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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (JP 2014-055974, machine translation) in view of Ehmann et al (“Monitoring the quality of ultra-pure water in the semiconductor industry by online ion chromatography”) and Lee et al (US 2013/0035272).
With regard to Claim 1, Inoue et al (Inoue) discloses a method for analyzing an ionic content of a liquid ([0001], quantitative analysis of ionic substances in liquids such as water for cleaning precision processing such as semiconductor manufacturing).
Inoue discloses passing the liquid through an ion exchanger ([0180], sample liquid was pumped from sample liquid tank through separation column of the concentration column and ions contained in the sample liquid were adsorbed onto the organic porous anion exchanger packed in the concentration column).
Inoue discloses eluting and recovering the ionic substance captured in the ion exchanger with an eluent ([0181], the valve was switched to supply eluent from the upstream side of the concentration column, such that ions adsorbed and concentrated in the concentration column were eluted with an eluent).
Inoue discloses analyzing the eluent containing the eluted ionic substance and measuring the content of the metal impurity in the eluent ([0181], ions eluted were developed in a separation column to separate ion components and quantitatively detected with a detector).
A detector capable of quantitative detection, as disclosed in Inoue, inherently has a lower limit of quantitation.
Inoue discloses a differential pressure coefficient per unit is 0.01 MPa/LV/m or less ([0031], preferably 0.001 to 0.5 MPa/m LV).
Inoue discloses wherein the eluting and the measuring are performed for each unit of the ion exchanger in order from the top to bottom ([0181], eluent was supplied from the upstream side of the concentration column and passed through the concentration column, separation column, suppressor, and detector).
As above, Inoue is directed to quantitative analysis of ionic substances in liquids such as water for cleaning precision processing such as semiconductor manufacturing ([0001]). However, Inoue is silent to the ionic substances being metal impurities.
Ehmann et al (Ehmann) discloses that manufacturing of 300 mm wafters requires large quantities of ultra-pure water specifying that it is critical that ionic contaminants are in the lower pg/mL concentration or less (Page 15/Abstract). Ehmann discloses that ion chromatography is applied for the determination of inorganic anions (e.g., metals) in the lower pg/mL range (Page 15/Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the ionic substances of Inoue to be metal impurities, as taught by Ehmann, for manufacturing wafers in the semiconductor industry in which it is critical that ultra-pure water must have ionic contaminants in the lower pg/mL concentration or less.
However, modified Inoue is silent to wherein the ion exchanger is used by connecting two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger in series.
It would be obvious to use two or more ion exchangers in series to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the amount of metal impurities is in excess of what one ion exchanger can hold, that either additional ion exchangers or an ion exchanger of greater volume would be necessary to capture all metal impurities. Furthermore, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for wherein the ion exchanger is used by connecting two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger in series, in order to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. Furthermore, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
However, modified Inoue is silent to the volume of the ion exchanger per unit is 0.5 to 5.0 mL.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the volume of the ion exchanger per unit of modified Inoue to be 0.5 to 5.0 mL, since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
However, modified Inoue is silent to when the content of the metal impurity in the liquid measured becomes less than the lower limit of quantification, the total amount of metal impurities in the liquid until it becomes less than the lower limit of quantification is defined as the amount of metal impurities in the liquid.
Lee et al (Lee) discloses semiconductor processing compositions comprising amidoxime compounds (Abstract). Lee discloses that a semiconductor processing composition is typically substantially free of metal ions, with a total concentration of metal ions of 100 ppm by weight or less ([0027]). For example, if the composition comprises water, the water is preferably specially prepared ultra-high purity water ([0027]).
As above, a detector capable of quantitative detection, as disclosed in Inoue, inherently has a lower limit of quantitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for when the content of the metal impurity in the liquid measured of modified Inoue becomes less than the lower limit of quantification, the total amount of metal impurities in the liquid until it becomes less than the lower limit of quantification is defined as the amount of metal impurities in the liquid, as taught by Lee, since the total amount of metals per unit of liquid, as measured to the lower limit of quantitation by a quantitative detector, is an important parameter for measuring the purity of cleaning compositions used in semiconductor manufacturing or processing.
With regard to Claim 3, Inoue discloses wherein the ion exchanger is a monolithic organic porous ion exchanger ([0177], monolithic cylindrical organic porous cation exchanger).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Inoue is silent to wherein the number of units of the ion exchanger is the minimum number for which the content of metal impurity analyzed based on the last ion exchanger is less than the lower limit of quantification.
It would be obvious to use two or more ion exchangers in series to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for wherein the number of units of the ion exchanger is the minimum number for which the content of metal impurity analyzed based on the last ion exchanger is less than the lower limit of quantification, in order to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels.
With regard to Claim 5, Inoue et al (Inoue) discloses a measurement apparatus for measuring a content of an ionic content of a liquid ([0001], quantitative analysis of ionic substances in liquids such as water for cleaning precision processing such as semiconductor manufacturing).
Inoue discloses an ion exchanger through which liquid is passed ([0180], sample liquid was pumped from sample liquid tank through separation column of the concentration column and ions contained in the sample liquid were adsorbed onto the organic porous anion exchanger packed in the concentration column).
Inoue discloses an integrated flowmeter is used by connecting two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger in series ([0175], [0180], Inoue states several flow rates for passing liquids through the ion exchanger, suggesting the presence of an integrated flowmeter).
Inoue discloses a differential pressure coefficient per unit is 0.01 MPa/LV/m or less ([0031], preferably 0.001 to 0.5 MPa/m LV).
As above, Inoue is directed to quantitative analysis of ionic substances in liquids such as water for cleaning precision processing such as semiconductor manufacturing ([0001]). However, Inoue is silent to the ionic substances being metal impurities.
Ehmann et al (Ehmann) discloses that manufacturing of 300 mm wafters requires large quantities of ultra-pure water specifying that it is critical that ionic contaminants are in the lower pg/mL concentration or less (Page 15/Abstract). Ehmann discloses that ion chromatography is applied for the determination of inorganic anions (e.g., metals) in the lower pg/mL range (Page 15/Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the ionic substances of Inoue to be metal impurities, as taught by Ehmann, for manufacturing wafers in the semiconductor industry in which it is critical that ultra-pure water must have ionic contaminants in the lower pg/mL concentration or less.
However, modified Inoue is silent to wherein the ion exchanger is used by connecting two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger in series.
It would be obvious to use two or more ion exchangers in series to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. Furthermore, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for wherein the ion exchanger is used by connecting two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger in series, in order to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. Furthermore, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
However, modified Inoue is silent to the volume of the ion exchanger per unit is 0.5 to 5.0 mL.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the volume of the ion exchanger per unit of modified Inoue to be 0.5 to 5.0 mL, since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore, the measurement apparatus of modified Inoue is capable of being used in the method for analyzing according to Claim 1.
With regard to Claim 6, Inoue discloses wherein the ion exchanger is a monolithic organic porous ion exchanger ([0177], monolithic cylindrical organic porous cation exchanger).
With regard to Claims 7, 10, and 12, modified Inoue is silent to wherein the number of units of the ion exchanger is the minimum number for which the content of metal impurity analyzed based on the last ion exchanger is less than the lower limit of quantification.
It would be obvious to use two or more ion exchangers in series to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the amount of metal impurities is in excess of what one ion exchanger can hold, that either additional ion exchangers or an ion exchanger of greater volume would be necessary to capture all metal impurities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for wherein the number of units of the ion exchanger is the minimum number for which the content of metal impurity analyzed based on the last ion exchanger is less than the lower limit of quantification, in order to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Pages 6-7 of the Remarks that there is neither any description nor any suggestion in the cited references regarding the use of two or more units of the same ion-type ion exchanger connected in series.
In response, Inoue discloses passing the liquid through an ion exchanger ([0180], sample liquid was pumped from sample liquid tank through separation column of the concentration column and ions contained in the sample liquid were adsorbed onto the organic porous anion exchanger packed in the concentration column).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the amount of metal impurities is in excess of what one ion exchanger can hold, that either additional ion exchangers or an ion exchanger of greater volume would be necessary to capture all metal impurities. Furthermore, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is neither any description nor any suggestion in the cited references regarding that the total amount of metallic impurities in the liquid until it becomes less than the lower limit of quantitation is defined as the amount of metal impurities in the liquid can be achieved by performing, for each unit of the same ion-type ion exchanger connected in series, the elution steps and the measurement step sequentially from the upper unit.
In response, it is not clear what “the upper unit” means in Applicant’s response. Furthermore, it would be obvious to use two or more ion exchangers in series to accurately assess the total amount of metal impurities in semiconductor manufacturing water since it is critical that ionic contaminants are at extremely low levels. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the amount of metal impurities is in excess of what one ion exchanger can hold, that either additional ion exchangers or an ion exchanger of greater volume would be necessary to capture all metal impurities.
A detector capable of quantitative detection, as disclosed in Inoue, inherently has a lower limit of quantitation. Finally, the total amount of metals per unit of liquid, as measured to the lower limit of quantitation by a quantitative detector, is an important parameter for measuring the purity of cleaning compositions used in semiconductor manufacturing or processing. The Examiner maintains the rejections as above.
Applicant argues on Page 7 of the Remarks that the rejection is also deficient at least because the evidence of record lacks an articulation of any proper motivation for one skilled in the art to specifically modify Inoue in the manner necessary to arrive at the claimed combination of features.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the amount of metal impurities is in excess of what one ion exchanger can hold, that either additional ion exchangers or an ion exchanger of greater volume would be necessary to capture all metal impurities.
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 BENJAMIN LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0475. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4 PM.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
Benjamin Lebron
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights