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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour (US 2,431,676) in view of Levine (US 2,623,611).
Regarding claims 1-3, Bour discloses an acetylene fluid supply package (such as a cylinder 10, see Drawing), comprising
a pressure vessel having an interior volume (cylinder);
a porous filler in the pressure vessel (such as adsorbent, col. 1 lines 28-33);
a solvent within the porous filler, said solvent solubilizing with acetylene absorbed within the improved solvent (such as triethyl phosphate, see claim 9 of Bour), wherein the fill pressure of the acetylene fluid supply package is in the range of about 200-300psig (see col. 1 lines 44-51 which discloses that the pressure is between 10-30 atmospheres).
Bour teaches loading triethyl phosphate into the cylinder but does not explicitly teach how much TEP is placed in the cylinder per liter. However, as is known in the art, the amount of acetylene that can be dissolved by triethyl phosphate is known and is associated with a certain volume of acetylene (see Table 1 is Levine which discloses the volume of acetylene that will dissolve in a single volume of triethyl phosphate). It is also known that a cylinder’s capacity for acetylene will be adjustable based on the amount of triethyl phosphate that is placed in the cylinder (more triethyl phosphate in the cylinder, the more acetylene that can be dissolved, the less triethyl phosphate in the cylinder, the less acetylene that can be dissolved). As such, adjusting the amount of triethyl phosphate to the claimed amount would have been an obvious modification by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to achieve the desired amount of acetylene within the cylinder (which may or may not be less than the maximum capacity of the cylinder). One of ordinary skill would have placed the desired amount of triethyl phosphate in the cylinder to achieve the desired amount of acetylene in the cylinder. A higher desired amount would lend itself for more triethyl phosphate (up to the volume capacity of the cylinder) relative to the cylinder size while a lower desired amount of acetylene would lend itself to a lower amount of triethyl phosphate relative to the cylinder size.
Furthermore, while Bour does not explicitly teach the claimed pressure, it does teach an overlapping range (10-30 atmospheres, col. 1 lines 44-49). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations regarding the temperature and pressure of the cylinder are directed to a manner of operating the claimed apparatus. Bour discloses an apparatus that CAN be operated in this way. Regarding limitations recited in claim 4 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour (US 2,431,676) in view of Jha (US 2010/0154630) and Levine (US 2,623,611).
Regarding claims 5, 8 and 9, Bour discloses an acetylene fluid supply package (such as a cylinder 10, see Drawing), comprising
a pressure vessel having an interior volume (cylinder);
a porous filler in the pressure vessel (such as adsorbent, col. 1 lines 28-33);
a solvent within the porous filler, said solvent solubilizing with acetylene absorbed within the improved solvent (such as triethyl phosphate, see claim 9 of Bour), wherein the fill pressure of the acetylene fluid supply package is in the range of about 200-300psig (see col. 1 lines 44-51 which discloses that the pressure is between 10-30 atmospheres).
wherein the at least one acetylene fluid supply package is configured to allow a discharge of the acetylene fluid under dispensing conditions (see col. 2 lines 24-29 which discloses discharging of the cylinder).
Bour teaches a cylinder for the acetylene but does not teach a tool that utilizes the acetylene attached to the cylinder.
Jha also disclose an acetylene cylinder (see abstract).
Jha teaches attaching the acetylene cylinder to a process tool that is utilized for manufacturing semiconductors (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 7).
As such, it would have been obvious to connect the semiconductor process tool of Jha to the cylinder of Bour in order to provide a means to transport acetylene into the semiconductor manufacturing tools.
Furthermore, Bour teaches loading triethyl phosphate into the cylinder but does not explicitly teach how much TEP is placed in the cylinder per liter. However, as is known in the art, the amount of acetylene that can be dissolved by triethyl phosphate is known and is associated with a certain volume of acetylene (see Table 1 is Levine which discloses the volume of acetylene that will dissolve in a single volume of triethyl phosphate). It is also known that a cylinder’s capacity for acetylene will be adjustable based on the amount of triethyl phosphate that is placed in the cylinder (more triethyl phosphate in the cylinder, the more acetylene will be dissolved). As such, adjusting the amount of triethyl phosphate to the claimed amount would have been an obvious modification by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to achieve the desired amount of acetylene within the cylinder. One of ordinary skill would have placed the desired amount of triethyl phosphate in the cylinder to achieve the desired amount of acetylene in the cylinder. A higher desired amount would lend itself for more triethyl phosphate (up to the volume capacity of the cylinder) while a lower desired amount of acetylene would lend itself to a lower amount of triethyl phosphate.
Furthermore, while Bour does not explicitly teach the claimed pressure, it does teach an overlapping range (10-30 atmospheres, col. 1 lines 44-49). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Bour, as modified above, further discloses the process tool comprises a chemical vapor deposition tool (such as the semiconductor manufacturing system).
Regarding claim 7, Bour, as modified by Jha, further discloses at least one at least one acetylene fluid supply package is contained in a gas cabinet (see Jha paragraph 31 which discloses a cylinder cabinet associated with gas sensors and controllers).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2,623,611 – Discloses the solubility of acetylene in triethyl phosphate but is silent regarding a pressure vessel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, Applicant argues that using the solubility value of Levine, one would end up with 0.908 kg TEP per liter of cylinder volume which is more than the claimed 0.64 kg of TEP per liter of cylinder volume. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. As best understood, it appears that Applicant is arguing that the cylinder volume of Bour is loaded with the loading amount of Levine. This is not what the rejection about states. Levine was cited as merely disclosing that it was known in the art that TEP has a certain capacity for acetylene at a given pressure and temperature. The amount of TEP per liter of cylinder volume is merely a function of how much acetylene is desired to be stored in the cylinder. There is, of course, a maximum amount of acetylene/TEP that can be placed in a cylinder before the volume increases to a size that is beyond the volume of the cylinder, but there is also an amount of TEP that would be utilized in a scenario where the cylinder tank is not to be completely filled to its maximum capacity with acetylene. Such a scenario would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the amount of TEP in the tank to accommodate the less than maximum amount of acetylene to be placed in the tank. For example, a tank may only need to be filled to 10% or 20% of its maximum capacity. In this scenario, one of ordinary skill would decrease the amount of TEP that is necessary to absorb the acetylene. Since Applicant has not claimed a lower limit to the claimed range, the amount of TEP per liter of tank volume is merely a function of how much acetylene is desired in the tank and arriving at the claimed range would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is also noted that the claimed range is very broad and does not disclose a lower limit. This means that the claim, in its current form, is stating that a vessel with no TEP inside is within the scope of the claim.
Furthermore, it is also noted that the structure of the claimed invention is known…. A pressure cylinder with a porous adsorbent that is structured to hold TEP and acetylene. Absent unexpected results, finding the amount of TEP per liter of cylinder volume appears to be a mere optimization variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify to achieve a desirable product/loading. From the instant disclosure, there does not appear to be anything unexpected about the claimed range. Applicant states that the range is critical to prevent over-pressurization while allowing for high acetylene capacity. These features do not rise to the level of being unexpected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected an upper value of TEP that is suitable without overloading or over pressuring the vessel.
Relevant Prior Art
Wilrich (see attached PTO-892) – This document teaches that solvent content and acetylene content were selected parameters for a porous-mass acetylene cylinder design and that the permissible solvent content and maximum acetylene content were specified as part of the cylinder approval. Wilrich further discloses an acetylene-cylinder solvent loading of 0.300 kg/L. Such a document provides further evidence that solvent loading was known metric and one that was routinely optimized to achieve desired effects.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights