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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that while the Examiner has asserted that it would be burdensome to search both groups, the Examiner has failed to provide an "appropriate explanation" of such burden, as set forth in M.P.E.P. § 803. That is, according to M.P.E.P. § 803, "an appropriate explanation" must be advanced by the Examiner as to the existence of a "serious burden" under M.P.E.P. § 808.02 if the restriction requirement were not required. Applicant respectfully asserts that no such appropriate explanation has been provided in the Restriction Requirement.. This is not found persuasive because M.P.E.P. § 803 II. Guidelines states “for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious search burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search.” The prior Office Action clearly provides for the different, separate classifications in the art of the different inventions and further specifically states “[t]he inventions have different classifications in the art. The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).” Therefore the restriction requirement has provided for an appropriate explanation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus defined by the positively claimed structural elements listed on separate indented lines in the body of the claims after the transitional phrase “comprising”.
Although the claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 15 mention broad structurally undefined, and unspecified fluid control system (and further broad, structurally undefined devices in the fluid control system), process gas, liquid material, solid material, by-product gas, pipe, vaporizer, and photodetector. However, none of the prior are positively claimed as structural elements of any invention.
In claim 9, while a vaporizer is positively claimed, it is noted that none of the prior recited gases, materials, as well as a carrier gas are not positively claimed as structural elements of the invention.
All the prior mentioned are considered as materials and/or articles intended be, can be worked upon, used with the inventions. However, none of such are positively claimed as structural elements of the invention. None such are required to be present as elements of the apparatuses.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are replete with language directed to intended use, process steps. However, as noted above the claims are directed to apparatuses. There is no required for the device to be used in any method at all including with any broad, structurally undefined fluid control system, any gases, liquid material, solid material, compound gas, nor any other unclaimed structures and materials. There is no requirement of for any vaporing, concentrating, calculating, generating, reacting, comparing, determining, heating, flowing, setting, changing, outputting, etc. of anything to ever be performed nor any other process steps to be performed. Process steps are not structural elements of an apparatus.
It is noted that the various “when” clauses recited throughout the claims are directed to conditions and/or conditional process steps that are never required to be performed, occur.
Furthermore, it is noted that the various respective “units” recited throughout the claims are not defined by any specific structure. Instead the claims provide for process steps of what the such units can possible do relative to further unclaimed materials and structures (See above).
Furthermore, it is noted that an unspecified “parameter”, setting value of unclaimed, structurally undefined devices of the unclaimed, structurally undefined fluid control system is not structure, nor positively claimed as an element of any invention.
It is noted that the term “or” recited throughout the claims is directed to alternatives, not requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to making concentration calculations, comparing concentration values, determining and outputting parameters to be changed. All of such can be performed mentally. A mental process is an abstract idea. The claims recite that the steps are performed by various broad units which appear to be, may be electronic components such as a general purpose computer. Although the mental processes are or can be performed by electronic control devices (i.e. computer or processor), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C., using a computer to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea.
The abstract ideas are performed by an electronic control devices, various structurally undefined “units”, which can singularly or separately be a general-purpose computer. A general-purpose computer is not a particular machine, and performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer is not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b)I. The claims recite a high degree of generality directed to calculating and comparing gas concentrations; and outputting and determining parameters that it is not a particular practical application and is more like apply it or just generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, other than the abstract idea, the claims recite further respective structurally undefined units, electronic control devices (such as general purpose computers) which do not provide for significantly more. The units (electronic control devices; computers, computing devices) that are well-understood to be routine and conventional in the art. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims also not provide for any additional structure, significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to “a program” (computer coding, script, language, etc.) which is not one of the four recognized statutory categories.
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 1-10, 12-13, and 15 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.
As to claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15, it is unclear what is structurally required to define a first concentration unit, second concentration unit, comparison unit, output unit, and adjustment unit because each of such are not structurally defined by and specific structural elements within the claims. See Claim Interpretations above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the respective “units” because the claims do not provide such. None of the units are required to be structurally connected to each other. A list of structurally undefined “units” not structurally connected do not define a single device. As such, it is unclear what is structurally required to define the inventions. There is no structural distinction between the respective units. The names of the units do not provide for any structure of the units. The names are directed to the intended use of the units. It is noted that a single and/or multiple known devices such as a computer/processor is/are structurally capable of calculating concentration values, comparing such values, determining parameters, outputting parameters, and adjusting parameters.
As to claim 1, although no reactions are required to be performed it is unclear what is required to be considered as a “main” reaction and a “side” reaction because such are not clearly defined in the claim.
As to claim 1, 10, 12-13, and 15 it is unclear what is meant, structurally required by the phrase “when the main reaction takes place most favorably” because the phrase does not provide for any further structural element, but is directed to a condition. No reaction is ever required to occur. See Claim Interpretations. Although no vaporizing of a liquid material or solid material and reactions are required to occur, it is unclear what is the nexus of the vaporizing a liquid material or solid material to the main reaction and side reaction because the claim does not provide for such.
The term “most favorably” in claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most favorably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although no reactions of anything is ever required to occur, “take place” (in any positively claimed structural element), it is noted that what may be considered as “most favorably” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. Therefore, although not structure, it is unclear what is considered as “a first ideal concentration” and “a second ideal concentration”.
It is noted that claims 10, 12-13, and 15 recited that same or similar language as that of claim 1. Therefore, applicant should see the applicable rejections of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claims 2-5 and 7-8 because the claims do not provide for any further positively claimed structural elements nor further structurally limit any prior positively claimed element. The claims are directed to a parameter, conditional process steps (as indicated by the “when” clauses), and/or process steps directed to materials and/or structures intended be, can be worked upon and/or used with the device, but are not structural elements of the claimed device. See Claim Interpretations.
As to claim 8, although not positively claimed as a structural element of the invention, it is unclear what is structurally required of a photodetector to be considered as “common” because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that based upon the specification and drawings, the photodetector (and other disclosed structures) appears to a necessary structure for the units to function. However, such is positively claimed in any of the independent claims.
As to claim 9, it although not positively claimed, it is unclear what is the nexus of a carrier gas to the prior mentioned gases, materials, and positively claimed units and what is required of a gas to be considered as a “carrier” gas because the claim does not provide for such. Although not claimed, the broad names of the gases do not provide for any specific gas nor what is required to be named as such.
As to claims 10 and 13, what is being claimed, what the is intended define the inventions because a program is not structure. Furthermore, it is noted that the claims do not include any recognizable transitional phrase followed by any listing of elements on separate indented lines.
The term “comparable manner” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comparable manner” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although no reactions are required to be performed, it is unclear what is considered as, required to be done to be considered as “in a comparable manner” because the claim does not provide for such. What may be considered as “in a comparable manner” to one person may be considered as such to another and vice versa.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minami; Masakazu JP 2016111068A (and US 2016/0153898; US 9,970,865).
Minami discloses a decomposition detection device for analyzing a material gas obtained by vaporizing a semiconductor material, a tank for accommodating a liquid semiconductor material is provided, a concentration measurement device for measuring the concentration of the material gas is provided, a pressure sensor, an absorbance measurement mechanism, and
an adjustment valve are provided in order from distillation in a lead-out pipe that supplies the semiconductor material from the tank, and a concentration control device is composed of these devices and a control mechanism COM that controls and calculates each device, the concentration control device includes a concentration measurement device for measuring the concentration of the material gas in the mixed gas flowing through the lead-out pipe, and
a valve control unit for controlling the opening degree of the adjustment valve based on the measured concentration measured by the concentration control device and the target concentration, the concentration measurement device includes a first detector and a second detector, and
an NDIR method for measuring the first absorbance, which is the absorbance of the wavelength absorbed by the semiconductor material, and the second absorbance, which is the absorbance of the wavelength absorbed by the substance generated when the semiconductor material is decomposed. Alternatively, it is described that an absorbance measurement mechanism of a laser absorption spectroscopy method is provided, and a decomposition detection unit for detecting decomposition of a semiconductor material based on the first absorbance and the second absorbance is provided (Claims 1-9, paragraphs [0027] - [0035], [0041] - [0042], and [0058] - [0086], and Figs. 1-6). The first detector and the second detector correspond to the first concentration calculation unit and the second concentration calculation unit of the present invention. In addition, from the descriptions of [0058] - [0071] and the description of the flowchart of Fig. 5 of Minami. Minami includes matters specifying the invention that "includes an outputting unit that determines and outputs a change target parameter that is a parameter whose set value should be changed among the parameters set (“setting values such as a setting temperature”) in the devices constituting the fluid control system based on the comparison result of the calibration unit" specified in Claim 1 of the present application.
As to claims 2-10, 12-13, and 15. See Claim Interpretations and prior 112 rejections above. The claims are also rejected in view Minami for reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NISHIGAI; Hiroki et al.; LIU; Dequan et al.; Cramer; Christian et al.; Shimizu; Toru et al.; Shah; Vivek B. et al.; DOTSON; Adam Robert et al.; Weiss-Penzias; Peter et al.; MCEWEN; Shane Lee et al.; Sur; Rajesh; Marta; Terry et al.; Albright; Patrick et al.; OISHI; Masayuki; Spartz; Martin; Dalmia; Avinash et al.; Nomura, Toshiyuki et al.; Jeffers; Eldon L. et al.; and Doyle; Walter M. disclose gas concentration detecting devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights