DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2022/0250908, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 February 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 23 September 2025 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 20 have been amended. As such, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21 remain pending, claims 4-6 and 13 remain withdrawn, and claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 14-21 are under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to claim 20 have overcome the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [NFOA, ¶6-10]. The 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues in accordance with the suggested amendment.
The rejection of claims 7-11 and 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the NFOA is maintained herein.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the NFOA has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 1. New grounds of rejection are set forth below, necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a filling step in which a sulfur dioxide mixture obtained in the dehydration step is filled in [[a]]the filling container to have a gas phase…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al. (WO 2017/221594; “Tanimoto”) in view of Benesch et al. (US 2005/0271544; “Benesch”) and Kensho et al. (JP 2012-066962; “Kensho”) (all references previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Tanimoto discloses a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and water (H2O), and a container filled with said mixture [p. 1 ln. 10-12; p. 2 ln 63-67]. In general, Tanimoto is directed to the use of hydrogen sulfide as a process gas in the semiconductor manufacturing industry (i.e. microfabrication), or in the production of various chemicals and medicines, wherein high-purity hydrogen sulfide is required. Tanimoto recognizes that trace amounts of moisture present in the container reduce the quality of the hydrogen sulfide gas upon removal – as hydrogen sulfide gas is removed, moisture evaporates less than the hydrogen sulfide and becomes more-concentrated in the container over time, resulting in increasing concentration of said moisture in the hydrogen sulfide gas phase, thereby reducing the purity thereof and resulting in corrosion of equipment surfaces, e.g. metals by interaction with hydrosulfuric acid, i.e. aqueous hydrogen sulfide [p. 1 ln. 13–p. 2 ln. 57, p. 3 ln. 111-114, p. 7 ln. 271-283].
The mixture of Tanimoto is filled into the container such that at least a portion of the mixture is liquid, and the moisture concentration in the gas phase is equal to or greater than 0.001 mole ppm and less than 75 mole ppm; further, the ratio of V/G0 (internal volume, L of container relative to initial filling amount, kg) is 1.47 L/kg to 2.10 L/kg; furthermore, the water concentration of the liquid phase (moisture concentration of the liquid phase, as claimed) is equal to or greater than 0.01 mole ppm and less than 15 mole ppm [p. 2 ln. 68-77, p. 3 ln. 96-110, 120-138]. The container is suitably stainless steel, since corrosion is effectively prevented by the reduced amount of moisture – the use of expensive, corrosion-resistant alloys such as Hastelloy™ is eliminated [p. 3 ln. 88-89, 106-108, p. 4 ln. 152-162, 171-181].
Tanimoto teaches hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as the process gas in the mixture, and therefore is silent regarding the mixture containing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and water.
Benesch teaches that it is desirable to reduce the moisture levels in sulfur-containing process gases (“acid gases”), especially hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide, and sulfur dioxide (SO2), to increase the shelf-life during storage thereof in metal containers [Abstract; 0002-0003, 0013-0018, 0048, 0062-0065, 0068; claims 2, 11].
Kensho teaches that it is desirable to reduce moisture concentration in high-purity sulfur dioxide gas typically utilized in the food, pharmaceutical, and industrial sectors, such as to a level of about 0.00011 ppm (weight) [0001-0003, 0049, 0052].
Each of Tanimoto, Benesch, and Kensho constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – high-purity sulfur-containing gases and the reduction of the moisture content therein. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
In view of the combined teachings of Tanimoto, Benesch, and Kensho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container/mixture of Tanimoto by substituting sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the mixture with water (i.e. filling sulfur dioxide/water mixture into the stainless steel container as specified by the disclosure of Tanimoto), as sulfur dioxide would have been readily-recognized as a sulfur-containing “acid gas” utilized in the semiconductor manufacturing industry (processes gases for, e.g. microfabrication), akin to hydrogen sulfide, which requires high purity and low levels of moisture content over the storage duration, and/or in order to allow for storage of said sulfur dioxide in a common stainless steel container to thereby reduce cost(s) associated with/relative to alternative storage materials. See MPEP 2144.04(VII); MPEP 2144.06(II); and MPEP 2144.07.
The aforesaid modification would have resulted in the mixture of Tanimoto (hereinafter interchangeably “modified Tanimoto”) containing sulfur dioxide (in place of hydrogen sulfide) and water (i.e. moisture), said mixture filled into the container – formed from stainless steel such as, e.g. SUS316, SUS316L, SUS304, or SUS304L, and suitably exhibiting a volume of from 1 L to 2,000 L – such that at least a portion of the mixture is liquid, and the moisture concentration in the gas phase equal to or greater than 0.001 mole ppm and less than 75 mole ppm. Further, the ratio of V/G0 (L/kg) would have been 1.47 to 2.10, and the water (moisture) concentration of the liquid phase would have been equal to or greater than 0.01 mole ppm and less than 15 mole ppm.
