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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 and 25 June 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “processing chamber” in line 3 should read “the processing chamber”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-16 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 13 recites “the elastomer structure comprises at least one of: polyethylene, polypropylene, polyimide, nylon (e.g., nylon 66), ethylene-propylene diene monomer, or silicon rubber.” This recitation is indefinite for several reasons. First it is unclear if these materials pertain to the prior claimed material or are in addition to such. Second it is unclear how the elastomer material can be polyethylene, polypropylene, polyimide, or nylon (e.g., nylon 66) when those are not elastomers. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the material of the elastomer structure comprises at least one of: ethylene-propylene diene monomer or silicon rubber”.
Claims 14 and 15 are indefinite for similar reasons to claim 13. Specifically it is unclear if these materials pertain to the prior claimed material or are in addition to such, and unclear how the elastomer material can be one of the listed materials as they are all non-elastomers. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to cancel these claims.
Claim 16 recites “the elastomer structure has a flattened O-ring shape having a ribbon-shaped cross-section or an approximately ribbon-shaped cross-section.” This recitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the claimed shape/cross-section refer to the prior claimed “ribbon shape” of claim 1 or are additional shapes of such (e.g. if the seal has a compound shape with various portions). Furthermore it is unclear if “a ribbon-shaped cross-section” or “an approximately ribbon-shaped cross-section” further narrows the “ribbon shape” limitation of claim 1 (e.g. at least an approximately ribbon-shaped cross-section appears to be broader than “a ribbon shape”). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the ribbon shape of the elastomer structure is a flattened O-ring shape”.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 16-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datta et al. (US 2011/0076848).
With regard to claim 12, Datta discloses a system comprising: a lid (14) of a processing chamber (10); a body (12) of processing chamber (10); and an elastomer sealing structure (e.g. 61, 62, or 63) located between the lid and the body (as see in Figs. 2A-B), wherein the elastomer sealing structure has a ribbon shape (as seen in Fig. 2B at least when compressed each has the shape of a flattened O-ring which Applicant defines as a type of “ribbon shape”, additionally see element 63 which in both Figs. 2A and 2B, is shown to have a long skinny cross-section, another type of ribbon-shape) and comprises a material (i.e. the material thereof) that lacks per- and/or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (see para. [0014] disclosing elastomeric materials that are known in the art to be free from PFAS (e.g. EPDM, which is also disclosed by Applicant as being free from PFAS as such is a basic property of its chemical structure)).
With regard to claim 13, Datta discloses that the elastomer sealing structure comprises at least one of: ethylene-propylene diene monomer or silicon rubber (as disclosed in paras. [0014], etc. it can be EPDM).
With regard to claim 16, Datta discloses that the elastomer sealing structure has a flattened O-ring shape having a ribbon-shaped cross-section or an approximately ribbon-shaped cross-section (as seen in Fig. is has a shape than could be formed by flattening an O-ring).
With regard to claim 17, Datta discloses that a metal sealing structure (50) located between the lid and the body and adjacent to the elastomer sealing structure (as seen in Figs. 2A-B), wherein the elastomer sealing structure is configured to protect the metal sealing structure from a corrosive chemical environment within the processing chamber (i.e. as seen in Figs. 1-2B as it covers at least some of the metal sealing structure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides additional examples of similar sealing structures and sealed process chambers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights