DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on June 24, 2025. Claims 1 and 7 are amended; claim 5 is canceled.
The applicant contends that the filtration part of the primary reference, Harada, fails to “selectively adsorb impurities contained” in the raw material gas, as claim 1 has been amended to require. That is, the feature of Harada the Office has designated as the claimed “filtration part” is actually a device which concentrates a raw material gas contained within the provided mixed gas. Paragraph [0030] of Harada explains that the porous coordination polymer (53) “preferentially adsorbs the raw material gas contained in the mixed gas,” thereby having the effect of increasing the raw material’s concentration within the concentration tank (51). Further, to achieve preferential adsorption, the pores (531) of the metal organic framework (530) are intentionally designed to accommodate the molecule of AlCl3, i.e., the raw material gas. Thus, rather than adsorbing impurities, Harada’s porous coordination polymer (53) adsorbs raw material gas (p. 7).
In response, the examiner accepts the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to redesign Harada’s metal organic framework to adsorb an impurity instead of AlCl3, as this would subvert the operational purpose of concentrating AlCl3. As such, the outstanding rejections have been withdrawn. However, subsequent further search, new rejections have been elaborated below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siu et al., US 2016/0160348, in view of Sun et al., “Stability and Porosity…,” as published by Inorganic Chemistry on August 17, 2006.
Claim 1: Sui provides a substrate processing apparatus (100) comprising a processing chamber (106) and a filtration part (108) situated along a supply path (110) which feeds gas to the processing chamber ([0057]; Fig. 5). The purpose of the filtration part is to selectively adsorb an impurity within the supply gas [0020]. Although Sui’s filtration part (5) comprises a porous coordination polymer, its molecular structure does not read upon the compound recited by the final paragraph of Applicant’s claim 1 [0022]. In supplementation, Sun describes the synthesis of a metal-organic framework (MOF) of increased size and, therefore, porosity, while maintaining adequate structural stability (p. 7566). Specifically, the novel MOF comprises a TCBPB ligand bonded to a Zn4O cluster ion (p. 7667). (The examiner understands the ligand recited by the final paragraph of Applicant’s claim 1 as being commensurate with either TCBPB or H3TCBPB, whereby the three protons of the latter term are abstracted upon the compound’s incorporation as an MOF, thereby generating the former term.) Given the increased porosity yielded by Sun’s PCP, it would have been obvious to substitute this compound for Sui’s, as using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 3: The porous polymer of the composite prior art apparatus shares a structural unity with Applicant’s polymer, and it is directed to the same purpose [0037-39]. Inherently, then, prior art’s polymer is capable of adsorbing the enumerated impurities, whereby this demonstration of capacity is sufficient to satisfy the threshold for rejection in an apparatus claim.
Claims 4, 6: The method of forming a device is not germane to its patentability. Siu’s apparatus is capable of supplying a gas which will laminate the substrate – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Torres et al., US 2009/0320771. Torres discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a processing chamber (218) and a filtration part (214) provided in the supply path to the processing chamber (Fig. 2; [0059]).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights