DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 12/30/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 19 are currently amended. Claim 21 is newly added. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Objection to the Drawings section on page 8 of the response dated 12/30/2025, with respect to the objection to drawings for not illustrating the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section on page 8 of the response dated 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Yeo Won Jae section on page 9 of the response dated 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 7-9, 11, 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the amendment to claim 7 to include the subject matter of indicated allowable claim 10 overcomes the rejection of claim 7 as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025. The rejections of claims 7-9, 11, 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A) as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Reuter section on pages 9-10, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reuter (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0135522) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the amendment to claim 7 to include the subject matter of indicated allowable claim 10 overcomes the rejection of claim 7 as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025. Further, applicant’s arguments filed 12/30/2025 are persuasive. The 1-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reuter (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0135522) as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Yeo Won Jae and Nodera section on page 10 of the response dated 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A) in view of Nodera (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0114156) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection of claim 1 as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025. The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A) in view of Nodera (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0114156) as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A) in view of Nodera (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0114156) on page 10 of the response dated 12/30/2025.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 19 overcomes the rejection of claim 19 as provided in the Office action dated 9/30/2025.
However, it is considered that the Yeo Won Jae reference addresses applicant’s amendment to claim 19. The Yeo Won Jae reference discloses a vent port diffuser (Yeo Won Jae: 37) comprising a first tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “first tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a second tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “second tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below), such that the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings (Yeo Won Jae: 36) configured to receive a fluid from the chamber (Yeo Won Jae: see figure 5 for the fluid entering the first tube member 37 from the interior). Further, the second tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “second tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below) comprises a first opening at a first end of the second tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “first end” in the annotated figure 6 below), and a second opening at a second end of the second tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “second end” in the annotated figure 6 below and the corresponding opening in figure 5 below), wherein cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than cross-section areas of the plurality of openings (Yeo Won Jae: see figure 5 for the cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening being larger than the cross-section area of the plurality of openings 36).
PNG
media_image1.png
834
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
757
1293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is considered that the Yeo Won Jae reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added recitation of “the second tube member” comprises “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member”, “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member”, and “wherein cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than cross-section areas of the plurality of openings”.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/26/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” in line 3. Claim 11 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” in line 7. Does the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7? Does the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7? It appears that the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refers to the same structural element as the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7 and that the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 11 should be “the first opening at the first end of the second tube member”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” in line 4. Claim 11 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” in line 8. Does the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7? Does the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7? It appears that the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 11 refers to the same structural element as the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7 and that the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 11 should be “the second opening at the second end of the second tube member”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” in line 3. Claim 15 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” in line 7. Does the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7? Does the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7? It appears that the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refers to the same structural element as the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 7 and that the recitation of “a first opening at a first end of the second tube member” of claim 15 should be “the first opening at the first end of the second tube member”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” in line 4. Claim 15 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” in line 8. Does the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7? Does the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7? It appears that the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 15 refers to the same structural element as the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 7 and that the recitation of “a second opening at a second end of the second tube member” of claim 15 should be “the second opening at the second end of the second tube member”.
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 non-obviousness.
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(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo Won Jae (KR 20150115443 A; see attached machine translation) in view of Nodera et al. (US 20090114156).
Regarding claim 19, the Yeo Won Jae reference discloses a chamber, comprising:
a vent port diffuser (37) comprising a first tube member (see “first tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a second tube member (see “second tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below),
wherein the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings (36) configured to receive a fluid from the chamber (see figure 5 for the fluid entering the first tube member 37 from the interior),
wherein the second tube member is coupled to the first tube member,
wherein the second tube member (see “second tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below) comprises:
a first opening at a first end of the second tube member (see “first end” in the annotated figure 6 below), and
a second opening at a second end of the second tube member (see “second end” in the annotated figure 6 below and the corresponding opening in figure 5 below),
wherein cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than cross-section areas of the plurality of openings (see figure 5 for the cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening being larger than the cross-section area of the plurality of openings 36), and
wherein the second tube member is configured to:
receive the fluid from the first tube member (see figure 5 for the second tube member 34 receiving fluid from the first tube member 37 at the second end).
PNG
media_image1.png
834
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
757
1293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Yeo Wan Jae reference does not expressly disclose a vent port on a surface of the interior of the chamber, wherein the first end of the second tube member is coupled to the vent port and wherein the second tube member provides the fluid to the vent port at the first end.
However, the Nodera et al. reference teaches the structure wherein a fluid from a chamber (S) is provided to a first space (S) and wherein a second tube member (considered the port on the lower right of the chamber defined between the walls 22 and 21 that connects to the vent port 4; see figure 1) is connected to the first space. Further, the second tube member is directly coupled to a vent port (4; see figure 1) in order to connect the second tube member to a pressure adjusting mechanism to exhaust the atmosphere of the chamber so that the chamber can be set to a predetermined pressure (see paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to couple the first end of the second tube member of the Yeo Wan Jae reference to a vent port as taught by the Nodera et al. reference in order to set the pressure in the chamber to a predetermined pressure.
In regards to claim 20, the Yeo Won Jae reference of the combination of the Yeo Won Jae reference and the Nodera et al. reference discloses a transport tool (Yeo Won Jae: 10) configured to support a wafer or a die.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-14, 16-18 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 11 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a chamber” comprising:
“a vent port diffuser comprising a first tube member and a second tube member”,
“wherein the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings, spaced along a length of the first tube member”,
“wherein a size of a first opening, of the plurality of openings, is smaller than a size of a second opening, of the plurality of openings, that is closer to a center plane than the first opening”;
“wherein the second tube member is coupled to the vent port at a first end of the second tube member”;
“wherein the second tube member is coupled to the first tube member at a second end of the second tube member”, and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-6 and 21 depend from claim 1, and, therefore claims 2-6 and 21 are allowed for containing the allowed subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a vent port diffuser” comprising:
“a first tube member comprising a first end and a second end”,
“wherein the first end is configured to couple to a vent port”;
“a second tube member” comprising “a plurality of openings configured to received fluid from a chamber”,
“wherein the second tube member further comprises:”
“a first opening at a first end of the second tube member”,
“a second opening at a second end of the second tube member”,
“wherein cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than cross-section areas of the plurality of openings”; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Claims 8, 9 and 11-18 depend from claim 7, and, therefore, claims 8, 9 and 11-18 are allowed for containing the allowed subject matter of claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights