Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments in light of claim amendment filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are provided on pages 6-8 of Remarks. The main argument presented by the applicant is that the valve shown in prior arts used (Oba JP 2015-253893, Shibata US 2012/0085941, Wang US 8,302,420) does not essentially disclose a vent value to provide a vacuum seal. The applicant states that the prior arts mentioned above shows or teaches “on-off valve” or a flow valve but that does read on the claimed limitation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, the limitations claimed are given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Second, the role of the on-off valves is either allow gas to flow to the chamber or by leaving the valve off, creating vacuum in the chamber. In Oba reference for example, the vacuum pumps (32, 34 for example) helps obtain vacuum in the chamber 40. By keeping valves 132, 136 shut, vacuum is maintained. Similarly, in Shibata reference, while valve is closed/off, it creates a vacuum seal. This is no different from what is mentioned in applicant’s P(0054), Figure 3A-3B. The claims do not further get into any specifics or details on how this vent valve creates a vacuum seal, it simply states “configured to provide a vacuum seal” which is read by the prior arts listed above.
Now with respect to the limitation of “diffuser” used in amended claim 15, gas source barrel 3 in Oba reference is considered a diffuser by the examiner. The role of the gas source barrel 3 is to control the flow rate of the gas input in the chamber 40.
With respect to amended independent claim 16, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
See below for claim status.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-10, 12-18 and 20 are pending in the application. Claims 11 and 19 are cancelled.
Note: Independent claim 1 is rejected twice below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 8, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Oba Hiroshi (JP 2015253893, provided in the IDS). (“Oba”).
6. Regarding claim 1, Oba teaches A system, comprising: a chamber configured to provide a vacuum environment [Figures 1-5, a chamber 40 is shown]; a vent valve configured to provide a vacuum seal [Figures 1-5, a vent valve 132, 137 shown configured to provide a vacuum seal (when turned off)]; and a mass flow controller coupled to the chamber on a first side of the mass flow controller and to the vent valve on a second side of the mass flow controller [Figures 1-5, a vent valve 132, 137, a mass flow controller MFC 133a/133b (133) arrangement is shown].
7. Regarding claim 8, Oba teaches wherein the vent valve and the mass flow controller are configured to adjust a pressure of the chamber by adjusting a flow rate of a gas provided to the chamber [Figures 1-5, adjusting a flow rate of a gas is taught].
8. Regarding claim 11, Oba teaches wherein the vent valve is configured to provide a vacuum seal [Figures 1-5, see vent valve 132-137].
9. Regarding claim 12, Oba teaches wherein the mass flow controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of a gas to enable limiting turbulence of the gas [Figures 1-5, the MFC 133a/133b is taught].
10. Regarding claim 13, Oba teaches wherein the mass flow controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of a gas based on a flow profile such that a particle resuspension rate is limited [Figures 1-5, the MFC 133a/133b is taught]
11. Regarding claim 14, Oba teaches wherein the flow profile includes a pressure of the chamber, a flow rate of the gas, and a particle resuspension rate [Figures 1-5, the flow profile is taught].
12. Regarding claim 15, Oba teaches A method, comprising: venting a chamber configured to provide a vacuum environment by: providing a gas to a vent valve; and providing the gas to a mass flow controller that is coupled to the chamber on a first side of the mass flow controller and to the vent valve on a second side of the mass flow controller; and diffusing the gas using a diffuser before the gas enters the chamber [Figures 1-5, a method is taught comprising a chamber 40 to provide a vacuum environment, a vent valve 132-137, a mass flow controller MFC 133a/133b arrangement is shown; Figures 1-5, gas source barrel 3 acts as a diffuser diffusing (by controlling flow rate) the gas before it enters the chamber 40].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
14. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
15. Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba.
16. Regarding claim 2, Oba teaches the system.
Oba does not explicitly teach wherein the vent valve and the mass flow controller are configured to limit a particle resuspension rate to less than 0.1% when the chamber is vented or over-pressured.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oba to optimize the value of a particle resuspension rate because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
17. Regarding claim 3, Oba teaches the system.
Oba does not explicitly teach wherein the vent valve and mass flow controller are configured to limit a particle resuspension rate to less than 0.1% when the chamber, having a pressure of less than or equal to 10 x 10-7 Torr, is vented.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oba to optimize the value of a particle resuspension rate and a pressure because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
18. Regarding claim 7, Oba teaches the system.
Oba does not explicitly teach further comprising: another chamber that has a corresponding vent valve and mass flow controller.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oba to comprise another chamber, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
19. Regarding claim 9, Oba teaches the system.
Oba does not explicitly teach wherein the chamber comprises a diffuser at an inlet of the chamber, the diffuser being configured to limit a particle resuspension rate to less than 0.1%.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oba to optimize the value of a particle resuspension rate because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
20. Regarding claim 10, Oba teaches the system.
Oba does not explicitly teach wherein the particle resuspension rate indicates a percentage of particles initially on a surface of the system that are resuspended from the surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Oba to optimize the value of a particle resuspension rate because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
21. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Shibata (US 2012/0085941).
22. Regarding claim 1, Shibata teaches A system, comprising: a chamber configured to provide a vacuum environment [Figures 1-5, a chamber 3 is shown]; a vent valve configured to provide a vacuum seal [Figures 1-5, a vent valve 35, 39 shown configured to provide a vacuum seal (when turned off)]; and a mass flow controller coupled to the chamber on a first side of the mass flow controller and to the vent valve on a second side of the mass flow controller [Figures 1-5, a vent valve 35, 39, a mass flow controller MFC 34, 38 arrangement is shown].
Allowable Subject Matter/Claim Objection
23. Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. (Original) The system of claim 1, further comprising: a gas treatment module configured to adjust a characteristic of gas before the gas is vented into the chamber via the vent valve and the mass flow controller.
24. Claims 5-6 are also objected as they further limit claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claims 16-18 and 20 allowed.
26. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
27. Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “a gas treatment module configured to adjust a characteristic of the gas before the gas is vented into the chamber via the vent valve and the mass flow controller” in combination with other limitations of the claim.
28. Claims 17-18 and 20 are also allowed as they further limit claim 16.
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.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tetsuhiro et al. (US 2002/0148561), Figures 1-2, a vacuum chamber, flow valves, controller, vacuum pump is shown.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights