DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction/Election
Claims 12 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 31, 2025.
Claim Analysis
Repeating from the previous Office Action, the present claims recite “supplying a mixed gas … the mixed gas comprising a plurality of process gases; … measuring … for each one of the plurality of process gases…” A question then arises of: what constitutes a process gas?
A gas is defined in one sense as “a fluid (such as air) that has neither independent shape nor volume but tends to expand indefinitely”1. A “gas” then is allowed to be a mixture a mixture of chemical species which are also individual gases/ gas phase under its plain meaning. Additionally, the prior art allows for process gas to refer to a gas with individual chemical species or to refer to a gas that is a mixture of individual precursors in a carrier gas such as N2. See Zhao et al. US 6189482 B1 (hereinafter “Zhao”) at Fig. 1A and col 9; and Shah et al. US 2023003704 A1 (hereinafter “Shah”) at paragraph [0004], for example. Accordingly, the scope of a process gas includes gases that are mixtures of individual chemical species which comprise, not consists of, a combustible species.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets a process gas as being either an individually-supplied, individual-species gas (e.g. pure H2, N2, NH3); or individually-supplied mixture of gases (e.g. precursor in a carrier gas, air, combined reactant stream such as H2/N2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 11, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit' s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In their amendment filed on December 31, 2025, Applicant has amended their method to require a step of “… determining a supply flow rate …without using a separate gas sensor for the mixed gas supplied …”.
Under the plain meaning of term “gas sensor2”, the term broadly refers to a device used to detect/sense gas or its properties. The detection of a property of a given gas or mixture of gases would be necessary to indicate at least the presence of a gas; therefore, the term can include physical properties such as pressure or temperature, chemical properties such as absorption to a sensor interface, or electrical/optical such as by spectrometry. The specification provides very little guidance with regards to any restriction in such an interpretation or otherwise provide a disclosure that would be inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term gas sensor.
Likewise, under the plain meaning of the term “separate3”, a separate gas sensor may be a gas sensor that is not shared in one sense, estranged from a parent body, autonomous, or dissimilar in nature or identity. Because the recited gas sensor is separate, a question arises of what is the gas sensor separate from? The present claims do not elaborate what structures are performing the various steps of the method, only the objects that are acted upon. However, measurement requires sensing/detecting of at least one characteristic to qualify or quantify, and thus measurements of first flow rates require at least one gas sensor per first flow rate, since the claims do not require that the measuring step is performed by only one device or only one device per process gas.
As the method comprises the steps of method, any number of unrecited steps may have components/apparatus/parts that may use or act upon a substrate processing apparatus and its components for exhaust, including unrecited gas sensors used for performing any recited or unrecited step leading to the determination of the lower explosion limit. It then becomes unclear what frame of structure-reference or context that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider integral, for the purpose of determining what qualifies as a “separate grass separator” that would be excluded from the determination of the recited lower explosion limit. Because such metes and bounds are unclear, the present claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of art rejections, the Examiner will consider the claims where a separate gas sensor is any gas sensor that is not part of a substrate processing apparatus/system and where a separate gas sensor refers to any gas sensor measuring otherwise using the recited mixed gas.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 11, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977), Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The claims have been amended to recite “determining a supply flow rate of a first dilution gas based on the first volume percentage and the lower explosion limit without using a separate gas sensor for the mixed gas supplied to the process chamber;”. The originally filed disclosure does not expressly recite the added claim limitation. Applicant states in their reply filed on December 31, 2025 that the amendments to the claims are supported by at least paragraphs [0005], [0041], [0043] and [0061]. The Examiner additionally identifies paragraph [0002] as the additional closest recitations in the originally filed disclosure of the subject matter encapsulated in claim 1 – 11, 18 – 20 as amended.
While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163.02 and In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971).
In light of the indefiniteness of the term “separate gas sensor”, the originally filed disclosure sets forth:
an objective to have a substrate processing apparatus that does not include a separate gas sensor generally ([0002], [0005]),
that a dilution gas supply 600 is not required to have mass flow controllers (MFC) [a type of gas sensor] to measure and control the flow rate of dilution gas ([0041]), and
that the flow rates measured from each mass flow controller are used for the real-time calculation of the lower explosion limit; and that the recited mass flow controllers as arranged in their apparatus embodiment are not considered separate gas sensors ([0043], [0061]).
However, the claim as presented requires: without using a separate gas sensor for the mixed gas supplied, determining a supply flow rate based on the lower explosion limit. There is no recitation of specific separate gas sensors for the mixed gas specifically. The only recitation of a step that specifically forbids the use of a separate gas sensor is the calculation of the lower explosion limit ([0043]), which maps to the broader “determining, based on the first flow rate for each one of the pluralities of process gases, a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas …”. The amendment also does not have inherent or implicit support because the determination does not require that only a first volume percentage and lower explosion limit are used; other factors are allowed to be used so long as a separate gas sensor is not specifically used for the mixed gas supplied. This is because the negative limitation allows in its scope the use of separate gas sensors for determination of supply flow rate so long as it is not for the mixed gas. The introduction of claim changes which involve narrowing the claims by introducing elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure is a violation of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Thus, the amendment introduces New Matter. Accordingly, there is no reasonable conveyance to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
A: In the interpretation where a separate gas sensor is any gas sensor that is not part of a substrate processing apparatus/system:
Claim 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, Sawaki et al. US 2002/0004603 A1 (hereinafter “Sawaki”), Vrtis et al. US 2006/0196525 A1 (hereinafter “Vrtis”), and Karna et al. US 4069018 A (hereinafter “Karna”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5:
Shah is directed to a concentration sensor assembly and methods of measuring and controlling concentrations of precursors within process gases (Abstract; [0001] – [0002]). The precursors may be among those that are flammable, corrosive or poisonous that are carried within a process gas [combustible process gas] ([0001], [0021]). Shah discloses a method that comprises:
providing a system comprising:
a process chamber 302, a juncture 340 where a first process gas and a second process gas mixes [thus providing a mixed gas from a plurality of process gases],
a mass flow meter 330 [integral gas sensor] that measures a mass flow rate of a compound [mixed] gas ([0061]), process gas flow meters 320A and 320B for the first process gas and second process gas, respectively,
carrier gas flow meters 316A and 316B associated with the first process gas and second process gas, respectively, and
a computing device 322 having a system control module 326 (Fig. 3; [0059] – [0064]);
receiving a set of first data from the carrier gas flow meters 316A and 316B indicative of first mass flow rates of a carrier gas, e.g. nitrogen gas flowing past each of the carrier gas flow meters ([0058] – [0060], [0069]), and a second data set indicative of second mass flow rates [mapping to the recited “first flow rate for each …” of the carrier gas combined with respective vaporized substances [measurement, and thus a measuring act of first flow rates for each one of the plurality of process gases] ([0027], [0030] – [0031]; Fig. 1A, 1B, Fig. 3, Fig. 4); and
determining a concentration [indicative of a first volume percentage by relationship to gas equations of state] based on inter alia the first and second data [and thus based on the first flow rate], which in turn indicates a mass flow rate of the vaporized precursor within the mixed carrier/vaporized substance gas ([0027], [0081]).
In another embodiment of their method, Shah discloses a step of supplying an independent line of carrier gas to the chamber that dilutes the concentration of the vaporized substance combined with carrier gas ([0069], Fig. 4), wherein the supply of the independent line of carrier gas is controlled by a flow controller and a valve to specific [predetermined] flow rates by a controller (Fig. 4 references 420, 414; [0069] – [0070], Fig. 5 reference 505). Shah further discloses a step of supplying an independent line of carrier gas to the chamber that dilutes the concentration of the vaporized substance combined with carrier gas ([0069], Fig. 4), wherein the supply of the independent line of carrier gas is controlled by a flow controller and a valve to specific [predetermined] flow rates by a controller (Fig. 4 references 420, 414; [0069] – [0070], Fig. 5 reference 505). The flow rate of the carrier gas in the independent line is adjusted and controlled to adjust the state of vaporization in the vaporization vessel or to carry out process chamber procedures [determination of a first dilution gas supply flow rate based on the first volume percentage, including reductions, addressing claim 2] ([0087]).
While Shah does not expressly teach an embodiment that has an independent carrier gas line alongside multiple process gas lines, Shah does disclose both embodiments and that, among other things, the independent carrier gas line can act as a bypass for the purposes of calibrating sensors used for detecting the mass flow rate and overall concentration determination ([0029], [0032], [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps between the embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 because Shah suggests that such embodiments are combinable and because Shah teaches that an independent carrier gas line is useful for at least calibrating the flow rate sensors.
Shah does not expressly teach:
the step of determining, based on the first flow rates, a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas;
that the determination of a supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas, i.e. first dilution gas, is based on the lower explosion limit; and
that the supplying of the independent line of carrier gas at the determined supply flow rate.
In analogous art, Vrtis is directed to a method of removing residues from surfaces of a processing chamber (Abstract; [0001]). Vritis discloses supplying a cleaning composition comprising an oxidizing gas, an organic species and optionally a diluent gas ([0011], [0031]). Vrtis further discloses that the purpose of the diluent gas is to increase or reduce the composition as a whole either below a lower explosive limit or above an upper explosive limit or to otherwise avoid explosive or flammable limits ([0031]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Vrtis implies a desire to maintain safe processes.
Similarly in analogous art Sawaki, directed to the production of maleic anhydride in a processing container/reactor, discloses that securing explosion safely of a mixture of an oxygen-containing gas and a flammable gas is known to be accomplished by methods such as keeping a concentration of flammable gas lower than the lower explosive limit, keeping the concentration of a flammable gas at higher than an upper explosive limit [relevant and meeting claim 4] ([0053] – [0054]). The lower explosive limit of a gas mixture – which in context of Sawaki would be an oxygen-containing and a flammable gas – can be predicted [determined] by application of Le Chatelier’s law ([0054]). Finally, Sawaki discloses that the concentrations of gases can be monitored and then compared to the lower explosive limit of the monitored composition to secure the safety of an exhaust gas generated from the reactor ([0054]).
Finally also in analogous art, Karna – directed to the monitoring of a recirculated atmosphere of an oxygen pulping reactor or any other atmosphere (Abstract; col 14 lines 30 – 40) – discloses that those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the well-defined limits by which a deflagrative explosion can occur (col 1 lines 35 – 61); that the lower explosive limits for specific compounds can be determined to have reported values (col 5 lines 10 – 35); and that the lower explosive limit of a mixture of gases can be calculated [determined] using LeChatelier’s law (col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 20). The monitored condition can be used for automatic control purposes such as automatic venting or reactor shut down (col 4 lines 20 – 30).
Therefore, in view of the prior art as a whole it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shah to determine a lower explosion limit for the mixture of gases from the first process gas and second process gas and thus their first flow rates, and set the supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas based, at least in part, by the lower explosion limit in combination and the concentration of combustible gas within the mixed gas [combustible process gas] in order to enhance the safety of their process and prevent deflagrative explosions as reflected and taught by Karna, Sawaki and Vrtis.
Claim(s) 6 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna as applied to claims 1 – 5 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US 2020/0399759 A1 (hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8:
Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna do not expressly teach the recited measuring, determining and supplying steps of a second dilution gas in which the first dilution gas and the mixed gas are mixed.
Yamazaki is directed to substrate processing techniques and methods of controlling the gas concentration of combustible (i.e. flammable, explosive) gases within the exhaust stage of a substrate processing apparatus (Abstract; [0002] – [0004]). Yamazaki in particular is motivated to avoid a concentration of combustible gases from reaching a lower limit of concentration that would allow the combustible gas to ignite [lower explosion limit] ([0004]). As depicted in Fig. 9, Yamazaki discloses a dilution controller 290, a gas concentration measurement device 281 that measures exhaust gas from a substrate processing device flowing in exhaust pipe 231, and a dilution gas – e.g. nitrogen – source 284 with a mass flow controller 285 ([0045] – [0052]). The dilution controller controls the mass flow controller to ensure a concentration of DCS gas , a flammable gas, in the exhaust pipe is 4.0% or less ([0052]), in order to reliably suppress the combustion of combustible gas at the rear stage of a vacuum pump. The flow rate of diluent provided is based on a calculation of the measured concentration of the DCS present in the exhaust gas relative to other exhaust gases to the target final concentration ([0071] – [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna to additionally perform the recited measuring, determining and supplying steps of a second dilution gas in which the first dilution gas and the mixed gas are subsequently mixed together in order to further ensure process safety and prevent explosion/combustion at a rear stage of a vacuum pump. Likewise with respect to upper explosion limits and determinations as discussed in claim 8 , the combined teachings of Sawaki, Vrtis and Karna discussed above also apply to render obvious the limitations of claim 8 for the reasons provided above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 11:
The limitations of the claims amount to a repetition of the first and second determinations, alongside the follow-up to such determinations. Outside a showing of criticality, the teachings of Shan, Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki would have rendered obvious repetitions of further mixture and dilution to ensure process safety, as elaborated above.
Claim(s) 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
Regarding claims 18 – 20:
The claims substantially match the limitations discussed above concerning claims 6 – 11. Furthermore, Yamazaki discloses that the dilution gas can be supplied to a vacuum pump or ahead of the vacuum pump; and that the dilution gas, like Shan, may be nitrogen gas [same material] ([0051] – [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shan to include the steps of determining lower explosion limits, and controlling flow rates of dilution gas based on concentrations of combustible gases and explosion limits to enhance safety of equipment and processes from potential explosion, as discussed above concerning the teachings of Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
B: In the interpretation where a separate gas sensor refers to any gas sensor measuring otherwise using the recited mixed gas:
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier et al. US 2018/0073137 A1 (hereinafter “Xavier”) in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xavier is directed to method for reducing effluent buildup in a pumping exhaust system of a substrate processing system used for deposition processes such as chemical vapor deposition and atomic layer deposition (Abstract; [0004], [0022]). In the embodiment depicted in Figure 1 (reproduced below), Xavier discloses a substrate processing system comprising:
a gas delivery system 20 having gas sources 22-n connected to valves 24-n and MFCs 26-n configured to control one or more [process] gases ([0031]);
a manifold 30 for supplying mixtures of the gas from the gas sources to a processing chamber ([0031]);
a purge gas supply 13 for injecting inert purge gas [dilution gas] to the processing chamber ([0029], [0039])
a controller used for monitoring process parameters using sensors and controlling the components of the gas delivery system ([0028], [0033]).
Xavier discloses general deposition and cleaning process comprising the steps of: supplying deposition process gases or cleaning gases from the gas sources of the gas delivery system, including precursor gas, oxidizer gas, and both purge and carrier gases such as nitrogen [inert dilution gases] ([0009], [0024], [0031], [0034], [0036], [0039], [0042]); measuring [first] flow rates using the MFCs or other sensors ([0032], [0037]); and controlling the delivery of process gases and flow rate settings with the controller ([0049]). As evident in the disclosure, the Xavier does not disclose sensors or MFCs in the manifold [no separate gas sensor for the mixed gas supplied]. Xavier also discloses that certain precursor process gases are likely to react ([0024]) as well as providing inert dilution gas to prevent combustion in exhaust lines based on the precursor used [combustible process gas] and the oxidizer used ([0012], [0023], [0027]).
Xavier does not expressly teach
the step of determining, based on the first flow rates, a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas and the first volume percentage;
that the determination of a supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas, i.e. first dilution gas, is based on the lower explosion limit; and
that the supplying of the independent line of carrier gas at the determined supply flow rate.
With regards to measuring first flow rates, determination based on first flow rates for each one of a plurality of process gases, and determining supply flow rates of dilution gases for mixed gases supplied to a process chamber:
In analogous art, Zhao is directed to systems, methods and apparatus for depositing titanium films (Abstract). Zhao discloses a similar apparatus to that of Xavier comprising a gas delivery system comprising gas lines and a processor that controls inter alia flow rates and timing of gases through a gas control subroutine (col 8 lines 20 – 60, col 15 lines 15 – 45, col 16 lines 55 – 67). The processor controls mass flow controllers to obtain desired flow rates for process gases. The controller repeatedly reads necessary mass flow controllers [relating to measuring of first flow rates], monitors the values of the mass flow controllers to determine gas compositions [necessarily determining a volume percentage for each component of the total gas composition], detects unsafe conditions from the monitoring of the gas flow rates, and adjusts the gas flow rates or activates shut-off valves based on the detection [determining based on first flow rates and volume percentages] (col 16 line 55 – col 17 line 14). Zhao also expresses a desire to maintain process safety (col 17 line 63 – col 18 line 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier by measuring first flow rates, determining volume percentages based on first flow rates for each one of a plurality of process gases, and determining flow rates of dilution gases based on the first volume percentage, and supplying the dilution gas to the mixed gas; because Xavier suggests a desire to prevent combustion conditions in a mixed gas having a combustible precursor and an oxidizers, and Zhao teaches that incorporation of such steps is to avoid or prevent unsafe gas flow.
With regards to determining a lower explosion limit of the mixed gas, also basing the determination of a supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas on the lower explosion limit, and supplying dilution gas at the determined supply flow rate:
The disclosure of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna discussed above in the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 over Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
In view of the prior art as a whole it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier in view of Zhao to determine a lower explosion limit for the mixture of gases from their first flow rates, and set the supply flow rate of the independent line of carrier gas based, at least in part, by the lower explosion limit in combination and the concentration of combustible gas within the mixed gas [combustible process gas] in order to enhance the safety of their process and prevent deflagrative explosions as reflected and taught by Karna, Sawaki and Vrtis; such safety enhancements would be appreciated when considering the desire for safety expressed in Xavier and Zhao.
Claim(s) 6 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna as applied to claims 1 – 5 above, and further in view of Yamazaki.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8:
Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna do not expressly teach the recited measuring, determining and supplying steps of a second dilution gas in which the first dilution gas and the mixed gas are mixed.
The disclosure of Yamazaki and conclusions of obviousness as discussed above with respect to the rejections of claims 6, 7 and 8 under 35 USC 103 over Shah in view of Sawaki, Vrtis, and Karna also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 11:
The limitations of the claims amount to a repetition of the first and second determinations, alongside the follow-up to such determinations. Outside a showing of criticality, the teachings of Xavier, Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki would have rendered obvious repetitions of further mixture and dilution to ensure process safety, as elaborated above.
Claim(s) 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xavier in view of Zhao, Sawaki, Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
Regarding claims 18 – 20:
The claims substantially match the limitations discussed above concerning claims 6 – 11. Furthermore, Yamazaki discloses that the dilution gas can be supplied to a vacuum pump or ahead of the vacuum pump; and that the dilution gas, like Shan, may be nitrogen gas [same material] ([0051] – [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xavier in view of Zhao to include the steps of determining lower explosion limits, and controlling flow rates of dilution gas based on concentrations of combustible gases and explosion limits to enhance safety of equipment and processes from potential explosion, as discussed above concerning the teachings of Vrtis, Karna and Yamazaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) None of the cited references, nor any combination thereof, teach or suggest determining a first volume percentage of a combustible process gas based on the first flow rate for each one of the plurality of process gases.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) The teaching regarding finding a volume percentage is found in Shah as discussed above in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, Sawaki, Vertis and Karna.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 See “Gas.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, (2022) Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gas as archived at web.archive.org.
2 See “Sensor” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, (2021) Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor as archived at web.archive.org.
3 See “Separate” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, (2020) Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate as archived at web.archive.org.