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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species B, claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12-16, in the reply filed on 12/08/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of Groups 1-2 will not present an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner has reviewed applicant’s instant specification; however, there is no definition of such terminology as follows: “conduit”. Thus, one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would look these terms in the dictionary.
The term of “conduit” is defined as “a natural or artificial channel through which something (such as a fluid) is conveyed.” See dictionary in CONDUIT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster.
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 1-4, 6-9, and 12-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “an auxiliary abatement system for abating effluent gases” in line 1. Thus, the claim purports to be directed to reducing or eliminating effluent (i.e., undesirable) gases. However, claim 1 does not clearly recite the structural limitations and/or specific components that are configured to perform such abatement, reduction, or elimination of the effluent gases. Accordingly, it is unclear how the claim auxiliary abatement system achieves the stated function.
Claim 13 is likewise rejected for the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 depend on claims 1, 13; and hence are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shamouilian et al (US 6468490; hereinafter Shamouilian).
As regarding claim 1, Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for an auxiliary abatement system for abating effluent gases comprising: a first chamber (312) comprising a first inlet configured to receive the effluent gases; and a second chamber configured to treat the effluent gases and comprising a second inlet configured to receive a liquid reagent, a first outlet configured to output treated effluent gases, and a second outlet (410 of fig. 6) configured to output a byproduct produced by treating the effluent gases; and a conduit coupling the first chamber to the second chamber to provide the effluent gases from the first chamber to the second chamber and comprising a first end disposed in the first chamber and a second end disposed in the second chamber, the second end in the second chamber being disposed below the second inlet and the first outlet (annotated fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 2, Shamouilian discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for a tank (annotated fig. 4) containing both the first and the second chambers.
As regarding claim 3, Shamouilian discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for a lid (annotated fig. 4) covering the tank and coupled with the first inlet.
As regarding claim 4, Shamouilian discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for wherein the lid (annotated fig. 4) is coupled with the first outlet.
As regarding claim 6, Shamouilian discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for wherein the conduit has an inverted U-shape (inner-lower surface portion of reactor 231), and the second end of the conduit is disposed within a bottom section of the second chamber.
As regarding claim 9, Shamouilian discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for porous materials disposed in the second chamber (annotated fig. 4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamouilian et al (US 6468490; hereinafter Shamouilian) in view of L’Heureus (US 10889891).
As regarding claim 13, Shamouilian discloses the claimed invention for an abatement system (annotated fig. 4).
Shamouilian does not disclose a plasma abatement unit configured to receive effluent gases from a processing chamber; a pump disposed downstream of and coupled with the plasma abatement unit. L’Heureus teaches a plasma abatement unit (102 of fig. 1) configured to receive effluent gases from a processing chamber; a pump (196) disposed downstream of and coupled with the plasma abatement unit. Both Shamouilian and L’Heureus are directed to abatement system in semiconductor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a plasma abatement unit configured to receive effluent gases from a processing chamber; a pump disposed downstream of and coupled with the plasma abatement unit as taught by L’Heureus in order to abate effluent gases upstream of a downstream pump, thereby reducing harmful emissions and protecting the pump from corrosive byproduct.
Shamouilian as modified discloses an auxiliary abatement system disposed downstream of and coupled with the pump, wherein the auxiliary abatement system comprises a first chamber coupled with a second chamber via a conduit that is configured to provide the effluent gases from the first chamber to the second chamber and comprises a first end disposed in the first chamber and a second end disposed in the second chamber, and wherein the first chamber comprises a first inlet configured to receive the effluent gases; and a second chamber comprises a second inlet configured to receive a liquid reagent, a first outlet configured to output treated effluent gases, and a second outlet configured to output a byproduct produced by treating the effluent gases, the second end of the conduit being disposed below the second inlet and the first outlet; and a primary abatement unit (L’Heureus - 198) disposed downstream of and coupled with the auxiliary abatement system.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a primary abatement unit disposed downstream of and coupled with the auxiliary abatement system in order to further abate residual effluent gases and byproducts, thereby increasing overall abatement efficiency and protecting downstream equipment, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 14, Shamouilian as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Shamouilian as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the auxiliary abatement system comprises: a tank containing both the first and the second chambers; and a lid covering the tank (annotated fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 7 and 15 contain allowable subject matter because prior art does not teach fairly suggested wherein the conduit includes a spreader disposed within the second chamber and comprising outlets that face downwardly toward the bottom of the second chamber.
Claims 8, 12 and 16 depend on claims 7, 15; and hence is also allowed.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773