The sulfur dioxide/water mixture filled into the container, in accordance with modified Tanimoto set forth above, reads on the mixture defined by the limitations of claim 7 – the range of 0.001 mole ppm to less than 75 mole ppm (moisture in gas phase) overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 0.005 mole ppm to less than 5,000 mole ppm (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The range of 0.01 mole ppm to less than 15 mole ppm (water in liquid phase) borders the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range 0.01 mole ppm to 1.0 mole ppm, thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the filling container defined by claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-11, the rejection of claim 7 above reads on each filling container defined by the respective limitations of claims 9-11. That is, the ratio of V/G0 of 1.47 to 2.10 (L/kg) renders the claimed range 0.80 to 2.00 prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)); the volume of the filling container would have been from 1 L to 2,000 L (identical to claimed range); and at least a portion of the filling container would have been formed from stainless steel.
Regarding claims 14-19, the rejection of claim 8 above having incorporated therein the rejection of claim 7 reads on each filling container defined by the respective limitations of claims 14-19. Additionally, see rejection of claims 9-11 above.
Regarding claim 20, in view of the rejection of claim 7 above, there is a strong and reasonable expectation that the filled container of modified Tanimoto would have necessarily exhibited the claimed corrosion rate of 0.44 to 0.93 µm/y, absent factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 (IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
That is, given that the sulfur dioxide/water mixture of modified Tanimoto would have been identical or substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed mixture in terms of: (i) moisture concentration of the gas phase (as low as 0.001 mole ppm); (ii) moisture concentration of the liquid phase (as low as 0.01 mole ppm); (iii) method of filling the container to obtain the aforesaid moisture concentrations, including the (iv) dehydration step to remove moisture from the sulfur dioxide/water gaseous mixture through contact with a moisture adsorbent, prior to filling the container, to less than 10 mole ppm [Tanimoto, p. 2 ln. 78-82, p.8 ln 348-354], and (v) the ratio of V/G0 (internal volume of container to initial filling amount of mixture); (vi) the container being formed from, at least in part, stainless steel; (vii) the container exhibiting a volume of 1 L to 2,000 L; and (viii) Tanimoto explicitly disclosing exemplary embodiments where corrosion rates of lower than 0.44 µm/y were achieved in the case of hydrogen sulfide/water mixtures [Tanimoto, p. 7 Example 3, p. 8 Example 4] – there is a strong and reasonable expectation that the filled container of modified Tanimoto would have necessarily exhibited a corrosion rate of at 0.44 to 0.93 µm/y, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, which is directly dependent upon claim 9 and ultimately dependent upon claim 7, in the alternative to the rejection of claim 7 above which rely upon the disclosure of Tanimoto for the specific V/G0 ratio of 1.47 to 2.10 (L/kg), it is noted that Tanimoto states: “In other words, the ratio V/G0 of the internal volume V (unit: L) of the filling container to the initial filling amount G0 (unit: kg) of the hydrogen sulfide mixture into the filling container is not particularly limited, but may be greater than or equal to 1.47 and less than or equal to 2.10” [Tanimoto, p. 5]. That is, the broad disclosure of Tanimoto is reasonably interpreted as encompassing or teaching nonpreferred embodiments of the filled container, i.e. where the ratio of V/G0 is not limited to the range of 1.47 to 2.10 but may be outside of said range. In other words, Tanimoto reasonably teaches that the range of 1.47 to 2.10 is not a requisite, but rather a preference. See MPEP 2123(I) and 2123(II) – a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments; preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.
In view of the disclosure/teachings of Tanimoto set forth/cited above, and in view of the aforecited MPEP sections, Tanimoto teaches that the V/G0 ratio of 1.47 to 2.10 corresponds to the container – having a predetermined volume – being filled with the mixture in an amount of 70% to 100% of the upper limit mass value (relative to said predetermined volume) in accordance with the High Pressure Gas Safety Act, Article 48, Paragraph 4 [Tanimoto, p. 5]. The aforesaid Safety Act is identical to that which is indicated in the spec [0027]. Furthermore, Tanimoto teaches that the V/G0 ratio provides for a balance between relatively high fill level of the container (while preventing overfilling to increase safety) and [high] efficiency in transporting said container [Tanimoto, p. 5]. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
In view of the totality of the foregoing, and given that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that sulfur dioxide (64.07 g/mol) is about 1.9x the molar mass of hydrogen sulfide (34.08 g/mol), one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that (1) the upper limit mass value of the sulfur dioxide/water mixture (relative to a container of predetermined volume) may differ from that of a hydrogen sulfide/water mixture; (2) that the upper limit mass value of the sulfur dioxide/water mixture (modified Tanimoto) may be readily calculated in the same manner relative to the calculation for the hydrogen sulfide/water mixture in accordance with the aforesaid Safety Act; and that (3) it may be desired to fill the sulfur dioxide/water mixture (or any mixture) into the container (or any container) to an amount less than 70% of the upper limit mass value, such as “half-full” or less relative to said upper limit mass value for a predetermined volume (e.g. 60%, 55%, 50%, 45%, 40%, 30%, 20%) in order to, e.g. reduce the weight of the filled containers for transportation based on predetermined customer or locational requirements – of vice versa.
In light of the analysis set forth above based on the aforecited MPEP sections and cited disclosure of Tanimoto (including noted (1)-(3) in the preceding paragraph), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container filled with the sulfur dioxide/water mixture of “modified Tanimoto” set forth above in the rejection of claim 7 by having increased or decreased the V/G0 ratio to values greater than 2.10 and less than 1.47 (i.e. outside the bounds of the preferred range of Tanimoto, of which is calculated based on hydrogen sulfide), in order to (or corresponding to) highly-fill(ed)/overfill(ed), or underfill(ed), the container with the sulfur dioxide/water mixture to balance or optimize one or more of: safety, desired/predetermined amount of mixture provided in the tank, and transportation efficiency based on (at least) weight.
The aforesaid modification (routine optimization) would have necessarily been made in view of the High Pressure Gas Safety Act, Article 48, Paragraph 4 as disclosed by Tanimoto, and would have necessarily resulted in the V/G0 ratio of the sulfur dioxide/water mixture filled into the container of modified Tanimoto (having been increased/decreased) being less than 1.47, e.g. 1.10 or less, thereby encompassing and rendering prima facie obvious the claimed V/G0 range of 0.80 to 1.10. As cited above, Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2123(I) and (II), and MPEP 2144.05(I) and (II); further, see MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Benesch and Kensho.
Regarding claim 1, Tanimoto discloses a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and water (H2O), and a container filled with said mixture [p. 1 ln. 10-12; p. 2 ln 63-67]. In general, Tanimoto is directed to the use of hydrogen sulfide as a process gas in the semiconductor manufacturing industry (i.e. microfabrication), or in the production of various chemicals and medicines, wherein high-purity hydrogen sulfide is required. Tanimoto recognizes that trace amounts of moisture present in the container reduce the quality of the hydrogen sulfide gas upon removal – as hydrogen sulfide gas is removed, moisture evaporates less than the hydrogen sulfide and becomes more-concentrated in the container over time, resulting in increasing concentration of said moisture in the hydrogen sulfide gas phase, thereby reducing the purity thereof and resulting in corrosion of equipment surfaces, e.g. metals by interaction with hydrosulfuric acid, i.e. aqueous hydrogen sulfide [p. 1 ln. 13–p. 2 ln. 57, p. 3 ln. 111-114, p. 7 ln. 271-283].
The mixture of Tanimoto is filled into the container such that at least a portion of the mixture is liquid, and the moisture concentration in the gas phase is equal to or greater than 0.001 mole ppm and less than 75 mole ppm; further, the ratio of V/G0 (internal volume, L of container relative to initial filling amount, kg) is 1.47 L/kg to 2.10 L/kg; furthermore, the water concentration of the liquid phase (moisture concentration of the liquid phase, as claimed) is equal to or greater than 0.01 mole ppm and less than 15 mole ppm [p. 2 ln. 68-77, p. 3 ln. 96-110, 120-138]. The container is suitably stainless steel, since corrosion is effectively prevented by the reduced amount of moisture – the use of expensive, corrosion-resistant alloys such as Hastelloy™ is eliminated [p. 3 ln. 88-89, 106-108, p. 4 ln. 152-162, 171-181].
Tanimoto discloses that the mixture is produced by (dehydration step) contacting the hydrogen sulfide mixture having a moisture concentration of 15 mole ppm or more with a moisture adsorbent to reduce the moisture concentration to less than 10 mole ppm; followed by a filling step of filling the container with the mixture obtained in the dehydration step so that at least a portion of the mixture becomes liquid and the moisture concentration of the liquid phase at the time of filling is 0.01 mole ppm or more and 15 mole ppm or less at the time of filling [Tanimoto, p. 2 ln. 78–p. 3 ln. 95].
