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.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krouse et al. (US 6,544,319).
Krouse et al. ‘319 disclose a purified hexafluoro-1,3-butadiene (HFBD) gas for use in semiconductor production (see abstract, col. 1, lines 6-19). An example of the gas contains 99.992 vol% HFBD and 76.6 total ppmv of contaminants including 24 ppmv of other hydrofluorocarbons (15 ppmv of hexafluoro-2-butyne and 9 ppmv of C4FC), 10 ppmv of H2O, and 18.8 ppmv of nitrogen (see Table 3, receiver no. 2). The instant claims differ from the disclose of Krouse et al. ‘319 in that the volume ratio of water is less than 8 ppmv. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the moisture concentration is considered to be a parameter that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve an acceptable dryness without wasting time and resources for additional drying. Furthermore, Krouse et al. ‘319 discloses “less than 0.1%” of water impurities and a purified HFBD product having “at least 1000 ppm lower” water concentration than the initial feedstock (col. 1, lines 57-65, col. 5, lines 34-36). It is submitted that given the teaching of the patent and the specific example of 10 ppmv of H2O being sufficiently near to the instant claim concentration of “less than 8 ppmv,” one having ordinary skill in the art would have known that a lower level of water is obvious and could be achieved by increasing the contact time with the drying media by increasing a bed size or by additional passes through the bed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First it is noted that the outstanding indefiniteness rejection has been overcome and is withdrawn. Regarding the prior art of rection over Krouse, applicant argues that the patent fails to disclose a water content of less than 8 ppmv (an example of 10 ppmv is disclosed). The examiner agrees with this however this is considered to be obvious over the patent and the rejection has been converted to an obviousness-type rejection for the reasons given in paragraph 4 above.
This application can be placed in condition for allowance after-final by cancelling claims 14-18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Reasons for allowance over the prior art are given in the previous office action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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