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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 25, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on January 23, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applegarth et al. (2020/0368669 A1).
Applegarth et al. ‘669 teach an industrial process gas filter (500) for removing organometallic vapors and solid particles from the gas, comprising an upper manifold including a separated inlet (518) and outlet (516), a central conduit, an expanded impaction stage (520) that will function as a ballast, and flow-through particle filter stages (526,528,530). Gas flows into the conduit in one direction and through the filter stages in an opposite direction (see figure 5B, paragraphs 50-55). The particle filter stages are inherently capable of removing a molybdenum or tungsten residue from a gas stream and the filter is capable of receiving a gas comprising molybdenum or tungsten chloride compounds. In the embodiment of Figure 3, the heat exchanger (400) can also function as a ballast with an inlet fluidly connected to the conduit and an outlet fluidly connected to the filter. The central conduit is fluidly connected to the inlet (518) and the filter, and the filter is fluidly connected to the conduit and the fluid outlet (516).
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegarth et al. ‘669.
Applegarth et al. ‘669 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the filter is configured for filtration with fluids at a preferred pressure or temperature range. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the temperature and pressure specifications of the filter are considered to be parameters that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill on the art in order to provide a filter that is effective in a given process stream to ensure that it does not fail.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegarth et al. ‘669 in view of Harkonen et al. (6,936,086).
Applegarth et al. ‘669 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the filter and/or conduit has a metal oxide coating. Harkonen et al. ‘086 disclose a particle filter that can have an alumina coating (see abstract, col. 4, lines 8-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the filter of Applegarth et al. ‘669 by using a metal oxide coating in order to provide protection from chemically corrosive vapors or abrasive particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The indefiniteness rejections have been overcome and are withdrawn. Regarding applicant’s response to the examiner’s claim interpretation, this is not persuasive and the same interpretation is maintained. It is acknowledged that the filter must be capable of handling the recited fluids and particle types, however no other structurally limiting features are claimed or required. Potential corrosion in hot environments is considered, however it is noted that the Applegarth filter can receive process gas that can be high as 500°C with optional cooling to below 200°C (paragraph 41). Additionally, filters can be considered to be sacrificial and replaced when heat damage reduces acceptable effectiveness. Regarding the ballast, the configurations of the specification are not read into the claims but are considered. Still, the prior filter ballast elements can be integrated into the filter or be a separate component.
Regarding the anticipation rejection over Applegarth, applicant argues that the filter is for removing contaminants downstream from a process and would not function upstream of a deposition chamber. It is maintained that the Applegarth filter alone (not including the upstream process) anticipates the filter of the instant claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the filter of claim 1 placed upstream of a deposition chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also notes that the source of particles in Applegarth is unknown, however the examiner’s position is that the particle source does not affect the prior filter structure, which is inherently capable of removing particles from a vapor stream.
Regarding claim 19, applicant argues Applegarth does not disclose a delivery manifold or installing the system to a delivery manifold of a delivery system. It is maintained that Applegarth discloses a delivery manifold (top end of Figure 5B) including an annular space surrounding the center conduit for receiving fluid from the top of the filters and directing it towards the outlet. The manifold is also fluidly connecting the conduit, the outlet (516) and the inlet (518).
Regarding the obviousness rejection over Applegarth in view of Harkonen, applicant argues that Harkonen discloses a particle trap which is not a filter. The examiner agrees that the Harkonen device can properly be called a particle trap, however it is also a filter (see title and Merriam-Webster 3rd definition: something that selectively alters or removes like a filter (as by holding back elements or modifying the appearance of something)). The examiner does not seek to change the principle of operation of the primary reference, but instead to show a motivation for using the metal oxide coating in the device. It is also noted that part of the Applecarth filter is a particle trap (524 in figure 5B) which functions the same as the Harkonen filter and would benefit from a metal oxide coating. Such a refractory coating will also inherently reduce mass gain when exposed to a vapor.
With respect to applicant’s statement that Harkonen teaches away from traditional filters, the examiner is only relying on the teaching and motivation for using a coating in a filter and not necessarily a fibrous filter.
Conclusion
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 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 FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
Prosecution Insights