DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8 and 14-20, drawn to method, classified in H01J37/32834.
II. Claims 9-13, drawn to apparatus, classified in H01J37/32440.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus requires multiple exhaust panels wherein the method requires singular and the method is required for use in a semiconductor processing system not required in the apparatus.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. David Goren on August 6, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-8 and 14-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-13 are 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 cancellation 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).
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (2017/0322568) in view of Yamada (2020/0303219).
Kumar teaches a method comprising:
- using an exhaust with a gas panel for a semiconductor system with a chamber, see Fig. 12 and related text, particularly [0081-83], but Kumar does not teach measuring or controlling an airflow through the gas panel.
- Yamada teaches a method comprising
- measuring an airflow through an exhaust path of a system, see claims 1 and 2 particularly, wherein a sensor is placed in an exhaust duct, and
- determining if the airflow is within range, see claims 3, 7 and 8, wherein a determination of the airflow (exhaust) is made and if the result is within or outside of the range, then the appropriate action happens with the position maintained or further opened or closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the exhaust control of Yamada to the gas panel of Kumar as the systems are substantially equivalent as both involve a gas flow and an exhaust and the control of Yamada would be useful in controlling the pressure/flow in the gas panel of Kumar.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 15 and 16, it is understood based on the combined teachings that the valve would be opened or closed by an appropriate first/second amount as needed to correct the exhaust flow.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, it is understood per the teachings that if the result is within the range, no change would be made, see implicit disclosure, MPEP 2144.01.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kumar teaches alarms (signal) when conditions are amiss within the exhaust system [0057, 61], therefore, per the combination it would have been obvious to apply such an alarm in the claimed condition.
Regarding claim 14, Kumar teaches a programmed computer, therefore the requirements of claim 14 are met in combination with claim 1 above.
Claims 6-8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Yamada in view of Komae (2024/0141484).
The teachings of Kumar and Yamada are described above and do not fully closing the gate valve when the system is offline, but Komae teaches that it is useful for the controller to interlock the system and close valves when the system is stopped urgently or a door is open [0079]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to interlock the system in the method of Kumar and Yamada when the system is in an offline state as Komae teaches that it is useful to do so – it is understood to protect the system and/or workers. Such teaching meets claims 6-8, 19 and 20 as valves are closed and the system interlocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights