DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0190521 to Ueda in view of WO2020/109790 to Schofield et al (United States Patent Application No. 2022/0010788 to Schofield relied upon for citations and the English language equivalent).
In regards to Claim 1, Ueda teaches a vacuuming system Fig. 3 for vacuuming multiple process chambers 4A(40)B1-B3; 4B(40)A1-A3 of a semiconductor process device 102 Fig. 1-2, comprising: multiple first vacuum pumping components 51a, 51b, 83; wherein: the multiple process chambers are divided into multiple process chamber groups 4A and 4B; each process chamber group includes multiple process chambers A1-A3 and B1-B3; the multiple first vacuum pumping components are connected to the multiple process chamber groups in a one-to-one correspondence (as shown by the lines from 51a/b to the chambers); each first vacuum pumping component includes a first vacuum pump 83 and multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines (branches of 51a, 51b); outlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are connected to the first vacuum pump (as shown in Fig. 3); inlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are respectively connected one-to-one with the multiple process chambers in each process chamber group (as shown in Fig. 3) [0022-0177].
Ueda does not expressly teach that there is a second vacuum pumping components.
Schofield teaches a vacuuming system 5 Fig. 1, 2 for vacuuming multiple process chambers 10 of a semiconductor process device Fig. 1, 2 comprising: multiple first vacuum pumping components V3, 34, 14, 16, 20;
wherein: the multiple first vacuum pumping components are connected to the multiple process chambers in a one-to-one correspondence (as shown in Fig. 1 and 2); each first vacuum pumping component includes a first vacuum pump 20 and multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines (branches of 14, 16 in yellow); outlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are connected to the first vacuum pump (through horizontal 46); inlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are respectively connected one-to-one with the multiple process chambers in each process chamber group;
and a second vacuum pumping component 22, 42, 43, 46; the second vacuum pumping component includes a second vacuum pump 22 and a second vacuum pumping pipeline 42 (in green); an outlet end of the second vacuum pumping pipeline is connected to the second vacuum pump through 46; and an inlet end of the second vacuum pumping pipeline (connection of 46 to 10) is connected to all the process chambers respectively (as shown in Fig. 1) [0047-0077].
Schofield teaches that the pumping system is used to leads to efficiency in hardware and reduces the pressure fluctuations and undesirable pressure spikes [0023-0025; 0074].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have used the vacuum system (with first and second vacuum pumping components, piping, valves, and pumps therein) to the multiple chambers of Ueda (which has multiple sets of chambers), as per the teachings of Schofield. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing pressure fluctuations and undesirable pressure spikes. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches each first vacuum pumping pipeline includes a main pipeline 14, a control valve 34, and a first switch V3 valve; the main pipeline is used to connect the first vacuum pump 20 and a corresponding process chamber (as shown in green); the control valve and the first switch valve are both arranged in the main pipeline (as shown in Fig. 2); and the control valve is used to control a flow rate of gas in the main pipeline (as it is a flow restrictor controls the pressure, [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 3, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, that each first vacuum pumping pipeline 14 further includes a bypass pipeline (shown in blue and including 44); a connection between an inlet end of the bypass pipeline and the main pipeline (through 10) is located upstream of the first switch valve and the control valve; a connection between an outlet end of the bypass pipeline (as shown in Fig. 2) and the main pipeline is located downstream of the first switch valve and the control valve, as shown in Fig. 2, a nominal diameter of the bypass pipeline is smaller than a nominal diameter of the main pipeline; and the bypass pipeline includes a second switch valve [0016-0017].
In regards to Claim 4, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, each first vacuum pumping pipeline further includes a regulating valve V2; and the regulating valve is arranged in the bypass pipeline to adjust a flow conductance of the bypass pipeline (as shown in Fig. 1, [0057-0066], as it closes and opens the bypass pipeline).
In regards to Claim 9, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, the second vacuum pumping pipeline includes a common pipeline 46, multiple branch pipelines 42, and multiple fourth switch valvesV1; inlet ends of the multiple branch pipelines are connected to all the process chambers one by one, and outlet ends of the multiple branch pipelines are connected to the common pipeline; the common pipeline is connected to the second vacuum pump; and the multiple fourth switch valves are arranged one by one in the multiple branch pipelines, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 10, Ueda teaches that this is a semiconductor process device, a vacuuming system Fig. 3 for vacuuming multiple process chambers 4A(40)B1-B3; 4B(40)A1-A3 of a semiconductor process device 102 Fig. 1-2, comprising: multiple first vacuum pumping components 51a, 51b, 83; wherein: the multiple process chambers are divided into multiple process chamber groups 4A and 4B; each process chamber group includes multiple process chambers A1-A3 and B1-B3; the multiple first vacuum pumping components are connected to the multiple process chamber groups in a one-to-one correspondence (as shown by the lines from 51a/b to the chambers); each first vacuum pumping component includes a first vacuum pump 83 and multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines (branches of 51a, 51b); outlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are connected to the first vacuum pump (as shown in Fig. 3); inlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are respectively connected one-to-one with the multiple process chambers in each process chamber group (as shown in Fig. 3) [0022-0177].
Ueda does not expressly teach that there is a second vacuum pumping components.
Schofield teaches a vacuuming system 5 Fig. 1, 2 for vacuuming multiple process chambers 10 of a semiconductor process device Fig. 1, 2 comprising: multiple first vacuum pumping components V3, 34, 14, 16, 20;
wherein: the multiple first vacuum pumping components are connected to the multiple process chambers in a one-to-one correspondence (as shown in Fig. 1 and 2); each first vacuum pumping component includes a first vacuum pump 20 and multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines (branches of 14, 16 in yellow); outlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are connected to the first vacuum pump (through horizontal 46); inlet ends of the multiple first vacuum pumping pipelines in each first vacuum pumping component are respectively connected one-to-one with the multiple process chambers in each process chamber group;
and a second vacuum pumping component 22, 42, 43, 46; the second vacuum pumping component includes a second vacuum pump 22 and a second vacuum pumping pipeline 42 (in green); an outlet end of the second vacuum pumping pipeline is connected to the second vacuum pump through 46; and an inlet end of the second vacuum pumping pipeline (connection of 46 to 10) is connected to all the process chambers respectively (as shown in Fig. 1) [0047-0077].
Schofield teaches that the pumping system is used to leads to efficiency in hardware and reduces the pressure fluctuations and undesirable pressure spikes [0023-0025; 0074].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have used the vacuum system (with first and second vacuum pumping components, piping, valves, and pumps therein) to the multiple chambers of Ueda (which has multiple sets of chambers), as per the teachings of Schofield. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing pressure fluctuations and undesirable pressure spikes. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 12, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches each first vacuum pumping pipeline includes a main pipeline 14, a control valve 34, and a first switch V3 valve; the main pipeline is used to connect the first vacuum pump 20 and a corresponding process chamber (as shown in green); the control valve and the first switch valve are both arranged in the main pipeline (as shown in Fig. 2); and the control valve is used to control a flow rate of gas in the main pipeline (as it is a flow restrictor controls the pressure, [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 13, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, that each first vacuum pumping pipeline 14 further includes a bypass pipeline (shown in blue and including 44); a connection between an inlet end of the bypass pipeline and the main pipeline (through 10) is located upstream of the first switch valve and the control valve; a connection between an outlet end of the bypass pipeline (as shown in Fig. 2) and the main pipeline is located downstream of the first switch valve and the control valve, as shown in Fig. 2, a nominal diameter of the bypass pipeline is smaller than a nominal diameter of the main pipeline; and the bypass pipeline includes a second switch valve [0016-0017].
In regards to Claim 14, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, each first vacuum pumping pipeline further includes a regulating valve V2; and the regulating valve is arranged in the bypass pipeline to adjust a flow conductance of the bypass pipeline (as shown in Fig. 1, [0057-0066], as it closes and opens the bypass pipeline).
In regards to Claim 19, Ueda in view of Schofield teaches, in the teachings of Schofield, the second vacuum pumping pipeline includes a common pipeline 46, multiple branch pipelines 42, and multiple fourth switch valvesV1; inlet ends of the multiple branch pipelines are connected to all the process chambers one by one, and outlet ends of the multiple branch pipelines are connected to the common pipeline; the common pipeline is connected to the second vacuum pump; and the multiple fourth switch valves are arranged one by one in the multiple branch pipelines, as shown in Fig. 2.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0190521 to Ueda in view of WO2020/109790 to Schofield et al (United States Patent Application No. 2022/0010788 to Schofield relied upon for citations and the English language equivalent), as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 5611863 to Miyagi.
The teachings of Ueda in view of Schofield are relied upon as set forth in the 103 rejection above.
In regards to Claims 8 and 18, Ueda in view of Schofield does not expressly teach the control valve is a butterfly valve; the control valve includes a valve body and a valve plate; the valve body includes a through cavity, and the valve plate is rotatably arranged in the through cavity; when the valve plate is perpendicular to a rotation axis of the through cavity, a preset gap is formed between an edge of the valve plate and an inner wall of the through cavity.
Miyagi teaches a control valve Fig. 3 is a butterfly valve (Col. 4 lines 60-67) includes a valve body 52 and a valve plate 51; the valve body includes a through cavity (opening through 52), and the valve plate is rotatably arranged in the through cavity; when the valve plate is perpendicular to a rotation axis 50 of the through cavity, a preset gap is formed between an edge of the valve plate and an inner wall of the through cavity (as shown in Fig. 3; Col. 3 line 50-Col. 6 line 62).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the valve Ueda in view of Schofield to be the butterfly valve of Miyagi.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, does not expressly teach pressure sensors in the pipeline upstream of the connection between the inlet end of the bypass pipeline and the main pipeline.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 6074486 to Yang, which teaches a pressure switch and pressure relief pipe, but does not teach it upstream of a connection of a bypass line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716