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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP618 (JP2015227618A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of WO616 (WO2019186616A1, attached translation will be referenced).
Claim 1: JP618 teaches in figure 8 an abatement apparatus for exhaust gas including process gas and cleaning gas ([0001] teaches vacuum evacuation system used to evacuate process gases from process chambers used in semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus.), comprising: at least one pre-wet treatment device (102 and 119 are both wet abatement devices); a combustion treatment device (101 is a combustion abatement device. [0062] teaches that exhaust gas processing device 118 can be a combustion type.); a plurality of gas introduction lines coupled to process chambers of a film forming device, the number of at least one pre-wet treatment device being less than the number of process chambers (The process chambers are P/C 1 shown at the top. Each has a gas introduction line going from it to either the wet treatment device 102 or 119. There are less treatment devices than 1. The limitation of “film forming device” is considered to be intended usage. [0073] teaches that processing chamber 1 deals with forming film.); a plurality of first flow-path switching devices coupled to the plurality of gas introduction lines, respectively (Each process chamber 1 has a plurality of valves 32/91/24 connected to the lines.); a first gas delivery line extending from the plurality of first flow-path switching devices to the pre-wet treatment device (The line extending through 20/22 to 102 or line 84/86 to 119. In this case the pre-wet treatment device can be 119.); a second gas delivery line extending from the plurality of first flow-path switching devices to the combustion treatment device (The line extending through 20/22 to 101 or line 84/86 to 118. In this case the combustion treatment device can be 101.); at least one second flow path switching device attached to the second gas delivery line (The second flow path switching devices can be read upon by valves 25 and 53.); an operation controller configured to control operations the plurality of first flow-path switching devices and the at least one second flow-path switching device to deliver the process gas to the pre-wet treatment device and deliver the cleaning gas to the combustion treatment device (The valves must be able to be changed in order for the gases to go into those respective paths, therefore a controller would be read upon by the prior art as without being able to control the valves, the device would not be able to function. These limitations are basically stating that different gases go to different gas delivery lines while the other one is cut off. [0055]-[0057] teaches that there is a path for process gas that goes through valve 24 and line 7. [0060] teaches that there is a cleaning gas that is used which is sent to valve 91 and line 80. [0065] teaches that the different gases are exhausted by separate vacuum pumps 8, 81, and 31 through separate routes. It teaches that the optimal vacuum pump can be selected for each one based on the type of gas to be exhausted. This would direct the gas depending on what gas is being used so that the proper type of gas would only go to the vacuum pump via the specific valves. If a gas goes to the wrong pump not designated for that gas, it would disrupt and potentially harm the system.).
JP618 does not explicitly state a bypass line coupled to the second flow-path switching device and wherein the operation controller is configured to operate the plurality of first flow-path switching devices to establish fluid communication between the plurality of gas introduction lines and the second gas delivery line and to cut off fluid communication between the plurality of gas introduction lines and the first gas delivery line, and operate the at least one second flow- path switching device to establish fluid communication between the second gas delivery line and the bypass line and to cut off fluid communication between the plurality of first flow-path switching devices and the combustion treatment device when clogging of the combustion treatment device is detected.
If JP618 does not teach the operation controller, it teaches that there are multiple valves that control the exhaust gas of the device.
WO616 teaches a processing device for semiconductors and cleaning the exhaust gas with an abatement device (Page 1 last paragraph). Figure 1 shows exhaust system 310 coupled to valves 249a and 240b that switch the flow to different abatement units 248a and 248b. Page 5 paragraph 3 teaches there is a controller 240 that controls different controllers of the system. Page 6 paragraphs 3-6 and page 10 paragraph 5 teaches that this stores data of the operating state of the abatement device such as initialized, operating, maintenance, standby, and abnormal stop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a controller and valves as taught by WO616 in the device of JP618 as WO616 teaches that this can automate the system and respond to different processes the system is doing such as initialized, operating, maintenance, standby, and abnormal stop as taught in WO616.
WO616 also teaches in page 5 paragraph 6 that the valve 249b can function by sending the exhaust gas to the atmosphere without using the abatement devices. WO616 teaches in page 6 that the abatement devices of 248a and 248b are combustion devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bypass of WO616 in the device of JP618 as WO616 teaches the benefit of being able to release harmless gas without having it go through the combustion sections, which would reduce the power used and the strain on the devices.
The limitation of “when clogging of the wet treatment device is detected” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 7: JP618 teach a post-wet treatment device provided downstream of the combustion treatment device (JP618 teaches a wet type abatement apparatus 102 that is downstream of the combustion one 101.).
JP618 and WO616 do not explicitly state an exhaust line coupled to the post-wet treatment device the bypass line being coupled to the exhaust line. WO616 teaches in page 1 paragraph 2 that the exhaust gas has to be treated before discharging it into the atmosphere and page 5 paragraphs 6-8 and page 6 paragraphs 1 teaches that some of the exhaust gas can be sent to the atmosphere without using either abatement device if it is clean. Therefore both the harmless gases from the bypass and the cleaned gas from the abatement are both sent to the same place, the atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the exhaust line coupled to the post wet treatment device and the bypass line being coupled to the exhaust line as WO616 teaches that both exhaust gases go to the atmosphere, therefore having the lines be coupled together would reduce the sizing and cost of the device.
Claim 8: JP618 teaches the at least one pre-wet treatment device is a single pre-wet treatment device (Each line is a single device.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues for the new limitations of claim 1. Specifically WO616 does not teach the operation controller configured to operate the path switching devices and JP618 does not teach a bypass line or emergency routing control.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Examiner has laid out the rejection in view of both JP618 and WO616. JP618 teaches the flow path switching devices working in order to make sure specific gases go to specific routes, which involves changing the valve functions depending on what process is happening within the system. WO616 teaches a bypass that bypasses combustion abatement sections in order to prevent sending harmless gas to it. The limitation of detecting a clog is considered to be intended usage. There is no further structure related to a clogging detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 04/13/2026/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights