butterfly valve is in an unsealed state in the closed state. (Fig. 4-6, 8 and 0075-0083 teach the operation of the butterfly valve element (9) is controlled to a closing state in which the valve passage is closed while the rod (10) does not rotate and an open state in which the rod (10) rotates so that the valve passage is open, and the butterfly valve element (9) forms a gap (G) of a predetermined width from the inner peripheral surface of a flow path in the closing state and is in a not completely sealed state).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Nishimura further discloses wherein: the valve control unit controls the rotation angle of the plate by first applying a first control mode in response to a control start signal, and in the first control mode, the valve control unit generates the first control signal by recalling the rotation angle of the plate corresponding to the set target pressure from the high-speed rotation information for each pressure. (See 112(b) rejection and interpretation above; See Fig. 1-2 and 0045, 0083, 0085-0087 teach the control board (13) controls the rotation angle of the butterfly valve element (9) in response to a control start signal, and generates the control signal by reading, from information on pressure-specific rotation angles, the rotation angle of the butterfly valve element (9) corresponding to a set target pressure.)
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (KR 20210098850 A – Translated version) in view of Ikeo (JP 2001146975 A – Translated version).
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura teaches all the elements of claim 3.
Nishimura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the valve control unit determines whether to switch from the first control mode to the second control mode based on an amount of change in the target pressure and the pressure information.
Ikeo explicitly teaches:
wherein the valve control unit determines whether to switch from the first control mode to the second control mode based on an amount of change in the target pressure and the pressure information. (See 0061 teaches a controller (20) performs follow-up control of the opening degree of a vacuum proportional opening/closing valve (16) according to the change rate of a target pressure. See also 0059-60 for the controller’s role for setting the target vacuum pressure change rate in advance.)
Accordingly, as Nishimura and Ikeo are directed to vacuum pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of determination of whether to switch modes based on an amount of change in the target pressure information, as taught by Ikeo to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure as taught by Nishimura. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous follow-up control procedure which would have made the vacuum pressure in the reaction chamber to follow an arbitrary pressure curve as needed, for example, as evident in Ikeo, 0059, 0061, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura and Ikeo teach all the elements of claim 4.
Ikeo further teaches:
wherein the valve control unit: determines whether the target pressure is the same as the pressure information, determines the amount of change in the pressure information when the target pressure is not the same as the pressure information, maintains the first control mode when the amount of change in the pressure information exceeds a preset reference value, and switches to the second control mode when the amount of change in the pressure information is less than the preset reference value. (Besides above, see Fig. 15 and 0040 that teach the controller (20) determines a difference between a target vacuum pressure and a vacuum pressure value, and performs a feedback control for controlling the opening/closing valve (16) by changing the vacuum pressure value calculated based on a target vacuum pressure change rate.)
Accordingly, motivation to combine the teachings has been dictated by the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura discloses:
A method of controlling a butterfly valve, comprising: (Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and 6.)
providing a butterfly valve, the butterfly valve being placed on a conduit line through which fluid communicates with an inside of a chamber and comprising a valve body in which a valve passage communicating with the conduit line is defined through an inner wall and comprising a plate that is connected to the valve body through a shaft and adjusts a flow rate of fluid passing through the valve passage according to rotation of the shaft in an axial direction; (See Fig. 1-4 and 6 along with 0045, 0085 & 0087 that teach a butterfly valve (1) positioned on a pipeline for allowing fluid communication with the inside of a vacuum chamber (32), the butterfly valve (1) including a valve body (8) in which a valve passage communicating with the pipeline is defined through the inner wall surface thereof, and a butterfly valve element (9) connected to the valve body (8) through a rod (10), and adjusting a flow rate of the fluid passing through the valve passage according to the rotation of the rod (10) in the axial direction. See also 0018 for further details related to these structures and functions.)
recalling a rotation angle of the plate corresponding to a set target pressure from high-speed rotation information for each pressure stored in a memory, and performing a first control mode for rotating the plate by controlling the shaft according to the recalled rotation angle of the plate; (See 112(b) rejection and interpretation above; As above, see 0045, 0083, 0085 and 0087 that teach storing pressure-specific rotation angles of the vacuum chamber (32), wherein the control signal is generated based on the pressure-specific rotation angles (note the target pressure as well), and the rotation angle of the butterfly valve element (9) is controlled according to the control signal such that the pressure inside the vacuum chamber (32) is controlled.)
Nishimura does not explicitly disclose:
determining whether to maintain the first control mode by comparing a pressure of a chamber with the set target pressure, and switching to the second control mode when a difference between the set target pressure and the pressure of the chamber is less than a preset reference value;
calculating a control input for adjusting the rotation angle of the plate such that the pressure of the chamber follows the target pressure, and performing the second control mode for rotating the plate by controlling the shaft based on the control input; and
configuring actual measurement information by mapping the pressure of the chamber to the rotation angle of the plate, and updating the high-speed rotation information for each pressure based on the actual measurement information.
Ikeo explicitly teaches:
determining whether to maintain the first control mode by comparing a pressure of a chamber with the set target pressure, and switching to the second control mode when a difference between the set target pressure and the pressure of the chamber is less than a preset reference value; (See Fig. 15 and 0040 teach comparing the pressure of a vacuum container to the set target pressure, and performing follow-up control of the position of the opening/closing valve (16) according to the difference in pressure values; controlling the opening/closing valve (16) on the basis of the pressure of the vacuum container; and feedback-controlling the pressure of the vacuum container and the position of the opening/closing valve (16). See also 0061 teaches a controller (20) performs follow-up control of the opening degree of a vacuum proportional opening/closing valve (16) according to the change rate of a target pressure. See also 0059-60 for the controller’s role for setting the target vacuum pressure change rate in advance.)
calculating a control input for adjusting the rotation angle of the plate such that the pressure of the chamber follows the target pressure, and performing the second control mode for rotating the plate by controlling the shaft based on the control input; and (See Fig. 15 and 0040 teach comparing the pressure of a vacuum container to the set target pressure, and performing follow-up control of the position of the opening/closing valve (16) according to the difference in pressure values; controlling the opening/closing valve (16) on the basis of the pressure of the vacuum container; and feedback-controlling the pressure of the vacuum container and the position of the opening/closing valve (16). See also 0061 teaches a controller (20) performs follow-up control of the opening degree of a vacuum proportional opening/closing valve (16) according to the change rate of a target pressure. See also 0059-60 for the controller’s role for setting the target vacuum pressure change rate in advance. Also note the correlation between pressure and rotation angles taught by Nishimura already as addressed above.)
configuring actual measurement information by mapping the pressure of the chamber to the rotation angle of the plate, and updating the high-speed rotation information for each pressure based on the actual measurement information. (See 112(b) rejection and interpretation above; See Fig. 15 and 0040 teach comparing the pressure of a vacuum container to the set target pressure, and performing follow-up control of the position of the opening/closing valve (16) according to the difference in pressure values; controlling the opening/closing valve (16) on the basis of the pressure of the vacuum container; and feedback-controlling the pressure of the vacuum container and the position of the opening/closing valve (16). See also 0061 teaches a controller (20) performs follow-up control of the opening degree of a vacuum proportional opening/closing valve (16) according to the change rate of a target pressure. See also 0059-60 for the controller’s role for setting the target vacuum pressure change rate in advance. Also note the correlation between pressure and rotation angles taught by Nishimura already as addressed above.)
Accordingly, as Nishimura and Ikeo are directed to vacuum pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of determination of whether to switch modes based on an amount of change in the target pressure information, as taught by Ikeo to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure and utilizes the correlation between pressure and rotation angles as taught by Nishimura. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous follow-up control procedure which would have made the vacuum pressure in the reaction chamber to follow an arbitrary pressure curve as needed, for example, as evident in Ikeo, 0040, 0059, 0061, etc.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (KR 20210098850 A – Translated version) in view of Kim (KR 20070076988 A – Translated version).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Nishimura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the valve control unit configures actual measurement information by mapping the pressure information to a current rotation angle of the plate, and updates the high-speed rotation information for each pressure based on the actual measurement information.
Kim explicitly teaches:
wherein: the valve control unit configures actual measurement information by mapping the pressure information to a current rotation angle of the plate, and updates the high-speed rotation information for each pressure based on the actual measurement information. (See Fig. 1-3, towards the middle of p2 and para1 of p3 teach a control board (600) maps pressure information to the current rotation angle of a rotating plate (115) so as to configure actual measurement information, and updates pressure-specific rotation angles on the basis of the actual measurement information.)
Accordingly, as Nishimura and Kim are directed to vacuum chamber pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of mapping pressure to rotation information, as taught by Kim to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure and utilizes the correlation between pressure and rotation angles as taught by Nishimura. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous feature of operator getting confirmed that the rotation complies requirement and also would have allowed accurately adjusting the pressure in the chamber which can prevent the error process, for example, as evident in Kim, Fig. 1-3, towards the middle of p2 and para1 of p3, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Nishimura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the valve drive unit comprises: a motor that generates a rotational force for rotating the shaft according to one of the first control signal and the second control signal;
a coupler connected to the shaft and transferring the rotational force provided by the motor;
a gear box provided between the coupler and the motor to adjust a reduction ratio of the rotational force; and
an encoder that generates first rotation angle information according to driving of the motor, and the rotation angle information is generated based on the first rotation angle information.
Kim explicitly teaches:
wherein the valve drive unit comprises: a motor that generates a rotational force for rotating the shaft according to one of the first control signal and the second control signal; a coupler connected to the shaft and transferring the rotational force provided by the motor; (See Fig. 1-3, towards the end of p2 and para1 of p3 teach a driving motor (130) for rotating a rotary shaft (117) according to an input from a worker; a coupler (reference sign not shown) connected to the rotary shaft (117), and transferring the rotational force of the driving motor (130).)
a gear box provided between the coupler and the motor to adjust a reduction ratio of the rotational force; and (See Fig. 1-3, towards the end of p2 and para1 of p3 teach power transmission gears (127, 123) positioned between the coupler and the driving motor (130) so as to adjust a reduction ratio of the rotational force; and a rotation angle measuring instrument (145) for generating first rotation angle information according to the driving of the driving motor (130), wherein the rotation angle information is generated on the basis of the rotation angle measuring instrument (145).)
an encoder that generates first rotation angle information according to driving of the motor, and the rotation angle information is generated based on the first rotation angle information. (As above, see Fig. 1-3, towards the end of p2 and para1 of p3 teach power transmission gears (127, 123) positioned between the coupler and the driving motor (130) so as to adjust a reduction ratio of the rotational force; and a rotation angle measuring instrument (145) for generating first rotation angle information according to the driving of the driving motor (130), wherein the rotation angle information is generated on the basis of the rotation angle measuring instrument (145).)
Accordingly, as Nishimura and Kim are directed to vacuum chamber pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of mapping pressure to rotation information based on measured information by utilizing the abovementioned structures and functions such as motor, gearbox and encoder, as taught by Kim to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure and utilizes the correlation between pressure and rotation angles as taught by Nishimura. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous feature of operator getting confirmed that the rotation complies requirement and also would have allowed accurately adjusting the pressure in the chamber which can prevent the error process, for example, as evident in Kim, Fig. 1-3, towards the end of p2 and para1 of p3, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (KR 20210098850 A – Translated version) in view of Kim (KR 20070076988 A – Translated version) in further view of Jung (KR 20220090345 A – Translated version).
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura and Kim teach all the elements of claim 6.
Nishimura and Kim do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the memory is a non-volatile memory.
Jung explicitly teaches:
wherein the memory is a non-volatile memory. (See Fig. 4, and 0034 teach a memory part (450) is a flash memory.)
Accordingly, as Nishimura, Kim and Jung are directed to pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of using a flash memory specifically for storage, as taught by Jung to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure and utilizes the correlation between pressure and rotation angles using a storage/memory as taught by Nishimura and Kim. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous feature of storing intentional and specific information for more accurate control of damper operation, as evident in Jung, Fig. 4, 0034, etc.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (KR 20210098850 A – Translated version) in view of Kim (KR 20070076988 A – Translated version) in further view of BU (KR 20190053505 A – Translated version).
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura and Kim teach all the elements of claim 8.
Nishimura and Kim do not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a second sensing unit that generates a plate image by imaging a plate, wherein the second sensing unit is configured to analyze the plate image and determine a degree of accumulation of by-products in the plate.
BU explicitly teaches:
further comprising a second sensing unit that generates a plate image by imaging a plate, wherein the second sensing unit is configured to analyze the plate image and determine a degree of accumulation of by-products in the plate. (See Fig. 1, 4, and 0031 teach a camera (350) for capturing an inner space so as to generate an image and analyzing the image acquired by the camera (350) so as to detect the amount of particles in the inner space.)
Accordingly, as Nishimura, Kim and BU are directed to pressure control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of using a camera, as taught by BU to the methods and systems for vacuum chamber pressure control that has a target pressure and utilizes the correlation between pressure and rotation angles using a pressure gauge as another sensor as taught by Nishimura and Kim. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled an advantageous feature of monitoring the amount of particles detected in the inner space better, as evident in BU, Fig. 1, 4, 0031, 0039, etc.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al. (US 20030168614 A1) is related to a control butterfly valve that comprises a valve body having a fluid passage through which a fluid flows, a valve disc controlling an opening and closing of the fluid passage of the valve body, and a diffuser including a passing hole configured to allow the fluid, which passes through the valve disc, to pass therethrough and a passing part configured to allow the fluid, which passes through the valve disc at a low speed, to pass therethrough.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights