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 .
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.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0068399 A1) in view of Holland et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,438,534) and Owaki et al. (JP 2019-157257 A1)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kosters et al. teach a chemical vapor deposition apparatus for providing a surface of a substrate with a layer, the apparatus comprising: a reactor (1) having a chamber (10) for accommodating at least one substrate; a pressure unit (6) configured to generate, in an inner portion of the chamber (10), a first predetermined pressure and comprising a first pumping stage (60) having at least one liquid ring vacuum pump (601), and a second pumping stage (61) having at least one dry screw vacuum pump (611). (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0021-0029)
The difference between Kosters et al. and claim 1 is that the apparatus further comprising a pressure regulation unit configured to control the first predetermined pressure generated by the pressure unit (6) is not discussed (Claim 1), a first valve and a second valve each configured to reduce the intersection of at least one connection to the chamber (10) is not discussed (Claim1), wherein the second valve has a size different to that of the first valve and is connected in parallel to the first valve is not discussed (Claim 1), an opening degree of the second valve and an opening degree of the first valve are controlled by the pressure regulation unit is not discussed (Claim 1) and the first predetermined pressure is adjustable in the entire range covering 0.1 kPa (1 mbar) to 90 kPa (900 mbar) is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding the apparatus further comprising a pressure regulation unit configured to control the first predetermined pressure generated by the pressure unit (6) (Claim 1), Holland et al. teach a pressure regulation unit configured to control the first predetermined pressure generated by a pressure unit (6). In other words Holland teaches that a pressure regulation unit controls the pressure of a vacuum processing chamber by controlling the opening degree of vacuum valves. Because the valves regulate the coupling between the chamber and the pumping system, the pressure regulation unit controls the pressure generated by the pressure unit. (See Abstract; Column 5 lines 29-67; Column 6 lines 1-30)
Regarding a first valve and a second valve each configured to reduce the intersection of at least one connection to the chamber (10) (Claim1), Owaki et al. teach a first valve and a second valve each configured to reduce the intersection of at least one connection to a chamber. (See Fig. 3)
Regarding wherein the second valve has a size different to that of the first valve and is connected in parallel to the first valve (Claim 1), Owaki et al. teach the second valve has a size different to that of the first valve and is connected in parallel to the first valve. (See Fig. 3)
Regarding an opening degree of the second valve and an opening degree of the first valve are controlled by the pressure regulation unit (Claim 1), Owaki et al. teach adjusting the exhaust conductance via a plurality of valves. (See Machine Translation) Holland teaches that pressure control can be improved by using a pressure control apparatus unit to control valves based on chamber pressure. (See Holland discussed above) It therefore would be obvious to combine the teachings of Owaki and Holland to control the pressure by controlling parallel valves through a pressure control unit.
Regarding the first predetermined pressure is adjustable in the entire range covering 0.1 kPa (1 mbar) to 90 kPa (900 mbar) (Claim 1), since the apparatus of Kosters et al. teaches the same structure for the pumps and the pressures of 20 mbar and 120 mbar in Applicant’s range the control of pressure would have been obvious to be within the range.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Kosters et al. teach in Fig. 1 teaches that the first pumping stage (60) and the second pumping stage (61) are connected in series.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Kosters et al. teach that a suction side of the second pumping stage (61) is connected to the chamber (10) of the reactor (1) and a discharge side of the second pumping stage (61) is connected to a suction side of the first pumping stage (60). (See Fig. 1)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Holland et al. is that it allows for operating in a stable operating pressure. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Owaki et al. is that it allows for varying exhaust conductance. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kosters et al. by utilizing the features of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. because it allows for operating in a stable pressure with varied exhaust conductance.
6. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laguilharre (U.S. Pat. 4,505,645).
The difference not yet discussed is where the first pumping stage (60) further comprises a second liquid ring vacuum pump (601) connected in parallel with the liquid ring vacuum pump (601).
Regarding claim 4, Laguilharre teach coupling two liquid ring pumps in parallel to accelerate evacuation. (Column 6 lines 5-9)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Laguilharre is that it allows for accelerating evacuation. (Column 6 lines 5-9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Laguilharre because it allows for accelerating evacuation.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. and further in view of Laguilharre as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,419,455).
The difference not yet discussed is the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump.
Regarding claim 13, Rousseau et al. teach the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rousseau et al. is that it allows for regulating the pressure. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Rousseau et al. because it allows for regulating the pressure.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. and further in view of Laguilharre and further in view of Rousseau et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Steffens (U.S. Pat. 6,497,563).
The difference not yet discussed is the one dry screw vacuum pump (611) has a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump (611).
Regarding claim 14, Steffens et al. teach the dry screw pump having a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Steffens et al. is that it allows for cooling the pump. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Steffen et al. because it allows for cooling the pump.
9. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,419,455).
The difference not yet discussed is the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump.
Regarding claim 5, Rousseau et al. teach the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rousseau et al. is that it allows for regulating the pressure. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Rousseau et al. because it allows for regulating the pressure.
10. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Owaki et al. and Holland et al. and further in view of Rousseau et al. as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Steffens (U.S. Pat. 6,497,563).
The difference not yet discussed is the one dry screw vacuum pump (611) has a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump (611).
Regarding claim 15, Steffens et al. teach the dry screw pump having a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Steffens et al. is that it allows for cooling the pump. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Steffen et al. because it allows for cooling the pump.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Steffens (U.S. Pat. 6,497,563).
The difference not yet discussed is the one dry screw vacuum pump (611) has a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump (611).
Regarding claims 6, 9, 12, Steffens et al. teach the dry screw pump having a liquid cooling system configured to transfer heat between a liquid and the at least one dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Steffens et al. is that it allows for cooling the pump. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Steffen et al. because it allows for cooling the pump.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Laguilharre (U.S. Pat. 4,505,645).
The difference not yet discussed is where the first pumping stage (60) further comprises a second liquid ring vacuum pump (601) connected in parallel with the liquid ring vacuum pump (601).
Regarding claims 7, 10, Laguilharre teach coupling two liquid ring pumps in parallel to accelerate evacuation. (Column 6 lines 5-9)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Laguilharre is that it allows for accelerating evacuation. (Column 6 lines 5-9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Laguilharre because it allows for accelerating evacuation.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al. in view of Holland et al. and Owaki et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,419,455).
The difference not yet discussed is the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump.
Regarding claims 8, 11, Rousseau et al. teach the pressure regulation unit is configured to control the first predetermined pressure by at least varying a rotational speed of the dry screw vacuum pump. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rousseau et al. is that it allows for regulating the pressure. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Rousseau et al. because it allows for regulating the pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights