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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites “determining a concentration of at least one of the first base chemical and the second base chemical based on the first and second measurements by computationally modeling respective contributions of the first base chemical and the second base chemical to measured signals selected from at least one of titration, conductivity, and pH.
The specifications do not recite “computationally modeling”, and the closest citation found in the specification was “The calculations below are an expression of how each base species can contribute to the measured signals (i.e., titration, conductivity and pH (see Page 9/lines 7-8). However, the term “computationally modeling” can be defined broadly, such as computations via algorithms, or modeling a simulation. The specifications therefore do not teach this limitation and is considered new matter as it is not conveyed that the claimed subject matter is held in possession by the applicant.
Independent claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected as they fail to fulfill the written description requirement for the same reasons as claim 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase et al. (US PAT 6302600 B6, as cited in the IDS), in view of Kidwell (US PG-Pub 20090173629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the examiner is interpreting “computationally modeling” as performing calculations by algorithmic means.
Nagase et al. teaches means for detecting the concentration of at least one ingredient consisting of alkaline substances (e.g., sodium hydroxide, tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide) in the waste treating solution by an electric conductivity meter and/or an absorption photometer as two separate analytical methods (see Nagase et al, col. 3/lines 34-48, col. 5/lines 3-8).
Nagase et al. fails to teach and determining a concentration of at least one of the first base chemical and the second base chemical based on the first and second measurements by computationally modeling respective contributions of the first base chemical and the second base chemical to measured signals selected from at least one of titration, conductivity, and pH.
However, in the analogous art of multiparameter system for environmental monitoring, Kidwell teaches an environmental monitoring system for monitoring water quality, comprising sensors for absorbance, fluorescence, enzyme activity, temperature, and conductivity, monitoring for charged analytes (e.g., potassium, chloride, copper etc.). The conductivity sensor is based on a computer-controlled bipolar pulse conductivity apparatus, which following using an algorithm to measure conductivity, as disclosed by Kidwell in the steps [0061]-[0074] (see Kidwell, [0005], [0027], [0060]-[0074]). Kidwell further teaches that the measured conductivity can be used to estimate the activity coefficient needed for accurate calculation of the concentration of ions present. Because the calculated conductivity depends on the measured concentrations and the measured concentrations depend on the conductivity, this can be solved in an iterative fashion or better by using the measured conductivity in the calculations rather than the calculated conductivity. Another algorithm is used in obtaining the concentration using equations fitted to conductivity data from literature, where Kidwell discloses in the steps [0097]-[0121] to obtain the concentration (see Kidwell, [0095]-[0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of concentration of at least one alkaline ingredient using a conductivity meter and/or absorption photometer of Nagase et al. to incorporate obtaining the concentration of a target analyte by computing the conductivity via a step-wise algorithm (as taught by Kidwell), for the benefit of being able to monitor multiple containments in a solution, or the water quality as disclosed by Kidwell, while providing continuous data stream for active monitoring of water sources (see Kidwell, Abstract, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 4. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the first base chemical and the second base chemical are strong bases (see Nagase et al, col. 5/line 3-7, alkaline substance can include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 5. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the processing solution is a semiconductor processing solution (see Nagase et al col. 13/lines 1-10 Fig. 5, treating solution supplied from spray nozzle 76 to the boards 12, such as silicon wafers 20 for manufacturing semiconductors).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 6. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the first base chemical comprises a hydroxide compound (see Nagase et al, col. 5/line 3-7, alkaline substance can include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 7. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the first base chemical is sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), or lithium hydroxide (LiOH) (see col. 5/line 3-7, alkaline substance can include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 8. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the second base chemical comprises an amine compound (see Nagase et al, col. 5/lines 3-7, alkaline substance can include tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide, and trimethyl monoethanol ammonium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 9. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the second base chemical is monoethylamine (MEA), ammonium hydroxide, tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethyl ammonium hydroxide (TEAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide, trimethylhydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, dimethyldihydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyltrihydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, phenyltrimethylammonium hydroxide, phenyltriethylammonium hydroxide, or benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide (see col. 5/lines 3-7, alkaline substance can include tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide, and trimethyl monoethanol ammonium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 10. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the conductivity of the processing solution is measured at a fixed temperature (see Nagase et al, col. 6-7/lines 53-7 Fig. 1, Waste solution collecting and supplementing device 28 is measured by an electric conductivity meter 30 and/or an absorption photometer 32, inside element 28 is a heater 36 for adjusting temperature and keeping it constant).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner is interpreting “computationally modeling” as performing calculations by algorithmic means.
Nagase et al. teaches means for detecting the concentration of at least one ingredient consisting of alkaline substances (e.g., hydroxide compound sodium hydroxide, amine compound tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide) in the waste treating solution by an electric conductivity meter and/or an absorption photometer as two separate analytical methods (see Nagase et al, col. 3/lines 34-48, col. 5/lines 3-8).
Nagase et al. fails to teach and determining a concentration of at least one of the hydroxide compounds and the amine compound based on the first and second measurements by computationally modeling respective contributions of the hydroxide compounds and the amine compound chemical to measured signals selected from at least one of titration, conductivity, and pH.
However, in the analogous art of multiparameter system for environmental monitoring, Kidwell teaches an environmental monitoring system for monitoring water quality, comprising sensors for absorbance, fluorescence, enzyme activity, temperature, and conductivity, monitoring for charged analytes (e.g., potassium, chloride, copper etc.). The conductivity sensor is based on a computer-controlled bipolar pulse conductivity apparatus, which following using an algorithm to measure conductivity, as disclosed by Kidwell in the steps [0061]-[0074] (see Kidwell, [0005], [0027], [0060]-[0074]). Kidwell further teaches that the measured conductivity can be used to estimate the activity coefficient needed for accurate calculation of the concentration of ions present. Because the calculated conductivity depends on the measured concentrations and the measured concentrations depend on the conductivity, this can be solved in an iterative fashion or better by using the measured conductivity in the calculations rather than the calculated conductivity. Another algorithm is used in obtaining the concentration using equations fitted to conductivity data from literature, where Kidwell discloses in the steps [0097]-[0121] to obtain the concentration (see Kidwell, [0095]-[0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of concentration of at least one hydroxide and amine compound using a conductivity meter and/or absorption photometer of Nagase et al. to incorporate obtaining the concentration of a target analyte by computing the conductivity via a step-wise algorithm (as taught by Kidwell), for the benefit of being able to monitor multiple containments in a solution, or the water quality as disclosed by Kidwell, while providing continuous data stream for active monitoring of water sources (see Kidwell, Abstract, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 14. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the hydroxide compound and the amine compound are strong bases (see Nagase et al, col. 5/lines 3-7, alkaline substance can include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 15. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the processing solution is a semiconductor processing solution (see Nagase et al, col. 13/lines 1-10 Fig. 5, treating solution supplied from spray nozzle 76 to the boards 12, such as silicon wafers 20 for manufacturing semiconductors).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 16. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the first base chemical is sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), or lithium hydroxide (LiOH) (see Nagase et al, col. 5/lines 3-7, alkaline substance can include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 17. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the second base chemical is monoethylamine (MEA), ammonium hydroxide, tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethyl ammonium hydroxide (TEAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide, trimethylhydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, dimethyldihydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyltrihydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, phenyltrimethylammonium hydroxide, phenyltriethylammonium hydroxide, or benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide (see Nagase et al, col. 5/lines 3-7, alkaline substance can include tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide, and trimethyl monoethanol ammonium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell teaches the exact limitations of claim 18. Specifically, Nagase et al teaches wherein the conductivity of the processing solution is measured at a fixed temperature (see Nagase et al, col. 6-7/lines 53-7 Fig. 1, Waste solution collecting and supplementing device 28 is measured by an electric conductivity meter 30 and/or an absorption photometer 32, inside element 28 is a heater 36 for adjusting temperature and keeping it constant).
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase et al and Kidwell as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hanson et al (US PAT 5472516 A, as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Nagase et al teaches a second analytical method for determining concentration of an ingredient using an absorption photometer (see Nagase et al, col. 3/lines 34-48)
The combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell fails to teach wherein the second analytical method comprises titrating the processing solution.
However, in the analogous art of semiconductor device fabrication, Hanson et al teaches determining the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, used to clean substrates, by dissociating it into a solution bath into certain ionic species. If at least one pair of ionic species concentration is known, then the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide can be determined (see Hanson, col. 2/lines 21-33). It is desirable to maintain a specific range of pH and conductivity in the solution of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, where on-line titration may be used to add more ammonium hydroxide or hydrogen peroxide to reach this specified range (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 34-54 and col. 6/lines 38-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second analytical method of the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell to incorporate the methods and on-line titration (as taught by Hanson et al), for the benefit of being able to measure ionic species in a solution dissociated from certain chemicals, where charged species are more susceptible to accurate measurements, and further can be used to determine the concentration of the chemicals of interest in a solution (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 21-33 and col. 6/lines 38-52).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell fails to teach wherein the second analytical method comprises measuring the pH of the processing solution.
However, Hanson et al teaches determining the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, used to clean substrates, by dissociating it into a solution bath into certain ionic species. If at least one pair of ionic species concentration is known, then the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide can be determined (see Hanson, col. 2/lines 21-33). Sensors such as a conductivity sensor and a pH meter are used to monitor for these ionic species pairs HO2- and H+, as to ensure the solution is within its specified parameters for conductivity and pH. The pH meter used to monitor for pH because it is a direct measure of H+. Conductivity is measured because it indicates the total number of ions in solution as a function of their respective mobility (see Hanson et al, col. 5/lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second analytical method of the combination of Nagase and Kidwell to incorporate the methods and a pH meter (as taught by Hanson et al), for the benefit of being able to accurately monitor the concentration of certain ionic species that present in the solution disassociated from certain chemicals in a solution. Monitoring the ionic species pairs such as HO2-, H+ NH4+ and OH-, where the pH meter can get a direct measure of H+, whereas conductivity can directly measure HO2- and NH4+. This in turn, allows for the determination of concentration of chemicals of interest in a solution (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 21-33 and col. 5/lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 12, Nagase et al teaches a second analytical method for determining concentration of an ingredient using an absorption photometer (see Nagase et al, [33])
The combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell fails to teach wherein the second analytical method comprises titrating the processing solution.
However, Hanson et al teaches determining the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, used to clean substrates, by dissociating it into a solution bath into certain ionic species. If at least one pair of ionic species concentration is known, then the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide can be determined (see Hanson, col. 2/lines 21-33). It is desirable to maintain a specific range of pH and conductivity in the solution of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, where on-line titration may be used to add more ammonium hydroxide or hydrogen peroxide to reach this specified range (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 34-54 and col. 6/lines 38-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second analytical method of the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell to incorporate the methods and on-line titration (as taught by Hanson et al), for the benefit of being able to measure ionic species in a solution dissociated from certain chemicals, where charged species are more susceptible to accurate measurements, and further can be used to determine the concentration of the chemicals in a solution (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 21-33 and col. 6/lines 38-52).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell fails to teach wherein the second analytical method comprises measuring the pH of the processing solution.
However, Hanson et al teaches determining the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide, used to clean substrates, by dissociating it into a solution bath into certain ionic species. If at least one pair of ionic species concentration is known, then the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonium hydroxide can be determined (see Hanson, col. 2/lines 21-33). Sensors such as a conductivity sensor and a pH meter are used to monitor for these ionic species pairs HO2- and H+, as to ensure the solution is within its specified parameters for conductivity and pH. The pH meter used to monitor for pH because it is a direct measure of H+. Conductivity is measured because it indicates the total number of ions in solution as a function of their respective mobility (see Hanson et al, col. 5/lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second analytical method of the combination of Nagase et al and Kidwell to incorporate the methods and a pH meter (as taught by Hanson et al), for the benefit of being able to accurately monitor the concentration of certain ionic species that present in the solution disassociated from certain chemicals in a solution. Monitoring the ionic species pairs such as HO2-, H+ NH4+ and OH-, where the pH meter can get a direct measure of H+, whereas conductivity can directly measure HO2- and NH4+. Determining the concentration at least one of these ionic species can in turn, allows for the determination of concentration of both chemicals of interest in a solution (see Hanson et al, col. 2/lines 21-33 and col. 5/lines 12-28).
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 Tracy C Colena whose telephone number is (571)272-1625. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 8:00am-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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/TRACY CHING-TIAN COLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/ROBERT J EOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797