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 of Species I in the reply filed on 9/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, following applicant’s amendment filed 9/24/2026, claims 1-17 remain pending with claims 7, 8, and 15 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16, and 17 are treated on their merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two or more purge lines and their locations (at least claims 4-6, 13, 14, 16, and 17; i.e. only one purge line is shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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 1-6 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 1 recites “the throttle valve defining a downstream end and an upstream end of the fore line”. It is unclear how the throttle valve defines both the downstream end and the upstream end of the fore line as claimed. It is noted that applicant’s specification as filed describes the fore line as extending from the downstream side of the throttle valve and therefore as best understood the throttle valve is seen to define the upstream end of the fore line.
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 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) 1-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franken et al. (US Patent 10,329,668).
Regarding Claim 1, Franken discloses a processing chamber exhaust system comprising: an exhaust line 5 that connects to a processing chamber 3 (as shown in Figure 1); a throttle valve 15 in fluid communication with the exhaust line 5 and a fore line (the line downstream of throttle valve 15, coupled to pump 16), the throttle valve 15 defining a downstream end and an upstream end of the fore line (as best understood as described above; the throttle valve 15 is positioned between the exhaust line and the fore line in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s throttle valve); a check valve 11 positioned along a length of the exhaust line (as shown in Figure 1), the check valve 11 configured to allow a flow of fluid from the processing chamber 3 to pass through the check valve 11 to the throttle valve 15 downstream of the check valve (and toward the pump 16); and a purge line 12 connected to the exhaust line 5 downstream of the check valve 11 and upstream of the throttle valve 15 (as shown in Figure 1), the purge line having a purge valve (mass flow controller 12’ includes a valve) in fluid communication with the purge line 12 to control a flow of purge gas through the purge line 12 (col. 6, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 2, Franken is seen as further disclosing the purge valve 12’ is a pneumatic valve (the purge valve controls the flow of gas and therefore is seen to be readable as a “pneumatic valve”; it is noted that the claim does not require the valve to be pneumatically controlled).
Regarding Claim 3, Franken further discloses a pressure monitor 13 within one or more of the processing chamber or the exhaust line (within the exhaust line 5 as shown in Figure 1), and a controller 9 connected to the purge valve 12’, the controller 9 configured to open and close the purge valve in response to a measurement from the pressure monitor (col. 7, lines 24-31).
Regarding Claim 4, Franken is seen as further disclosing there are two or more purge lines (12 and 22), each purge line having a purge valve (12’ and 22’, respectively; it is noted that the claim does not require all of the purge lines to be connected downstream of the check valve).
Regarding Claim 5, Franken is seen as further disclosing the two or more purge lines (12 and 22) connect to the exhaust line at different distances upstream of the throttle valve 15 (as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below; the distance from the location where the first purge line 12 connects with the exhaust line to the throttle valve 15 is less than the distance from the location where the second purge line 22 indirectly connects with the exhaust line to the throttle valve 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Franken is seen as further disclosing each of the two or more purge lines (12 and 22) have has a different conductance (the two or more purge lines 12 and 22 have purge valves 12’ and 22’, respectively; the purge valves are mass flow controllers and therefore are inherently capable of achieving a range of different levels of flow conductance as each flow controller moves between more open and more closed positions; therefore, because the mass flow controllers are capable of being moved to different opening degrees relative to each other, the mass flow controllers - and therefore the purge lines - are capable of having a different conductance).
Regarding Claim 9, when making and using the device of Franken, Franken necessarily discloses a method of controlling a pressure in a processing chamber 3 (via control of the exhaust flow in line 5), the method comprising: controlling a purge valve 12’ in fluid communication with a purge line 12 connected to an exhaust line 5 connected to the processing chamber 3 (as shown in Figure 1), the purge line 12 connected to the exhaust line 5 downstream of a check valve 11 and upstream of a throttle valve 15, the purge valve 12’ configured to control a flow of fluid through the purge line 12, wherein controlling the purge valve 12’ affects pressure within the processing chamber (col. 7, lines 24-31).
Regarding Claim 10, Franken further discloses controlling the throttle valve 15 to control the pressure within the processing chamber 3 (e.g. opening the throttle valve has the effect of reducing the pressure within the chamber 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Franken is seen as further disclosing the purge valve 12’ is a pneumatic valve (the purge valve controls the flow of gas and therefore is seen to be readable as a “pneumatic valve”; it is noted that the claim does not require the valve to be pneumatically controlled).
Regarding Claim 12, Franken further discloses measuring a pressure in one or more of the processing chamber or the exhaust line (measuring pressure within the exhaust line 5 via monitor 13 as shown in Figure 1) and controlling the purge valve 12’ in response to a pressure measurement (col. 7, lines 24-31).
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.
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 2, 3, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken et al. (US Patent 10,329,668) in view of Gu et al. (US Patent 9,314,824).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 11, Franken is seen as disclosing all of the elements of these claims as described above. Alternatively, in the event that Franken is not seen as disclosing the purge valve is a pneumatic valve (i.e. in the event that this limitation is seen to require the valve to be pneumatically actuated), Gu teaches (Figure 1) a gas flow line 130 includes a pneumatically actuated valve 132 which is electrically controlled by a solenoid (analogous to the valve 12’ of Franken which is electrically controlled via controller 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Franken such that the purge valve is a pneumatic valve as taught by Gu for the purpose of providing an alternative actuating arrangement known in the art to be suitable for controlling gas flow.
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken et al. (US Patent 10,329,668) in view of Miyazaki (US Patent 5,250,323).
Regarding Claim 13, Franken further discloses there are two or more purge lines (12 and 22), each purge line having a purge valve (12’ and 22’ respectively).
Franken does not disclose each purge line connected to the exhaust line downstream of the check valve and upstream of the throttle valve.
Miyazaki teaches a system and method for operating a chemical vapor growth apparatus and further teaches two purge lines (purge lines 11 as shown in Figure 2, coupled to the exhaust line as shown in Figure 1) coupled to an exhaust line 6 (the purge lines coupled to the exhaust line between the valves 7 and pump 8 as shown in Figure 1) such that the lines are adjacent to each other in the exhaust line (as shown in Figure 1). It is noted that each purge line includes a mass flow controller 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Franken such that a second purge line is coupled to the exhaust line adjacent to the purge line 12 in the manner taught by Miyazaki for the purpose of providing an additional connection for providing purge gas. It is noted that in the proposed modification of Franken in view of Miyazaki each purge line is connected downstream of the check valve 11 of Franken and upstream of the throttle valve 15 of Franken as these purge lines are provided adjacent to each other in the manner taught by Miyazaki (and Franken discloses the purge line is provided in the claimed location).
Regarding Claim 14, Franken in view of Miyazaki further discloses each purge line (purge line 12 of Franken and additional adjacent purge line as taught by Miyazaki as described above) connects to the exhaust line at a different distance upstream of the throttle valve 15 (in the manner taught by Miyazaki such that one purge line is more downstream than the other purge line).
Regarding Claim 16, Franken in view of Miyazaki further discloses controlling the purge valves of the two or more purge lines (a purge valve in each of the purge lines in the manner disclosed by Franken with respect to purge valve 12’) to affect a pressure within the processing chamber (in the manner disclosed by Franken with respect to valve 12’ in col. 7, lines 24-31).
Regarding Claim 17, Franken in view of Miyazaki further discloses each purge line (first and second purge lines in the manner taught by Miyazaki as described above) has a different conductance (the purge lines each have respective flow controllers as described above which inherently achieve a range of different levels of flow conductance as each flow controller moves between more open and more closed positions; therefore, because during normal operation the flow controllers move to different opening degrees relative to each other, the flow controllers - and therefore the purge lines - have a different conductance).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Komino et al. (US Patent 6,167,323) teaches a gas flow line includes a pneumatic valve 79a. Wei et al. (US Patent 11,779,949) teaches delivering fluid to an exhaust line at different locations (via nozzles 120A and 120B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
