DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 1/14/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim 18 is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 12, and 14-16 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record and brevity of this action, the Examiner submits the following:
Claims 2-10 and 15 are all construed as an intended use of the claimed apparatus, and not structurally limiting. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The Examiner notes this functional language is only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the function. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are mixed claims that recite structural elements as well as their intended functions. The functional elements are construed as intended use in accordance with the above.
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Claims 1-17 (all pending, non-withdrawn claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and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, the limitations: “the reducing reactant” (line 8) and “the oxidising reactant” (line 10) lack proper antecedent basis.
As a first problem, the claim has mixed “British English” spellings with “American English” spellings such that confusion may exist between whether the elements are intended to be the same or different. The Examiner notes either the British or American spellings of “oxidizing” are acceptable, as long as uniformity is maintained with each recitation.
As a second problem, Applicant has mixed “agent” and “reactant” in regards to the reducing species.
The Applicant is advised that after amending claim 1 to correct these issues, claims 8, 12, and 17 should be checked for consistency and amended if necessary.
Regarding claims 2-17, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Patent 6,213,049) in view of Josephson (US Pub. 2003/0161774).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a plasma apparatus (Figs. 1-2, entirety), said plasma abatement apparatus comprising: a plasma device (Figs. 1-2, plasma generator #2 and related components) configured to generate a plasma stream from a plasma gas (C3, L32-55); a source of a first reactant (C3, L44-48); a source of a second reactant (C3, L53-55); an effluent stream aperture configured to convey said effluent stream into said plasma stream for treatment by said plasma stream (Fig. 2, exit of reagent line #14); a first aperture positioned to deliver the first reactant to a first region of said plasma stream (Fig. 2, reagent line #16 to slit injector #20); and a second aperture positioned to deliver the second reactant to a second region of said plasma stream (Fig. 2, reagent supply line #30 with injection holes #34), wherein said second region is located at a position of said plasma stream which is cooler than said first region (as the temperature is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus, the structure of the claimed invention and the prior art is substantially the same such that the “regions” would be arranged in the same way).
Yang does not teach wherein the first reactant is a reducing agent, where the second reactant is an oxidizing reactant, or a controller configured to control the source of the reducing agent to supply the reducing agent to the first region through the first aperture and configured to control the source of the oxidizing reactant to supply the oxidizing reactant to the second region through second aperture.
However, Josephson teaches wherein the first reactant is a reducing agent (Josephson – [0100]: reducing agent such as H2, H2O, NH3, C2H4, CH4, C2H6), where the second reactant is an oxidizing reactant (Josephson – [0100]: oxidizing agent such as O2, O3, C2H3OH), and a controller (Josephson – [0117]: computer controller) configured to control the source of the reducing agent to supply the reducing agent to the first region through the first aperture and configured to control the source of the oxidizing reactant to supply the oxidizing reactant to the second region through second aperture (Josephson – [0117]: controller controls various systems during operation; [0100] details introducing said agents through different inlets, thus would meet the limitations when combined with Yang; [0036], [0047] details combinations of gases).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular reducing/oxidizing reagents of Josephson with the Yang apparatus in order to efficiently treat effluent gases (Josephson – [0008]) to destroy or convert hazardous components to a more environmentally manageable species (Josephson – [0034]).
Regarding the preamble- “abatement apparatus for treating an effluent stream from a semiconductor processing tool” is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus, and not structurally limiting of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. The Examiner respectfully submits the Yang apparatus could be used to treat effluent gas and supply any number of different gases (see C3, L45-55 of Yang).
Regarding claims 2-10 and 15, as explained above, the claims are merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Examiner submits that the Yang apparatus provides DC plasma (C3, L32-34) like the claimed invention, is capable of providing a variety of different gases (C3, L45-55), and contains all the claimed structural features (see the rejection of claim 1 above), thus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed functions and having the claimed temperature regions of these claims.
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, chamber reactor #1) positioned to receive said plasma stream (see Fig. 1, coupled to output of #2) and wherein said second region is located within said reaction chamber (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Yang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Josephson teaches wherein the reducing reactant is H2, NH3, or a hydrocarbon (Josephson – [0100]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular reducing/oxidizing reagents of Josephson with the Yang apparatus in order to efficiently treat effluent gases (Josephson – [0008]) to destroy or convert hazardous components to a more environmentally manageable species (Josephson – [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches a power generator employed to generate said plasma stream (C3, L32 and C4, L42-43: device provides electric current for plasma generation).
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches a heater (C4, L45: nozzle is heated to 200 °C).
Regarding claim 17, Yang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Josephson teaches wherein the oxidizing reactant is O2 or O3 (Josephson – [0100]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the particular reducing/oxidizing reagents of Josephson with the Yang apparatus in order to efficiently treat effluent gases (Josephson – [0008]) to destroy or convert hazardous components to a more environmentally manageable species (Josephson – [0034]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Patent 6,213,049) and Josephson (US Pub. 2003/0161774), as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-17 above, further in view of Dickinson (US Pub. 2016/0166868).
The limitations of claims 1-12 and 14-17 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Yang does not appear to teach a hydrogen generator configured to generate said H2 in situ by electrolysis.
However, Dickinson teaches this feature (Dickinson – [0017]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Yang apparatus to comprise the hydrogen generator of Dickinson rather than simply providing H2 gas (as is taught by Yang and/or Josephson) as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results.
Dickinson teaches a plasma abatement apparatus utilizing hydrogen gas for said abatement, thus is in the same field of endeavor and serving the same purpose as the instant invention. Similarly, both Dickinson and Yang involve plasma deposition apparatuses. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA could obtain a predictable result by substitution of an in-situ hydrogen generator (Dickinson) for a premade hydrogen gas supply (Yang). The Examiner regards a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts as a highly trained, highly educated, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of experience in at least chemistry, physics, and electronics. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that said PHOSITA would be more than capable of making such a substitution and would recognize that the results obtained therefrom would be predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has submitted an amended Abstract that complies with all requirements, thus the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Claims 15-16 have been amended to correct a minor informality, thus the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended various claims to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the previous §112(b) rejections of claims 12-16 are withdrawn. However, the amendments to claim 1 have introduced new indefinite claim language, thus all claims are newly rejected under §112(b) based upon these amendments.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection made herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Josephson remedies any alleged deficiencies of the Yang reference. All §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718