Tanimoto teaches hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as the process gas in the mixture, and therefore is silent regarding the mixture containing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and water.
Benesch teaches that it is desirable to reduce the moisture levels in sulfur-containing process gases (“acid gases”), especially hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide, and sulfur dioxide (SO2), to increase the shelf-life during storage thereof in metal containers [Abstract; 0002-0003, 0013-0018, 0048, 0062-0065, 0068; claims 2, 11].
Kensho teaches that it is desirable to reduce moisture concentration in high-purity sulfur dioxide gas typically utilized in the food, pharmaceutical, and industrial sectors, such as to a level of about 0.00011 ppm (weight) [0001-0003, 0049, 0052].
Each of Tanimoto, Benesch, and Kensho constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – high-purity sulfur-containing gases and the reduction of the moisture content therein. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
In view of the combined teachings of Tanimoto, Benesch, and Kensho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container/mixture of Tanimoto by substituting sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the mixture with water (i.e. filling sulfur dioxide/water mixture into the stainless steel container as specified by the disclosure of Tanimoto), as sulfur dioxide would have been readily-recognized as a sulfur-containing “acid gas” utilized in the semiconductor manufacturing industry (processes gases for, e.g. microfabrication), akin to hydrogen sulfide, which requires high purity and low levels of moisture content over the storage duration, and/or in order to allow for storage of said sulfur dioxide in a common stainless steel container to thereby reduce cost(s) associated with/relative to alternative storage materials. See MPEP 2144.04(VII); MPEP 2144.06(II); and MPEP 2144.07.
The aforesaid modification would have resulted in the mixture of Tanimoto (hereinafter interchangeably “modified Tanimoto”) containing sulfur dioxide (in place of hydrogen sulfide) and water (i.e. moisture), said mixture filled into the container – formed from stainless steel such as, e.g. SUS316, SUS316L, SUS304, or SUS304L, and suitably exhibiting a volume of from 1 L to 2,000 L – in accordance with the method steps above (see ¶33), such that at least a portion of the mixture is liquid, and the moisture concentration in the gas phase equal to or greater than 0.001 mole ppm and less than 75 mole ppm. Further, the ratio of V/G0 (L/kg) would have been 1.47 to 2.10, and the water (moisture) concentration of the liquid phase would have been equal to or greater than 0.01 mole ppm and less than 15 mole ppm.
The sulfur dioxide/water mixture filled into the container, in accordance with modified Tanimoto set forth above, reads on the mixture defined by the limitations of claim 1 – the range of 0.001 mole ppm to less than 75 mole ppm (moisture in gas phase) overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 0.005 mole ppm to less than 50 mole ppm (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The range of 0.01 mole ppm to less than 15 mole ppm (water in liquid phase) borders the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range 0.01 mole ppm to 1.0 mole ppm, thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Further, as indicated (see ¶39) and set forth (see ¶33) above, the sulfur dioxide/water mixture of modified Tanimoto would have been filled into the container in accordance with the method disclosed by Tanimoto (dehydration step with moisture adsorbent, followed by filling step), of which reads on the product-by-process limitations defined by claim 1 (see MPEP 2113(I) and (II)).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the mixture defined by claim 3 – the ratio V/G0 (L/kg) of modified Tanimoto would have been from 1.47 to 2.10, of which overlaps with and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 0.80 to 2.00 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 8-9 of the Remarks filed 23 February 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but not found persuasive.
Applicant acknowledges that Tanimoto discloses reduction of moisture in H2S, the method therefor comprising a dehydration step where the mixture contacts a moisture adsorbent, followed by a filling step. Applicant then asserts that neither of Tanimoto and Benesch disclose a method (as set forth in the product-by-process claim limitations) including dehydrating a sulfur dioxide mixture as claimed, and that it would be “quite difficult” to attain the sulfur dioxide mixture of claim 1.
However, it appears that Applicant is arguing against the references individually and has not considered the grounds of rejection establishing the prima facie case of obviousness based on the combined teachings of the prior art (see MPEP 2145(IV)). Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that the method of attaining the sulfur dioxide mixture as defined in claim 1 would be “quite difficult” constitutes merely a conclusory statement/argument of counsel which is not sufficient to take the place of evidence which is necessary to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2145, MPEP 2145(I)). For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights