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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by Applicant on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged. Per the amendment, the U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. It is acknowledged that claims 21, 23, 26, 32, and 40 have been amended. Accordingly, Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Kawamura teaches away from increasing the pipe length to 1-4 meters because Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose using a pipe of not more than 500 mm. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kawamura merely describes a preferred embodiment in which the pipe length is reduced to mitigate deposition in the pipe. The reference does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of longer pipe lengths. A disclosure of a preferred configuration does not constitute teaching away from alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the disclosure of a shorter pipe does not preclude or discourage the use of longer pipes such as those within the claimed range. Furthermore, Kawamura demonstrates that discharge pipe length is a design parameter of the system. Adjusting such a parameter to another workable value would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
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.
Claims 21-22, 35-36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura” in view of Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, and Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications).
Regarding Claim 21, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose a gas treatment device (exhaust gas treatment… achieved by preparing abatement parts having different treatment types; see [0015]) configured to treat, gases pumped by at least one rough pumping device (abatement part 10 is attached to a discharge pipe 1a of a vacuum pump 1… vacuum pumps comprise… a screw-type dry vacuum pump; see [0048]), the gas treatment device comprising: a treatment chamber (see Fig. 1, abatement part 10, or “abatement part 10 comprises a treatment chamber”; see [0061]) and at least one discharge pipe configured to connect a discharge of the at least one rough pumping device to an inlet of the treatment chamber (discharge pipe 1a which connects a discharge port of the vacuum pump 1 and a gas introduction port of the abatement part; see [0050]), wherein the gas treatment device further includes at least one auxiliary pumping device configured to lower the pressure in the at least one discharge pipe (The vacuum pump 1 may comprise a… plurality of dry vacuum pumps connected in series; see [0048]; it logically follows that if the vacuum pump 1 comprises a series of vacuum pumps, then all pumps following the first pump are considered auxiliary pumps), situated less than 1 meter from the inlet of the treatment chamber (discharge pipe 1a… has a piping length of not more than 500mm; see [0050]; Because the vacuum pump 1 comprises a series of vacuum pumps, then the last pump would be considered an auxiliary pump, the discharge of which would be considered the ultimate discharge of the vacuum pump 1, as it is understood by those in the art that the discharge of each pump in series enters into the following pump, except for the last pump in the series. Because the discharge pump is less than 500mm, and the abatement part, analogous to the treatment chamber, is connected to the discharge pipe, it must be less than 500mm from the auxiliary pipe, which is clearly less than 1 meter).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the treatment occurs “at atmospheric pressure”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the device, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the device. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose that the vacuum pump(s) can be a screw type dry vacuum pump, which is capable of discharging at atmospheric pressure. Therefore, the structure of Kawamura is capable of the function of treatment at atmospheric pressure.
Kawamura does not explicitly teach a discharge pipe length between 1 and 4 meters. However, Vossen discloses wherein the discharge pipe has a length of between 1 and 4 meters (the exhaust line from the pump should run parallel to the floor for a minimum of 1 meter; see Pg. 1764, Para. 1).
Kawamura and Vossen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum systems for gas treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the teachings of Vossen and providing a discharge pipe that is at least 1 meter long. Doing so would cause dust to settle in the line instead of falling back into the pump (see Vossen, Pg. 1764, Para. 1).
Kawamura does not explicitly teach relative pump capacities. However, Arami discloses wherein a pumping capacity of an auxiliary pumping device is less than a pumping capacity of a rough pumping device (A main pump having a wide range of vacuum exhaust capabilities and a high exhaust speed… and an auxiliary pump having a low exhaust speed; see Abstract).
Kawamura and Arami are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vacuum exhaust systems enabling further gas processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the teachings of Arami and using an auxiliary pump with less capacity than the main/rough pump. Doing so would reduce the construction and operating costs (see Arami, Col. 2 Line 66 - Col. 3 Line 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to Claim 21. Kawamura further discloses wherein the auxiliary pumping device is mounted in the treatment chamber (abatement part 10 is integrated with the vacuum pump 1; see [0051]).
Regarding Claim 35, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to Claim 21. Kawamura further discloses wherein the auxiliary pumping device includes a dry vacuum pump (plurality of dry vacuum pumps; see [0048]).
Regarding Claim 36, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to Claim 21. Kawamura further discloses wherein the treatment chamber includes a burner (the combustion-type abatement part 10 comprises… a burner; see [0053]) and/or an electric system and/or a plasma (plasma-type abatement part; see [0014]) and/or a scrubber (wet-type abatement part… such as a fan scrubber; see [0070]).
Regarding Claim 39, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to Claim 21. Kawamura further discloses further comprising: a bypass pipe configured to bypass the auxiliary pumping device (a line is bypassed to the back-up abatement part; see [0096]). The bypass occurring due to an overpressure event is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the device. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 40, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 21. Kawamura further discloses the gas treatment device being positioned downstream of a vacuum line (exhaust gas treatment apparatus provided at a downstream side of the vacuum pump; see [0002]).
Claims 23, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura”, in view view of Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications), and Moore et al. (US-6190159-B1), hereinafter “Moore”.
Regarding Claim 23, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 21. Kawamura further dsicloses wherein the treatment chamber includes a burner (abatement part 10 comprises a cylindrical member 11 which has a bottom and forms a combustion chamber S therein for forming flames by a burner; see [0053]; and “a cylindrical pilot burner part 20”; see [0055]), wherein the burner further comprises a nozzle (plurality of fuel nozzles 16 for supplying a fuel into the combustion chamber S; see [0054]) at a head of the burner (see Fig. 4 parts 20 and 16).
Kawamura does not explicitly teach that the nozzles are venturi jets. However, Moore discloses a burner with a venturi gas jet pump (The burner assembly of claim 6, wherein the jet pump assembly…having a body defining an internal passage with a Venturi section; see Claim 12).
Kawamura and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the teachings of Moore and including a Venturi gas jet pump. Doing so would enable exhaust gas to flow into the Venturi passage (see Moore, Col. 6 Lines 40-41).
Regarding Claim 37, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to Claim 21. Kawamura does not explicitly teach a Venturi gas jet pump. However, Moore discloses a venturi gas jet pump (The burner assembly of claim 6, wherein the jet pump assembly…having a body defining an internal passage with a Venturi section; see Claim 12), a driving gas of which includes a comburent (the motive gas is compressed air; see Col. 3 Lines 52-53). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would enable exhaust gas to flow into the Venturi passage (see Moore, Col. 6 Lines 40-41).
The limitation claiming, “a driving gas of which includes a fuel and/or a comburent and/or a neutral gas” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the venturi jet gas pump, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the pump. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 38, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, and Moore together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 37. Moore further discloses the Venturi gas jet pump including a heating element (burner section; see Col. 4 Line 29) configured to heat the driving gas (motive and exhaust gases into the stream of combustion air… for more thorough mixing. The mixture is then combusted in the burner section to yield heat; see Col. 4 Lines 26-29).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura”, in view Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications), and Nissin Electric Co Ltd (JP-H04137728-U), hereinafter “Nissin”.
Regarding Claim 24, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 21. Kawamura further discloses further comprising a bypass device (a line is bypassed to the back-up; see [0096]).
Kawamura does not further specify the bypass device. However, Nissin discloses at least one bypass device (exhaust gas switching valve 3; see [0016]) interposed between the discharge pipe (the vacuum pump 2 is connected to an inlet 3a of an exhaust gas switching valve 3; see [0015] and Fig. 1), the at least one bypass device comprising: an inlet port connected to the discharge pipe (the vacuum pump 2 is connected to an inlet 3a of an exhaust gas switching valve 3; see [0015] and Fig. 1), a first outlet port connected to the treatment chamber (one outlet 3c connected to the factory exhaust treatment system 5 via harmful gas treatment system 11 equipped with an exhaust gas abatement device 4; see [0016]), a second outlet port configured to bypass the treatment chamber (connect the other outlet 3b to the factory exhaust treatment system 5, bypassing the exhaust gas abatement device 4; see [0016]), and a control member (control means; see [0017]) configured to place the inlet port in communication with the first outlet port or with the second outlet port (the solenoid switch valve switches the communication state between the inlet 3a and the outlet 3b to the communication state between the inlet 3a and the outlet 3c in response to a switching operation signal from the control means; see [0015]).
When modifying Kawamura with the bypass device taught by Nissin, it would naturally follow that the bypass device would be disposed between the discharge pipe and the auxiliary pumping device. As described in the claim 22 rejection, the abatement part is integrated with the vacuum pump, and is connected via the vacuum discharge pipe, as described in the rejection of claim 21. Referring again to the claim 21 rejection, Kawamura, Vossen, and Arami together disclose that the vacuum pump can comprise a plurality of vacuum pumps connected in series. It can be reasonably deduced that the device of Kawamura includes multiple vacuum pumps connected in series, the last of which is connected to the abatement part and is considered the auxiliary pumping device. Because Kawamura describes the abatement part being integrated with the vacuum pump, analogous to the auxiliary pumping device, then when the bypass device discloses by Nissin is disposed after the vacuum pump which operates to reduce the pressure inside of a chamber (see Nissin [0014]), which is analogous to the first vacuum pump in the series of vacuum pumps taught by Kawamura, it naturally would be disposed between the discharge pipe and auxiliary pumping device.
Kawamura and Nissin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the teachings of Nissin and providing a gas bypass device. Doing so enables the harmful gas to be sent to a harmful gas treatment system, while the harmless gas is sent to a harmless gas treatment system (see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 25, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, and Nissin together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 24. Nissin further discloses the bypass device being a controllable (gas switching valve 3 having a solenoid switching valve connected to a control means; see [0015]) three-way valve (gas switching valve 3 has one inlet 3a and two outlets 3b and 3c; see [0015]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables the two outlets to be connected to different systems (see [0016]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura”, in view of Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications), Nissin Electric Co Ltd (JP-H04137728-U), hereinafter “Nissin” and Desbiolles et al. (US-8297311-B2), hereinafter “Desbiolles”.
Regarding Claim 26, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, and Nissin together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 24. Kawamura further discloses that there can be a plurality of vacuum pumps connected in parallel (see [0026]), and that the abatement part is provided at a downstream side of each vacuum pump (see [0028]). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that this indicates a plurality of discharge pipes extending from each vacuum pump, all leading to the abatement part and/or auxiliary pumping device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying Kawamura with the teachings of Nissin to dispose a bypass valve on each discharge line in accordance with the duplication of vacuum pumps, and therefore discharge lines, taught by Kawamura. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). This same logic can be applied to the limitation claiming a plurality of isolation valves.
For clarity of record, the limitation claiming, “at least two isolation valves arranged on the respective discharge of a rough pumping device”, this is being interpreted as at least two isolation valves being present, each of which is disposed on a separate discharge line associated with an individual rough pumping device, and is not being interpreted as two isolation valves arranged on the same discharge line. This interpretation is based on the specification and drawings provided by Applicant.
Kawamura does not explicitly disclose isolation valves. However, Desbiolles discloses an isolation valve arranged on the discharge of a rough pumping device (regulation valve 29a downstream from the secondary pump 9; and/or regulation valve 24; see Abstract and Fig. 1), a processing unit (controllers 30 and/or 25; see Col. 6 Line 65) connected to the isolation valve (see Fig. 1 Parts 29 and 30) and to a pressure sensor arranged on the respective discharges of the rough pumping devices (see Fig. 1 Parts 30 and pressure sensor 31) downstream of the isolation valve (see Fig. 1 Parts 24 and 31), the processing unit being configured to control the isolation valve (regulation means 29 controlling the conductance… under the control of a delivery pressure controller 30; see Col. 6 Lines 42-45) and generate an alert when the measurement from the pressure sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold (controller 30 receives the delivery pressure setpoint and the measured delivery pressure data, and controls the regulation means 29 so as to reduce the difference; see Col. 8 Lines 2-4).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “closing of all of the isolation valves for a predetermined period, apart from one, in order to generate an alert when the measurement from the pressure sensor of the discharge pipe the isolation valve of which is open exceeds a predetermined threshold”, this is a functional limitation that does not further define the structure of the device, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the device. The controller controls the regulation valve, and it is well known that regulation valves can take any position between fully open and fully closed. Therefore, the device of Kawamura modified by Nissin and Desbiolles is capable of the claimed function. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Kawamura and Desbiolles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the valves taught by Desbiolles. Doing so would enable control of conductance in the pipe (see Desbiolles Col. 6 Lines 43-44).
Claims 27, and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura”, in view of Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications), Nissin Electric Co Ltd (JP-H04137728-U), hereinafter “Nissin” and Schofield et al. (US-20170350395-A1), hereinafter “Schofield”.
Regarding Claim 27, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, and Nissin together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 24.
Modified Kawamura does not explicitly teach an additional auxiliary pump connected to a bypass outlet. However, Schofield discloses at least one additional auxiliary pumping device connected to at least one second outlet port of the bypass device and configured to lower the pressure in said second outlet port. Specifically, Schofield discloses a 3-way valve (valve module 106; see Fig. 2), wherein the inlet is connected to the discharge of a vacuum pump (see Fig. 2 Parts 50 and 106), one outlet is connected to one vacuum pump, analogous to a first auxiliary pump (see Fig. 2 Parts 106, 80, and pump 72), and the second outlet is connected to a second auxiliary pump (see Fig. 2 Parts 106, 96, and pump 88).
Kawamura and Schofield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by incorporating the second auxiliary pump taught by Schofield. Doing so can provide sufficient pumping capacity (see Schofield [0077]).
Regarding Claim 29, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Kawamura further discloses at least one neutral gas injection device configured to inject a neutral gas (inert gas… flows into the heating chamber 13… and flows out from an outlet port; see [0053]) into the additional auxiliary pumping device and/or at an outlet of the additional auxiliary pumping device (The heated inert gas is supplied to the vacuum pump; see [0060]).
Regarding Claim 30, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Schofield further discloses a processing unit (speed control module; see [0115]) configured to control the pumping speed of the additional auxiliary pumping device (speed control module which controls the speed of the first and/or second primary pumps 72, 88; see [0115]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would help stabilize the pressure within the corresponding pumping lines (see Schofield [0115]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “to a first speed when no control member places the inlet port in communication with the second outlet port, and to a second speed when at least one control member places an inlet port in communication with the second outlet port, the second speed being higher than the first speed”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 31, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Schofield further discloses a processing unit (speed control module; see [0115]) configured to control the pumping speed of the additional auxiliary pumping device (speed control module which controls the speed of the first and/or second primary pumps 72, 88; see [0115]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would help stabilize the pressure within the corresponding pumping lines (see Schofield [0115]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “to a first speed when at least one measurement from a pressure sensor of the discharge of a rough pumping device is below or equal to a threshold, and to a second speed when the measurement exceeds the threshold, the second speed being higher than the first speed”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 32, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Schofield further discloses a processing unit (speed control module; see [0115]) configured to control the pumping speed of the additional auxiliary pumping device (speed control module which controls the speed of the first and/or second primary pumps 72, 88; see [0115]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would help stabilize the pressure within the corresponding pumping lines (see Schofield [0115]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “to a first speed when a concentration of flammable gases or gases configured to cause deposits is below or equal to a predetermined threshold, and to a second speed when the concentration of flammable gases or gases configured to cause deposits exceeds said threshold, the second speed being higher than the first speed”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 33, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Schofield further discloses the additional auxiliary pumping device including a water jet pump and/or a Venturi gas jet pump and/or a liquid ring pump (pump 72 and pump 88, selected from… liquid ring vacuum pump; see [0092] and [0094]) and/or a dry vacuum pump (pump 72 and pump 88 can be… multistage dry vacuum pump or claw dry pump; see [0162]) and/or a vane pump (pump 72 and pump 88, selected from… rotary vane… vacuum pump; see [0092] and [0094]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a pump according to the requirements necessitated by the gas used in operation (if the set of compatible gases… are powder forming gases… then the pump 72 can be a… dry vacuum pump; see Schofield [0162]), and to provide sufficient pumping capacity for evacuating the chambers (see Schofield [0160]).
Regarding Claim 34, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. Kawamura further discloses a bypass pipe configured to bypass an auxiliary pumping device (a line is bypassed to the back-up abatement part; see [0096]). When modifying Kawamura with the additional auxiliary pump of Schofield that was described in the claim 27 rejection, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the same bypass configuration taught by Kawamura to each of the two parallel lines leading to the auxiliary pumps of Schofield. Applying that same known function to each of the two parallel discharge lines merely duplicates the bypass line for its known purpose. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The bypass occurring due to an overpressure event is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the device. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US-20140348717-A1), hereinafter “Kawamura”, in view of Arami et al. (US-5575853-A), hereinafter “Arami”, Vossen (Plasma Deposition And Etching Reactors For Semiconductor Applications), Nissin Electric Co Ltd (JP-H04137728-U), hereinafter “Nissin”, Schofield et al. (US-20170350395-A1), hereinafter “Schofield”, and Desbiolles et al. (US-8297311-B2), hereinafter “Desbiolles”.
Regarding Claim 28, Kawamura, Arami, Vossen, Nissin, and Schofield together disclose the gas treatment device according to claim 27. The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claim 26 with the exception of an additional pressure sensor being configured to measure the pressure specifically in the second outlet port. As previously exemplified, Kawamura modified by Nissin and Schofield discloses the discharge line splitting into at least two lines, each of which is connected to the inlet of a respective auxiliary pump. When incorporating the regulation valve taught by Schofield, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose an additional pressure sensor on each additional line that splits off from the discharge line. Applying that same known function to each of the two parallel discharge lines merely duplicates the regulation valve, or isolation valve, for its known purpose. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774