DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2025 has been entered.
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 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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al., JP 2018-169123 in view of Matsuki et al., US 6,344,407 or Abe, US 2012/0153010 and Srivastava, US 6,225,745 or Qian, US 2001/0054388. Note that Matsuda et al. (US 2020/0122256) is an English equivalent of JP 2018-169123 (the first cited paragraphs in the rejection below are for the Japanese document and the second cited paragraphs, divided by a slash, are for the US document).
With respect to claim 4, Matsuda et al. shows the invention as claimed including an oxide removal apparatus, comprising: a chamber 5 configured to accommodate an object W having an oxide (paragraph 0024/0030); a discharge section comprising a discharge pipe 7 configured to form a channel through which a fluid in the chamber is delivered to the outside of the apparatus, and a vacuum pump 6 provided in the discharge pipe and configured to discharge a fluid from the chamber; a heating section comprising a heater configured to heat the object accommodated in the chamber (paragraph 0033/0039); a reducing gas supply section comprising a metal block 10/11/15 with an embedded heater 20/21/25 and a fluid channel 12 configured to produce a reducing gas, the reducing gas reducing the oxide, wherein the metal block produces the reducing gas that does not contain carrier gas by introducing, heating and gasifying a reducing liquid, the reducing liquid being a liquid precursor to the reducing gas, wherein the metal block supplies the reducing gas into the chamber directly or indirectly (see, for example, paragraph 0025/0030-0032); and a controller 9/30 configured to control the discharge section, the heating section, and the reducing gas supply section such that, after substantially all of the fluid in the chamber, in which the object is accommodated, is discharged, the chamber is substantially filled with the reducing gas at a pressure, while heating the object (paragraphs 0036, 0038-0039, and 0042/ 0042, 0044-0045, and 0048); wherein the reducing gas is a formic acid gas, and the reducing liquid is a formic acid liquid, and wherein a state of the chamber substantially filled with the reducing acid gas means a state where the concentration of the reducing acid gas in the chamber is 95% or higher (paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0056). It should be noted that with respect to the concentration of the reducing acid gas, Matsuda et al. discloses that “Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, …, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein.” (paragraph 0056). Therefore, it is clear that Matsuda et al. discloses a concentration of the reducing acid gas of at least 95%. For a complete description of the apparatus, see, for example, Figs. 1-3, and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below (left JP document, right US document).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuda et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed discharge gate valve. Matsuki et al. discloses the use of a discharge gate valve 15/50z provided in a discharge pipe 50a and which allows the flow of fluid when open and block the flow of the fluid when closed (see, for example, figs. 5-8, 14, 18, and 20-22). Also, Abe discloses the use of a discharge gate valve 6/7 provided in a discharge pipe and which allows the flow of fluid when open and block the flow of the fluid when closed (see, for example, figs. 1 and 3-9). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Matsuda et al. as to further comprise a discharge gate valve because such means is known and used in the art to adjust the pressure of the chamber/apparatus to a desired/required pressure by allowing the flow of fluid when open and blocking the flow of fluid when closed.
With respect to the claimed pressure, it should be noted that Matsuda et al. discloses that the controller operates the vacuum pump to a pressure suitable for promoting the vaporization and introduction of the reducing liquid (formic acid), wherein the pressure is between 50-5,000 Pa (paragraphs 0038-0040/0044-0046). It should be noted that the majority of the claimed range (from 1,000Pa to 5,000Pa) is disclosed and encompassed by the pressure range disclosed by Matsuda et al., and the majority of the disclosed pressure range by Matsuda et al. falls within the claimed pressure range. It should further be noted that Matsuda et al. discloses that “Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, …, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein.” (paragraph 0056). Therefore, it is clear that Matsuda et al. discloses the pressure of at least 1,000 Pa to 5,000 Pa of the claimed range. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the pressure of the chamber within the claimed range during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired degree of vaporization and/or introduction of the reducing liquid, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, and this notwithstanding, Matsuki et al. disclose removing an oxide by setting the pressure of a reducing gas to a value including the claimed range and further discloses that the pressure may be decided taking into consideration an oxidation level of the surface of the connected material (see, for example, col. 7, lines 10-13). Also, Abe discloses setting the pressure of the chamber to a value within the claimed range and further discloses that the pressure is selected considering the degree of oxidation of the surface of the process object (see, for example, paragraph 0057). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to control the pressure of the chamber as claimed depending on the desired degree of oxidation of the member having an oxide, and/or the time required for reducing the oxide film.
With respect to the limitation of “the controller controls the pressure of the chamber such that condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber is prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C”, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention (in paragraphs 0037 and 0041) discloses that by controlling the pressure within the claimed range the condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber is prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C. Therefore, since the pressure in the apparatus of Matsuda et al. modified by Matsuki et al. or Abe is controlled to be in the claimed pressure range, it would have been expected and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, that condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber would be prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C.
Matsuda et al. does not expressly disclose that the heater for heating the object is a lamp. Matsuki et al. further discloses a heater 11c configured to heat the object accommodated in the chamber, wherein the heater could be a lamp heater (see, for example, figs. 4-10, 14, 18, 20-22, and col. 12, lines 4-8). Also, Srivastava discloses an apparatus comprising a heater 20/58 configured to heat the object accommodated in the chamber, wherein the heater is a lamp heater (see, for example, figs. 1a-1b). Additionally, Qian discloses an apparatus comprising a heater 66 configured to heat the object accommodated in the chamber, wherein the heater is a lamp heater (see, for example, figs. 2-5 and 11-12). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Matsuda et al., as to comprise a lamp as the heater for heating the object because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable heating means for heating the object to be treated in the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the apparatus of Matsuda et al. further comprises a pressure detection section to measure the pressure in the chamber in order to be able to control the pressure of the chamber to the desired/required pressure. This notwithstanding, Matsuki et al. further discloses a pressure detection section 13 configured to directly or indirectly detect a pressure in the chamber (see, for example, Figs. 4-7 and their descriptions, especially col. 11, lines 55-59, col. 12, lines 26-40, Fig. 5 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Matsuda et al. as to comprise a pressure detection section because such means is known and used in the art to obtained and maintained a uniform gas pressure, enhanced safety, and effectively suppressing a consumed amount of the reducing liquid. It should be noted that the controller of the apparatus of Matsuda et al. modified by Matsuki et al. or Abe and Srivastava or Qian, would control the pressure in the chamber such that a value detected by the pressure detection section reaches a predetermined value.
Concerning claim 6, Matsuda et al. further discloses that the controller controls the pressure in the chamber by regulating an amount of the reducing liquid that is to be introduced into the gasification device (see, for example, paragraph 0036 and 0039-0040/0042 and 0045-0046).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al., US 2020/0122256 in view of Matsuki et al., US 6,344,407 or Abe, US 2012/0153010 and Srivastava, US 6,225,745 or Qian, US 2001/0054388, as applied to claims 4-6 above, and further in view of Matsui et al., US 2007/0099411.
Matsuda et al., Matsuki et al., Abe, Srivastava, and Qian are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the claimed a wall surface temperature implementation part. Matsui et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a wall surface temperature implementation part 12 that is attached to a chamber 1 and that is configured to suppress a decrease in a temperature or to increase the temperature of a wall surface of the chamber (see, for example, Figs. 4-5 and its description, Fig. 4 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
280
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Matsuda et al. modified by Matsuki et al. or Abe and Srivastava or Qian, as to further comprise a wall surface temperature implementation part because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently perform/achieve thermolysis of the atmosphere gas containing the reducing fluid since the atmosphere gas containing the reducing fluid is decomposed by heating, and thereby, separating the reaction product of the reducing fluid and chamber material is prevented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s understanding of Matsuda is misplaced since the pressure range of 50-5,000 Pa disclosed by Matsuda refers to the pressure inside the chamber before the reducing gas is introduced, not the pressure inside the chamber after the reducing gas has been introduced. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that the pressure range of 50-5,000 Pa disclosed by Matsuda is the pressure at which the chamber, where the object to be treated is positioned, is maintained before and during the object treatment (after the reducing gas has been introduced). There is no teaching/disclosure in Matsuda that provides support for applicant’s argument that the pressure in the chamber is changed before introducing the reducing gas. It should be noted that Matsuda discloses that the disclosed pressure is used for promoting vaporization of the formic acid liquid, which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention is desired and required not only before but during the object treatment (after the reducing gas has been introduced).
Applicant argues that Matsuda et al. does not teach that the concentration of the reducing acid gas in the chamber is 95% or higher. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as stated in the above rejection, Matsuda et al. discloses the use of formic acid gas as the reducing gas, wherein the concentration of the reducing gas in the chamber can be set to 90-95% (paragraphs 0030, 0036). It should be noted that Matsuda et al. further discloses that “Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, …, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein.” (paragraph 0056). Therefore, it is clear that Matsuda et al. discloses a concentration of the reducing acid gas of at least 95%.
Applicant argues that Matsuki et al. teaches that the reducing acid gas is introduced at a pressure of 13-18,000 Pa, and therefore the teaching cannot be correlated to the claimed chamber pressure. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Matsuki et al. clearly discloses that the pressure of the reducing acid gas may be decided in the wide range of 13Pa to 18,000Pa, but it is preferred to be the narrow range of 660Pa to 8,000Pa (see, for example, col. 7, lines 10-13). It should be noted that the entire claimed pressure range is disclosed and encompassed by the preferred pressure range disclosed by Matsuki et al.. Additionally, Matsuki et al. further discloses that the pressure would depend on the oxidation level of the surface of the connected material (see, for example, col. 7, lines 10-13). Therefore, as stated in the above rejection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to control the pressure of the chamber as claimed depending on the desired degree of oxidation of the member having an oxide, and/or the time required for reducing the oxide film.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding the Abe reference, the examiner respectfully points out that Abe clearly discloses that the pressure is selected considering the degree of oxidation of the surface of the process object (see, for example, paragraph 0057). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to control the pressure of the chamber as claimed depending on the desired degree of oxidation of the member having an oxide, and/or the time required for reducing the oxide film.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the Matsuda et al., Matsuki et al. and Abe references fail to disclose the claimed pressure range when the concentration of the reducing acid gas in the chamber is 95% or higher. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as stated above, the primary reference of Matsuda et al. discloses a concentration of the reducing acid gas of at least 95% with a pressure of the chamber within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach a controller that is configured to control the pressure of the chamber such that condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber is prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C. The examiner respectfully points out that the specification of the instant claimed invention (in paragraphs 0037 and 0041) discloses that by controlling the pressure within the claimed range the condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber is prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C. Therefore, since the pressure in the apparatus of Matsuda et al. modified by Matsuki et al. or Abe is controlled to be in the claimed pressure range, it would have been expected and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, that condensation of the formic acid gas in the chamber would be prevented at a chamber temperature of about 30º C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sawada et al. (US 2010/0006543) is cited for its disclosure of a gate valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
February 4, 2026