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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 depends from canceled claim 3.
For examination purposes claim 5 will be considered as depending from claim 1.
Claim 11 depends from canceled claim 10.
For examination purposes claim 10 will be considered as depending from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the on-line analysis tool is configured to, in operation, receive [?] conduct one or more types of on-line tests on the sample.
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 9 and 26 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 9 recites “the plurality of workpiece processing tool” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since claim 1 from which claim 9 depends recites “at least one workpiece processing tool”
Claim 26 recites “the respective sample” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H08153685 to Harada et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0202588 to Gold et al.
Harada et al. teaches a special material gas supply system for semiconductor manufacturing.
As shown in Fig. 1, gas cylinders 1, 2, and 3 housed in cylinder container 4 (“gas cabinet”) are connected by a pipe line 6 (“analysis fluid pathway”) to gas monitor 9 (“on-line analysis tool”) which monitors “gas elements, concentration, flow rate, etc.” (Abstract). Pipe line 10 (“processing fluid pathway) connects to semiconductor manufacturing device 14 (“workpiece processing tool”).
The cylinder container 4 of Harada et al. includes a gas container reception structure, if only a base on which the gas cylinders rest.
Harada et al. does not teach a switch box; and an on-line analysis tool that is in fluid communication with the switch box; and an analysis fluid pathway that extends from the gas container reception structure to the switch box, wherein the gas container reception structure is in fluid communication with the switch box through the analysis fluid pathway.
Gold et al. teaches an apparatus that supplies multiple gases to a semiconductor processing chamber, which apparatus includes a gas manifold 134 that “includes a plurality of valves….which enable any combination of gas sources to be coupled to the processing chamber 114.” [0022]
The gas manifold of Gold et al. is interpreted as being a switch box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. to include a gas manifold (“switch box”) as taught by Gold et al. to selectively supply selected gases to the monitor 9 for purposes of verifying the concentration and purity of each gas for purposes of semiconductor fabrication.
As to the claimed limitation of plurality of gas cylinders in a corresponding gas cabinet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. to include a plurality of gas cabinets for each of the gas cylinders and a plurality of analysis fluid pathways, each one of the analysis fluid pathways extending from one of the plurality of gas container reception structures to a gas manifold (“switch box”) as taught by Gold et al. to selectively supply selected gases to the monitor 9 for purposes of verifying the concentration and purity of each gas for purposes of semiconductor fabrication. Note, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2144.04(VI)B))
As to the claimed limitation that the switch box couples the gas cylinders to the on-line analysis tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to couple each gas cylinder though the switch box of Harada et al. to the monitor 9 to verify the gas is suitable before entering the workpiece processing tool of Harada et al.
The control device 15 of Harada et al. renders obvious the claimed on-line data system in regards to determining a quality of the sample analyzed by the monitor 9.
The claimed use of a plurality of fluid pathways extending from a corresponding gas container reception structure to the at least one workpiece processing tool, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for purposes of keeping gases separate from one another and prevent contamination. Again as noted above, that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites each one of the plurality of gas container reception structures is in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of workpiece processing tools.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. so that each of the plurality of gas container reception structures is in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of workpiece processing tools for conducting the same or different semiconductor processes.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the switch box is configured, in operation, open and close the plurality of analysis fluid pathways.
As noted above, Gold et al. teaches a gas manifold 134 that “includes a plurality of valves….which enable any combination of gas sources to be coupled to the processing chamber 114.” [0022]
The gas manifold of Gold et al. is interpreted as being a switch box.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
IV. Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites a plurality of first valves along the plurality of analysis fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of first valves have an opened position and a closed position, the first valves are configured to, in operation, control a flow of the sample through a corresponding analysis fluid pathway from a corresponding gas container reception structure to the on-line analysis system; and a plurality of second valves along the plurality of processing fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of second
Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. does not teach a plurality of first valves along the plurality of analysis fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of first valves have an opened position and a closed position, the first valves are configured to, in operation, control a flow of the sample through a corresponding analysis fluid pathway from a corresponding gas container reception structure to the on-line analysis system; and a plurality of second valves along the plurality of processing fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of second valves having an opened position and a closed position, the second valves are configured to, in operation, control a flow of fluid through the plurality of processing fluid pathways from the gas container reception structure to the workpiece processing tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. to include a plurality of first valves along the plurality of analysis fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of first valves have an opened position and a closed position, the first valves are configured to, in operation, control a flow of the sample through a corresponding analysis fluid pathway from a corresponding gas container reception structure to the on-line analysis system and a plurality of second valves along the plurality of processing fluid pathways, each one of the plurality of second valves having an opened position and a closed position, the second valves are configured to, in operation, control a flow of fluid through the plurality of processing fluid pathways from the gas container reception structure to the workpiece processing tool, for purposes of controlling and stopping the fluid flow in the analysis fluid pathways and the processing fluid pathways when necessary and when changing out the monitor 9 or the semiconductor manufacturing device 14.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above, Harada et al. in view of Gold renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the on-line analysis tool is configured to, in operation, to receive conduct one or more types of on-line tests on the sample.
Harada et al. illustrates an online monitor in Fig. 1 which monitors gas elements, concentration, flow rate, etc. (Abstract)
Therefore, Harada et al. teaches that the on-line analysis system is configured to receive and conduct at least one type of on-line tests on the sample.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites an on-line data system in electrical communication with the on-line analysis system.
Applicant discloses that the on-line data system processes data signals from the analyzer.
Harada et al. teaches a control device 15 that controls the supply of gas to the semiconductor manufacturing by signals provided by flow controllers 11, 12 and 13 and by signals from the gas monitor 9 as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above, Harada et al. in view of Gold renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 26 recites a purge fluid pathway in fluid communication with the switchbox.
Gold et al. teaches a purge line. [0023]
Harada et al. in view or Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a purge fluid pathway in fluid communication with the switchbox to flush out passages in the switch box.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 25 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 26, as noted above, Harada et al. in view of Gold renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites when the on-line analysis system determines whether a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance, the on-line data system outputs a warning notification that indicates that the respective fluid is outside the selected tolerance.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide for the controller to output an alarm when it is determined that a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance. Such system failure warning precautions are conventional.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315837 to Olander et ai.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Harada et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that each of the gas cabinets further includes: a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position; the gas container reception structure of the gas cabinet is within the storage chamber of the gas cabinet.
Harada et al. teaches a cylinder container 4 (“gas cabinet”) that houses a plurality of gas cylinders.
Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. does not teach gas cabinet further includes: a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position; the gas container reception structure of the gas cabinet is within the storage chamber of the gas cabinet.
Olander et al. teaches a gas box or gas cabinet in a semiconductor manufacturing facility (Abstract).
As shown in Fig. 3, the gas cabinet of Olander et al. includes a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position; the gas container reception structure of the gas cabinet is within the storage chamber of the gas cabinet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. to include, for each a gas cabinet, a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position; the gas container reception structure of the gas cabinet is within the storage chamber of the gas cabinet as taught by Olander et al. as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Therefore Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. and Olander et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
3. Claims 27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. in view of Gold et al.
Harada et al. teaches a special material gas supply system for semiconductor manufacturing.
As shown in Fig. 1, gas cylinders 1, 2, and 3 housed in cylinder container 4 (“gas cabinet”) are connected by a pipe line 6 (“analysis fluid pathway”) to gas monitor 9 (“on-line analysis tool”) which monitors “gas elements, concentration, flow rate, etc.” (Abstract). Pipe line 10 (“processing fluid pathway) connects to semiconductor manufacturing device 14 (“workpiece processing tool”).
The cylinder container 4 of Harada et al. includes a gas container reception structure, if only a base on which the gas cylinders rest.
Harada et al. does not teach a switch box; and an on-line analysis tool that is in fluid communication with the switch box; and the analysis fluid pathway extends from the gas container reception structure to the switch box, wherein the gas container reception structure is in fluid communication with the switch box through the analysis fluid pathway.
Gold et al. teaches an apparatus that supplies multiple gases to a semiconductor processing chamber, which apparatus includes a gas manifold 134 that “includes a plurality of valves….which enable any combination of gas sources to be coupled to the processing chamber 114.” [0022]
The gas manifold of Gold et al. is interpreted as being a switch box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. to include a gas manifold (“switch box”) as taught by Gold et al. to selectively supply selected gases to the monitor 9 for purposes of verifying the concentration and purity of each gas for purposes of semiconductor fabrication.
As to the claimed limitation of pair of gas cylinders in each gas cabinet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. in of Gold et al. to include a pair of gas cylinders a plurality of in each cabinet with one being a spare for use when the other runs empty.
Providing analysis fluid pathways for each gas cylinder for providing processing gas to at least one workpiece processing tool in the manufacturing device 14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for purposes of conducting semiconductor processing in Harada et al. in view of Gold et al.
As to the claimed limitation that the switch box couples the gas cylinders to the on-line analysis tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to couple each gas cylinder though the switch box of Harada et al. to monitor 9 to verify the gas is suitable before entering the workpiece processing tool of Harada et al.
The gas monitor of Harada et al. monitors items including component, concentration, flow rate, etc. which reads on conducting tests on the gases.
The control device 15 of Harada et al. renders obvious the claimed on-line data system in regards to determining a quality of the sample analyzed by the on-line analysis tool.
The claimed use of a plurality of fluid pathways extending from a corresponding gas container reception structure of the gas container reception structure structures to the at least one workpiece processing tool, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for purposes of keeping gases separate from one another and prevent contamination. Again as noted above, that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. does not teach that the on-line analysis system outputs a warning when a gas is out of a selected tolerance.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to provide for the controller to output an alarm when the gas monitor determines that a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance. Such system failure warnings are conventional.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 27, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders all the elements of claim 27 obvious.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 27 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 29, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 27 obvious from which claim 29 depends.
Claim 29 recites that the warning notification is output on a display of a user interface of an on-line analysis system.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a user interface and display the warning notification on the user interface to alert users of problems with gases.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 29 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 30, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 29 obvious from which claim 30 depends.
Claim 30 recites that the user interface is configured to, in operation, allow a user to cease introduction of a specialty fluid corresponding to the respective sample fluid tested with the on-line analysis tool.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide for a user to cease introduction of a gas when the interface displays a warning that a gas is out of tolerance.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 30 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 31, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 27 obvious from which claim 31 depends.
Claim 31 recites a purge fluid inlet in fluid communication with the switch box.
As noted above, Gold et al. teaches a purge line.
Harada et al. in view or Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a purge fluid pathway in fluid communication with the switchbox to flush out passages in the switch box.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 31 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 32, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 31 obvious from which claim 32 depends.
Claim 32 recites a plurality of sample inlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of the respective sample to be introduced to the on-line analysis tool; and a plurality of outlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of purge fluid introduced into one or more of the plurality of analysis fluid pathways provided along the purge fluid pathway.
Gold et al. teaches multiple valves from the gas sources and to the processing chamber as shown in Fig. 1.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include plurality of sample inlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of the respective sample to be introduced to the on-line analysis tool; and a plurality of outlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of purge fluid introduced into one or more of the plurality of analysis fluid pathways provided along the purge fluid pathway.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 32 obvious.
4. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. as applied to claim 27 above and further in view over Olander et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 28, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 27 obvious from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 28 recites that each gas cabinet further includes: a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position.
Harada et al. teaches a cylinder container 4 (“gas cabinet”) that houses a plurality of gas cylinders.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. with a plurality of gas cabinets.
Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. does not teach that each gas cabinet further includes: a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position.
Olander et al. teaches a gas box or gas cabinet in a semiconductor manufacturing facility (Abstract).
As shown in Fig. 3, the gas cabinet of Olander et al. includes a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position; the gas container reception structure of the gas cabinet is within the storage chamber of the gas cabinet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. to include, for each gas cabinet a housing; a storage chamber within the housing; and a door on the housing having an opened position and a closed position;
as taught by Olander et al. as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Therefore Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. and Olander et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
5. Claims 33-37 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. in view of Gold et al.
As noted above, Harada et al. teaches a special material gas supply system for semiconductor manufacturing.
As shown in Fig. 1, gas cylinders 1, 2, and 3 housed in cylinder container 4 (“gas cabinet”) are connected by a pipe line 6 (“analysis fluid pathway”) to gas monitor 9 (“on-line analysis tool”) which monitors “gas elements, concentration, flow rate, etc.” (Abstract). Pipe line 10 (“processing fluid pathway) connects to semiconductor manufacturing device 14 (“workpiece processing tool”).
The cylinder container 4 of Harada et al. includes a gas container reception structure, if only a base on which the gas cylinders rest.
Harada et al. does not teach a switch box; and an on-line analysis tool that is in fluid communication with the switch box; and the analysis fluid pathway extends from the gas container reception structure to the switch box, wherein the gas container reception structure is in fluid communication with the switch box through the analysis fluid pathway.
Gold et al. teaches an apparatus that supplies multiple gases to a semiconductor processing chamber, which apparatus includes a gas manifold 134 that “includes a plurality of valves….which enable any combination of gas sources to be coupled to the processing chamber 114.” [0022]
The gas manifold of Gold et al. is interpreted as being a switch box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. to include a gas manifold (“switch box”) as taught by Gold et al. to selectively supply selected gases to the monitor 9 for purposes of verifying the concentration and purity of each gas for purposes of semiconductor fabrication.
As to the claimed limitation of a plurality of gas cylinders in a plurality of gas cabinets, and a pair of gas cylinders in each cabinet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Harada et al. in of Gold et al. to include a pair of gas cylinders in each cabinet with one being a spare for use when the other runs empty.
Providing analysis fluid pathways for each gas cylinder for providing processing gas to at least one workpiece processing tool would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for purposes of conducting semiconductor processing in Harada et al. in view of Gold et al.
As to the claimed limitation that the switch box couples the gas cylinders to the on-line analysis tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to couple each gas cylinder though the switch box of Harada et al. to verify the gas is suitable before entering the workpiece processing tool of Harada et al.
The claimed use of a plurality of fluid pathways extending from a corresponding gas container reception structure of the gas container reception structure structures to the at least one workpiece processing tool, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for purposes of keeping gases separate from one another and prevent contamination. Again as noted above, that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. does not teach that the on-line analysis system outputs a warning when a gas is out of a selected tolerance.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to provide for the controller to output an alarm when the gas monitor determines that a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance. Such system failure warning precautions are conventional.
As noted above, Gold et al. teaches a purge line and multiple valves from the gas sources and to the processing chamber as shown in Fig. 1.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include plurality of sample inlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of the respective sample to be introduced to the on-line analysis tool, and a plurality of outlet valves that are configured to, in operation, control an amount of purge fluid introduced into one or more of the plurality of analysis fluid pathways provided along the purge fluid pathway, and valves to deliver purge fluid through the various fluid pathways to purge the same and prevent contamination.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 33, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders all the elements of claim 33 obvious.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 33 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 34, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 33 obvious from which claim 34 depends.
Claim 34 recites that the plurality of sample inlet valves are configured to, in operation, open and close to control the amount of respective samples being provided to the on-line analysis tool.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of sample inlet valves are configured to, in operation, open and close to control the amount of respective samples being provided to monitor 9 so as to monitor each gas separately for control purposes.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 34 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 35, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 33 obvious from which claim 35 depends.
Claim 35 recites that the on-line analysis system determines whether a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance, the on- line data system outputs a warning notification that indicates that the respective fluid is outside the selected tolerance.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide for the controller to output an alarm when it is determined that a characteristic of the respective sample is out of a selected tolerance. Such system failure warning precautions are conventional.
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 35 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 36, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 35 obvious from which claim 36 depends.
Claim 36 recites that the on-line analysis system determines whether the characteristic of the respective sample is out of the selected tolerance, the on-line data system ceases utilization of a corresponding specialty fluid that corresponds to the respective sample by the workpiece processing tool.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to cease utilization of a corresponding specialty fluid that corresponds to the respective sample by the workpiece processing tool when monitor 9 determines that respective sample is out of the selected tolerance for purposes of preventing processing or defective workpieces.
Therefore. Harada et al. in view of Gold et al renders claim 36 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 37, as noted above Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 35 obvious from which claim 37 depends.
Claim 37 recites that the warning notification is output on a display of a user interface of an on-line analysis system.
In Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to output the warning notification on a display of a user interface of an on-line analysis system to alert the user of the problem with the gas
Therefore, Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. renders claim 37 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 1, 12 and 25-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon Harada et al. in view of Gold et al. while applicant has argued elements that Harada et al. alone does not teach.
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 S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights