DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-15, drawn to a load lock chamber.
Group 2, claim(s) 16, drawn to a method for cleaning a load lock chamber.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups 1 and 2 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a load lock chamber, comprising: a chamber body formed with at least one loading cavity therein, and having an air inlet portion and an air outlet portion that are in communication with each loading cavity; wherein the chamber body has at least one dispersion portion, each dispersion portion is arranged corresponding to one loading cavity, each dispersion portion comprises a plurality of dispersion holes arranged independently, each dispersion hole is in communication with the air inlet portion and a corresponding loading cavity, and is configured to disperse gas flow entering the corresponding loading cavity, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of SFA Engineering Corp (KR 2015/0043686).
During a telephone conversation with Matthew Sutch on 7/09/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
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) 1-4 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SFA Engineering Corp (KR 2015/0043686, hereafter “SFA”).
Regarding claim 1, SFA discloses a load lock chamber (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a chamber body (110b) formed with at least one loading cavity (the cavity within 110b) therein, and having an air inlet portion (360b) and an air outlet portion (210b) that are in communication with each loading cavity (Fig. 13); wherein the chamber body has at least one dispersion portion (the plurality of outlet holes at the bottom of 330b with reference to Fig. 13 as well as the plate directly below 330b), each dispersion portion is arranged corresponding to one loading cavity, each dispersion portion comprises a plurality of dispersion holes arranged independently, each dispersion hole is in communication with the air inlet portion and a corresponding loading cavity, and is configured to disperse gas flow entering the corresponding loading cavity. (Fig. 13; para. [0146] – [0164])
Regarding claim 2, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein the load lock chamber is configured to load a substrate (G); in a height direction of the chamber body, the at least one dispersion portion is located above the substrate in the corresponding loading cavity, and outlets of the dispersion holes of the at least one dispersion portion are provided facing a side where the substrate is located. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 3, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 2, wherein on a plane perpendicular to the height direction of the chamber body, an orthographic projection of the at least one dispersion portion covers an orthographic projection of the substrate in the corresponding loading cavity. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 4, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein the dispersion portion corresponding to at least one loading cavity is configured with at least two layers (as shown in Fig. 13, see how the dispersion portion includes two separate plates with holes); the at least two layers of the dispersion portion are arranged at intervals along a gas flow path, and projections of the dispersion holes of the at least two layers of the dispersion portion are staggered with each other on a plane perpendicular to a direction of the intervals. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 7, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein the chamber body comprises an upper cover (111b) and a side plate (113b), the upper cover is covered on the side plate, the two cooperatively define the at least one loading cavity, the upper cover is provided with the air inlet portion, and the at least one dispersion portion is provided on the upper cover. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 8, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein the chamber body has an air inlet cavity (the cavity within 110b which receives fluid from 360b) therein in communication with the air inlet portion, the at least one dispersion portion separates the air inlet cavity from the corresponding loading cavity, and the dispersion holes of the at least one dispersion portion are in communication with the air inlet cavity and the loading cavity. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 9, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 8, wherein the chamber body comprises at least one partition portion (the portion that G rests upon inside of the chamber) that divides an internal space of the chamber body into a plurality of loading cavities independent from each other; the at least one partition portion is formed with the air inlet cavity and the dispersion portion which are in communication with the at least one loading cavity which is separated by the partition portion. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 10, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of loading cavities are arranged in sequence along the height direction of the chamber body, and the air inlet portion in communication with the air inlet cavity is located on a side of the chamber body. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 11, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one loading cavity is in communication with one air inlet portion (the portion within the chamber body that receives fluid from 360b) and one air outlet portion (the portion within the chamber body that communicates fluid to 200b). (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 12, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 7, wherein a uniform air space (the space defined within 330b) is formed between the at least one dispersion portion and the upper cover, and gas entering from the air inlet portion flows and diffuses in the uniform air space. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 13, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of loading cavities are provided, the plurality of loading cavities are independent from each other, and share one air inlet cavity and one air inlet portion. (the plurality of loading cavities can be interpreted as different cavities defined throughout the chamber body such as a cavity above and below the plate which holds G)
Regarding claim 14, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of loading cavities are provided, the plurality of loading cavities are independent from each other, and each of the plurality of loading cavities is provided with one air inlet cavity and one air inlet portion. (the plurality of loading cavities can be interpreted as different cavities defined throughout the chamber body such as a cavity above and below the plate which holds G)
Regarding claim 15, SFA further discloses a semiconductor equipment, comprising the load lock chamber according to claim 1. (para. [0001])
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.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFA.
Regarding claim 5, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 1, wherein the chamber body is formed with a return air cavity (the cavity in 200b which accepts exhaust from 110b) but fails to disclose the chamber body is formed with return air holes therein, the return air cavity is in communication with the air outlet portion, each loading cavity is correspondingly provided with a plurality of the return air holes, and the return air holes of the same loading cavity are independently arranged and are in communication with the return air cavity and the loading cavity.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the chamber body and exhaust system of SFA to include a plurality of return air holes and arrange the return air holes in any manner including independently arranged and are in communication with the return air cavity and the loading cavity as well as having the dispersion portion and the return air holes that are corresponding to each loading cavity are arranged on opposite sides of the loading cavity since a mere duplication of essential working part of device and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an exhaust arrangement to accommodate optimized exhaust fluid flow.
Regarding claim 6, SFA further discloses the load lock chamber according to claim 5, wherein the dispersion portion and the return air holes that are corresponding to each loading cavity are arranged on opposite sides of the loading cavity. (as modified above)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights