DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendment dated 7/6/2026 that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination dated 8/4/2026. Claims 7, 11, 15 and 19 are currently amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 7-9, 11-18 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 7 in the response dated 7/06/2026. It is considered that the amendment to claim 7 raises new issues regarding the metes and bounds of the limitation as noted in the rejection of claims 7-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph below. Therefore, the indicated allowability of claims 7-9 and 11-18 as presented in the Office action dated 5/4/2026 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections 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 pages 7-8 of the response dated 7/23/2026.
Applicant argues that the combination of the Yeo reference and the Nodera reference does not disclose or suggest the newly amended limitation of “the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings, spaced along a length of the first tube member, configured to receive a fluid from the chamber”.
However, it is considered that the Yeo Won Jae reference discloses 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), wherein 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, it is considered that the plurality of openings (Yeo Won Jae: see “Opening A” and “Opening B” in the annotated figure 6 below) are spaced along a length of the first tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “length” in the annotated figure 6 below).
Additionally, the specific location and orientation of the “length” along which the openings are spaced is not claimed within claim 19. Therefore, the limitation of “a length” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. It is considered that the plurality of openings (Yeo Won Jae: 36) are spaced along a length (Yeo Won Jae: see “Length” in the annotated figure 6 below) of the first tube member (Yeo Won Jae: see “first tube member” in the annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
1293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is considered that the Yeo Won Jae reference of the combination of the Yeo Won Jae reference and the Nodera reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added limitations relating to “the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings, spaced along a length of the first tube member, configured to receive a fluid from the chamber”.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 19 incorporates the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 1. It is noted that the recitation of "wherein the first tube member comprises a plurality of openings, spaced along a length of the first tube member" was indicated as being allowable in combination with other features of claim 1. However, the features and scope of independent claim 19 defer from the features and scope of independent claim 1. Therefore, the amendment to claim 19 does not incorporate all the features of the indicated allowable claim 1.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination, the instant Office action is made non-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 7-9 and 11-18 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 7 recites the limitation “a second tube member” comprising “a plurality of openings” in lines 4-5. Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the plurality of openings comprises: a first opening at a first end of the second tube member, and a second opening at a second end of the second tube member" along with "wherein cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than cross-section areas of the plurality of openings".
It is unclear as to how the cross-section areas of the first opening and the second opening are larger than the cross-section areas of the plurality of openings when the "plurality of openings" comprises the first opening and the second opening. Is the cross-section area of the first opening larger than the cross-section area of the first opening? Is the cross-section area of the second opening larger than the cross-section area of the second opening? Is the cross-section area of the first opening larger than the cross-section area of the second opening? Is the cross-section area of the second opening larger than the cross-section area of the first opening? Are there additional openings of the “plurality of openings” beyond the “first opening” and the “second opening”? Or are the “first opening” and the “second opening” the only openings of the “plurality of openings” of the second tube member?
It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim and therefore, claim 7 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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; see also “Opening A” and “Opening B” in the annotated figure 6 below) spaced along a length of the first tube member (see the annotated figure 6 below for “Opening A” and “Opening B” to extend along a “length” of the first tube member as depicted in figure 6 below), 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_image2.png
834
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
757
1293
media_image1.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 1-6 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 7-9 and 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
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 when rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
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