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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "58," “86” and "87" have been used to designate the valve body, cylindrical through–hole and the valve plate (Figs. 2B, 3B and 5). Also, reference characters "88" and “88A” have been used to designate shaft and the upper shaft (Fig. 4A and 4B). According to Applicant’s specification, reference character 88 includes both the upper and lower shafts. Therefore, the figures should reflect this.
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. 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 1–19 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, lines 3–4: the limitation “heated to a higher temperature than the pipe” is a method for use of an apparatus within an apparatus claim. This language is indefinite because it is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as to when infringement occurs. Infringement could occur when “one creates a system that allows the user” to heat the valve or “when the user actually uses the” heaters. MPEP §2173.05(p). Claims 2 and 18 have the same issue.
Claim 1, Line 1 recites “valve body rotatably supported” and Claim 5 discusses “the valve plate.” A valve plate is located within a valve body. Thus, it is unclear how the valve body is “rotatably supported.” Please note claims 2–3, 5. 9–10, 12, 15–16, 18 and 20 have the same issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1–8 and 12–19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (USPN 5413139).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 1, Kusumoto discloses a flow rate controller comprising: a valve body (1) rotatably supported about an axis intersecting with a direction of a gas flow in a flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) for a process gas (G) (Col. 2, Lines 1–10) at least partially formed by a pipe (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1), heated to a higher temperature than the pipe (Col. 3, Lines 6–9, where the valve has heaters and thus has a higher temperature than the pipe), a driver (4) configured to rotate the valve body (1a) to change an opening degree of the flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) but does not disclose that an emissivity of at least a portion of a surface of the valve body is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use materials for a surface of the valve body that is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe with the invention of Kusumoto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. Emissivity is a function of a material. Here, in Kusumoto no information is given regarding the material for valve body or the inner surface of the pipe. However, generally speaking, directly connected valves and piping are constructed of the same material. Therefore, surface of the valve body that is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe.
Regarding Claim 2, Kusumoto teaches a valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) configured to rotatably support the valve body (1a), wherein the valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) is heated to a higher temperature than the valve body (1a).
Regarding Claim 3, Kusumoto teaches the valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) constitutes at least a portion of the flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1), and wherein an emissivity of at least a portion of an inner surface of the valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) is set to be equal to or higher than an emissivity of the surface of the valve body (1a). The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 4, Kusumoto teaches the valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) constitutes at least a portion of the flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1), and wherein an emissivity of at least a portion of an inner surface of the valve box (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) is set to be equal to or higher than an emissivity of a surface of the pipe (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1). The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 5, Kusumoto teaches the valve body (1a) includes a shaft (3) rotated by the driver (4) and a valve plate (2) provided at the shaft (3), and wherein an emissivity of at least a portion of a surface of the valve plate (2) is set to be equal to or lower than the emissivity of the inner surface of the pipe (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1). The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 6, Kusumoto teaches the valve plate (2) includes a first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream), a second surface (where the second surface is the portion of the valve plate facing downstream) located on a rear side of the first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream), and a third surface (where the third surface is the width of the valve plate) with a smaller area than the first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream) and the second surface (where the second surface is the portion of the valve plate facing downstream), and wherein an emissivity of at least a portion of the first surface and at least a portion of the second surface is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of the third surface. The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 7, Kusumoto teaches the valve plate (2) includes a first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream), a second surface (where the second surface is the portion of the valve plate facing downstream) located on a rear side of the first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream), and a third surface (where the third surface is the width of the valve plate) with a smaller area than the first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream) and the second surface (where the second surface is the portion of the valve plate facing downstream), and wherein an emissivity of the entire first surface (where the first surface is the portion of the valve plate facing upstream) and the entire second surface (where the second surface is the portion of the valve plate facing downstream) is set to be equal to or lower than the emissivity of the inner surface of the pipe. The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 8, Kusumoto teaches an emissivity of at least a portion of the third surface (where the third surface is the width of the valve plate) is set to be equal to or lower than the emissivity of the inner surface of the pipe. The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim 12, Kusumoto does not teach a high transmittance film capable of transmitting electromagnetic waves is formed on at least a portion of the surface of the valve body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use film/coating materials on the surface of a valve body such that the valve will have a long working life with the invention of Kusumoto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. In determining what kind of film/coatings are required for a valve body, the environment, valve body material and other considerations must be made. If the valve body of Kusumoto exists in an environment in which a high transmittance film capable of transmitting electromagnetic waves is required, a person of ordinary skill in the art would utilize this type of material. Therefore, Kusumoto can teach a high transmittance film capable of transmitting electromagnetic waves is formed on at least a portion of the surface of the valve body (2).
Regarding Claim 13, Kusumoto does not teach the high transmittance film contain[ing] fluorine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use film/coating materials on the surface of a valve body such that the valve will have a long working life with the invention of Kusumoto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. In determining what kind of film/coatings are required for a valve body, the environment, valve body material and other considerations must be made. If the valve body of Kusumoto exists in an environment in which a high transmittance film contain[ing] fluorine is required, a person of ordinary skill in the art would utilize this type of material. Therefore, Kusumoto can teach a high transmittance film contain[ing] fluorine.
Regarding Claim 14, Kusumoto does not teach the high transmittance film include[ing] an amorphous film of silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use film/coating materials on the surface of a valve body such that the valve will have a long working life with the invention of Kusumoto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. In determining what kind of film/coatings are required for a valve body, the environment, valve body material and other considerations must be made. If the valve body of Kusumoto exists in an environment in which a high transmittance film include[ing] an amorphous film of silicon oxide is required, a person of ordinary skill in the art would utilize this type of material. Therefore, Kusumoto can teach a high transmittance film include[ing] an amorphous film of silicon oxide.
Regarding Claim(s) 15–17, Applicant includes a number of emissivity values, 0.05 or more and 0.25 or less, 0.08 or more and 0.20 or less and 0.09 or more and 0.15 or less. The above discussion regarding emissivity applies here.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1, with the exception of “[a] substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber in which a substrate is processed by a process gas (G); a pipe connected to the process chamber and constituting at least a portion of a flow path for the process gas (G). . . and a valve heater configured to heat at least a portion of the flow rate controller.”
Kusumoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (C) in which a substrate is processed by a process gas (G) (Fig. 1); a pipe (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) connected to the process chamber (C) and constituting at least a portion of a flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) for the process gas (G). Kusumoto also teaches a valve heater (6) configured to heat at least a portion of the flow rate controller (2, valve plate).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Col. 1, Lines 5–10), comprising: (a) processing a substrate in a process chamber (C) by the process gas (G) (Col. 1, Lines 11–18); and (b) controlling the opening degree of the flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) for the process gas (G) by the flow rate controller of Claim 1 (Col. 1, Lines 11–18).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (USPN 5413139) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 118186560 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Kusumoto does not teach at least a portion of the surface of the valve body [being] electrolytically polished.
Zhang teaches at least a portion of the surface of the valve body [being] electrolytically polished in order to resist corrosion (Para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve film material of Kusumoto with an electrolytically polishing as taught by Zhang in order to prevent valve degradation. Thus, extending the life of the valve.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (USPN 5413139) in view of Cheng et al. (CN 108085648 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Kusumoto does not teach a film with metallic luster is formed on at least a portion of the surface the valve body.
Cheng teaches a film with metallic luster is formed on at least a portion of the surface the valve body (Para. 11) in order to resist corrosion (Para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve film material of Kusumoto with a film with metallic luster as taught by Cheng in order to prevent valve degradation. Thus, extending the life of the valve.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (USPN 5413139) in view of Cheng et al. (CN 108085648 A), in further view of Sakurai et al. (CN109071819A).
Regarding Claim 11, Kusumoto-–Cheng combination does not teach the film with metallic luster contains fluorine.
Sakurai teaches including fluorine in a composition (Para. 144) in order to provide a hydrophobic layer (Para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve film material of Kusumoto-–Cheng with a film with metallic luster that contains fluorine as taught by Sakurai in order to prevent droplets from forming on the valve which decreases corrosion. Thus, extending the life of the valve.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US PGPub 20220122858 A1) in view of Kusumoto et al. (USPN 5413139).
Regarding Claim 20, Murata discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program (Para. 69) that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus (1) to perform a process comprising: (a) processing a substrate (2) in a process chamber (11) by a process gas (G) (Paras. 27 and 31); but does not disclose a flow rate controller.
Kusumoto- teaches a flow rate controller (1) in order to regulate flow of the gas into the chamber (Col. 1, Lines 5–9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Murata with a flow rate controller as taught by Kusumoto- in order to regulate gas flow.
Per the Murata–Kusumoto- combination Kusumoto-’s flow rate controller is located in Murata’s exhaust piping.
The Murata–Kusumoto- combination teaches (b) controlling, by a flow rate controller (Kusumoto- 1), an opening degree (Kusumoto- Col. 2, Lines 1–10) of a flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) for the process gas (Kusumoto- G) at least partially formed by a pipe (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) connected to the process chamber (Kusumoto C), wherein the flow rate controller (Kusumoto- 1) includes a valve body (Kusumoto- 2) rotatably supported about an axis intersecting with a direction of a gas flow in the flow path (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 1) for the process gas (Kusumoto- G),
heated to a higher temperature than the pipe (Kusumoto Col. 3, Lines 6–9, where the valve has heaters and thus has a higher temperature than the pipe), and configured such that an emissivity of at least a portion of a surface of the valve body (Kusumoto- 2) is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe, and a driver (Kusumoto- 4) configured to rotate the valve body (Kusumoto- 2) to change the opening degree of the flow path (Kusumoto- Col. 2, Lines 1–10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use materials for a surface of the valve body that is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe with the invention of Kusumoto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. Emissivity is a function of a material. Here, in Kusumoto no information is given regarding the material for valve body or the inner surface of the pipe. However, generally speaking, directly connected valves and piping are constructed of the same material. Therefore, surface of the valve body that is set to be equal to or lower than an emissivity of an inner surface of the pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sparks (USPN 5531245) discloses a heater on a valve housing. Tsuchimoto et al. (USPN 4697615) discloses the emissivity of a valve housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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 at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights