Detailed Correspondence
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 Amendment
Applicants’ amendment of the claim, filed on 04/13/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-15 from the non-final office action (01/12/2026), by amending claims 1, 3-11, and 13-15, cancelling claim 2, and adding new claims 16-17 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a gas leaks” should be “a gas leak”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicants Specification indicates “a high pressure ranging from several atmospheric pressures to tens of atmospheric pressures” ([0036]), and will be examined accordingly. As such, high pressure processing apparatus does not raise relative term issue.
A gas managing box assembly for a high pressure processing apparatus” in the preamble of claim 1 (or 13) and “supplying a process gas to a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus”, the examiner notes that Applicants stated that this claim means the “a high pressure processing apparatus” is not part of the claimed structure and will be examined accordingly. As the chamber is not part of the apparatus, the “due to processing of an object in the chamber” is also not part of claimed structure. Furthermore, “wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas“, as the chamber is not part of the apparatus, “a pressure of the chamber” is also not part of the claim. Therefore, the pressure of the inner space which is less than half of “a high pressure ranging from several atmospheric pressures to tens of atmospheric pressures” ([0036]) is considered read into the claim.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “a supply module” in claim 1, this is considered a gas supply line 121 or equivalents thereof.
The “an exhaust module” in claim 1, this is considered a gas exhaust line 131 or equivalents thereof.
The “a charge module” in claim 1, this is considered a charge gas line or equivalents thereof.
The “a detection module” in claim 4, 6, 11, 14 and 15, this is considered at least one of a pressure gauge 161 and a gas detector 165 as describe in claim 10 or equivalents thereof.
The “a control module” in claims 1 and 13, this is considered an electronic or mechanical controller or equivalents thereof.
The “an introduction module” in claims 11 and 15, this is considered a damper ([0060]) or equivalents thereof for introducing external air into the inner space.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The ”a charge module charging a protection gas into the inner space at a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space“ of claim 1 and “an exhaust module disposed in the inner space, and configured to exhaust a gas occurring due to processing of an object in a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus at a temperature higher than an ignition point of a process gas” of claim 13, the operation or the purpose of the apparatus is not part of the structure of the apparatus. An apparatus that is capable of performing the operation is considered read into the claim.
However, “to reach a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space” is also recited similarly in “wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas”, which has weight as discussed above (which is less than half of “a high pressure ranging from several atmospheric pressures to tens of atmospheric pressures” [0036]).
The following are also considered an intended use of the apparatus:
The “wherein the charge module includes an emergency open/close charger configured to charge the protection gas at a maximum set flow rate into the inner space during the discharge process of the gas” of claim 9,
The “the object includes a semiconductor wafer, the process gas includes at least one of hydrogen, deuterium, fluorine, ammonia, and chlorine, and the protection gas includes an inert gas” of claim 12, both the semiconductor wafer and the type of gases are intended use of the apparatus.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value lower than a pressure of the process gas flowing in the supply module“, while the parent claim 1 requires “wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas” which is less than ½ of the pressure in the chamber. On the other hand, the “a pressure of the process gas flowing in the supply module” is higher than the “a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas”. Therefore, claim 3 is broader than claim 1 and failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brestovansky et al. (US 20040118286, hereafter ‘286).
‘286 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: FIG. 4 is a schematic representation of a gas cabinet assembly according to a further aspect of the invention, comprising a gas cabinet 20 having an interior volume 30 ([0074], includes the claimed “A gas managing box assembly for a high pressure processing apparatus, the assembly comprising: a housing having an inner space”);
Thus, gas dispensed from vessel 50 flows through the valve head 48 and discharge line 34 to manifold line 24 coupled with gas flow dispensing regulator 36 and finally is discharged in the outlet line 38 coupled to the gas flow dispensing regulator 36 ([0077], includes the claimed “a supply module disposed in the inner space and configured to supply a process gas to a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus”, Note Applicants stated that a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus is not part of the claimed structure);
The cabinet is equipped in the interior volume 30 of the cabinet 20 with a point-of-use gas scrubber 61 which takes in the vent gas from the interior volume 30 and … Gas contacted with the scrubber medium is discharged from the cabinet 20 in vent gas discharge line 63 ([0083], includes the claimed “an exhaust module configured to exhausting a gas occurring due to processing of an object in the chamber”);
an inlet line 25 delivers CDA or other sweep gas into the gas cabinet 20, to purge out the interior volume 30 of the cabinet so that any toxic or hazardous contaminants in the cabinet are displaced from the interior volume and do not accumulate to any levels that approach the threshold limit value (TLV) of the specific hazardous components that may be involved in the gas dispensing operation involving the gas source vessels in the cabinet ([0082], includes the claimed “a charge module configured to charge a protection gas into the inner space to reach a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space”);
a monitoring and control unit arranged to shut off a gas-depleted vessel and to contemporaneously actuate a gas-full vessel for supply of gas to the flow circuitry (claim 52 of ‘286), Gas may also be stored in the vessel at substantially atmospheric pressure, or at low superatmospheric pressure, e.g., a pressure not exceeding about 1500 torr ([0058], last sentence, includes the claimed “and a control module configured to control the supply module and the exhaust module, wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas“).
Claim 13: FIG. 4 is a schematic representation of a gas cabinet assembly according to a further aspect of the invention, comprising a gas cabinet 20 having an interior volume 30 ([0074], includes the claimed “A gas managing box assembly for a high pressure processing apparatus, the assembly comprising: a housing having an inner space”);
The cabinet is equipped in the interior volume 30 of the cabinet 20 with a point-of-use gas scrubber 61 which takes in the vent gas from the interior volume 30 and … Gas contacted with the scrubber medium is discharged from the cabinet 20 in vent gas discharge line 63 ([0083]), This is particularly problematic in applications such as semiconductor manufacturing, where many commonly used reagent and cleaning gases are highly toxic, as well as environmentally dangerous, e.g., pyrophoric or explosive, in contact with the atmosphere ([0005], last sentence, includes the claimed “an exhaust module disposed in the inner space, and configured to exhaust a gas occurring due to processing of an object in a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus at a temperature higher than an ignition point of a process gas”, note at a temperature higher than an ignition point is an intended use of the appratus);
an inlet line 25 delivers CDA or other sweep gas into the gas cabinet 20, to purge out the interior volume 30 of the cabinet so that any toxic or hazardous contaminants in the cabinet are displaced from the interior volume and do not accumulate to any levels that approach the threshold limit value (TLV) of the specific hazardous components that may be involved in the gas dispensing operation involving the gas source vessels in the cabinet ([0082], includes the claimed “a charge module configured to charge a protection gas into the inner space to reach a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space”);
a monitoring and control unit arranged to shut off a gas-depleted vessel and to contemporaneously actuate a gas-full vessel for supply of gas to the flow circuitry (claim 52 of ‘286), Gas may also be stored in the vessel at substantially atmospheric pressure, or at low superatmospheric pressure, e.g., a pressure not exceeding about 1500 torr ([0058], last sentence, includes the claimed “and a control module configured to control the supply module and the exhaust module, wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas“).
Claim 12 is an intended use of the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘286.
‘286 also teaches that wherein the flow circuitry comprises valves for controlling flow of gas from each of the gas storage and dispensing vessels in the gas cabinet, with each of said valves being coupled to an automatic valve actuator connected by a signal transmission line to the monitoring and control unit, wherein the monitoring and control unit comprises a general purpose programmable computer programmably arranged to carry out operation (claim 54 of ‘286), it is obvious to control of the gas box environment automatically based on the pressure monitor and the toxic gas monitor.
By applying the automatic control of the gas box environment based on the pressure monitor and the toxic gas monitor, ‘286 also teaches the limitations of:
Claim 3: The gas cylinder vessel holds the sorbent medium in the form of a bed of the sorbent particles, and the vessel is charged with the sorbate gas so that it is sorptively retained on the sorbent bed at pressures that are typically much lower than the high pressures at which such gas cylinders have historically been used (e.g., pressures on the order of 1500-5000 torr or even higher) for gas storage ([0004], last sentence, that is, for a conventional system without sorbent, the gas cylinders have a pressure higher than 1500 torr of the gas cabinet, includes the claimed “wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value lower than a pressure of the process gas flowing in the supply module”).
‘286 also teaches A toxic gas monitor (TGM) may also be integrated into the body of the scrubber unit in a third approach to endpoint determination ([0088]), The enclosure may be equipped with flow circuitry, including piping, manifolding, valving, mass flow controllers, pressure and temperature monitoring devices ([0045]), by applying the automatic control of the gas box environment based on the pressure monitor and the toxic gas monitor, ‘286 also teaches the limitations of:
Claim 4: further comprising: a detection module configured to detect an environment of the inner space,
wherein the control module is configured to control the charge module based on a detection result of the detection module.
Claim 5: wherein the detection module includes a pressure gauge, and
the control module is configured to control the charge module to charge the protection gas for the inner space to reach a set pressure when a pressure of the inner space detected by the pressure gauge is lower than the set pressure.
Claims 6 and 14: further comprising: a detection module configured to detect an environment of the inner space; and
a discharge module configured to discharge a gas from the inner space;
wherein the control module is configured to operate the discharge module when determining that a gas leaks from at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module to the inner space based on a detection result of the detection module.
Claim 7: wherein the control module is configured to control the charge module to charge the protection gas into the inner space to dilute the leaking gas during a discharge process of the gas from the inner space.
Claim 8: wherein the charge module includes a gas regulation charger configured to charge the protection gas into the inner space while regulating a flow rate of the protection gas.
Claim 9: wherein the charge module includes an emergency open/close charger configured to charge the protection gas at a maximum set flow rate into the inner space during the discharge process of the gas.
Claim 10: This substantial gas supply capacity, however, is accompanied by the hazards and safety concerns incident to the storage of high pressure compressed gases. High pressure gas cylinders in the event of cylinder rupture or leakage of gas from a malfunctioning or damaged valve head involve the risk of catastrophic release of gas to the ambient atmosphere, as the pressurized gas is rapidly discharged to the environment of the vessel ([0005], includes the claimed “wherein the detection module includes at least one of a pressure gauge and a gas detector, and the control module is configured to determine that the gas leaks when a pressure of the inner space detected by the pressure gauge is higher than a set pressure or the gas detector detects the process gas”).
Claim 12: n semiconductor manufacturing applications ([0002]), The sorbate gas … hydrogen ([0057]), if applicants argue that claim 12 is not an intended use of the apparatus, it is obvious to use inert gas instead of clean dry air.
Claims 16-17: Gas may also be stored in the vessel at substantially atmospheric pressure, or at low superatmospheric pressure, e.g., a pressure not exceeding about 1500 torr, in various specific applications of the invention ([0058], last sentence, overlapping with the claimed range of “wherein the control module is configured to set the value to a pressure higher than the external pressure by tens to hundreds of Pa”).
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olander et al. (US 20080248636, hereafter ‘636), in view of Tom (US 5151395, hereafter ‘359).
‘636 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: a gas box 16, in which the head valve assembly is coupled with transfer line 18 ([0075]), pressure within the reactor in various embodiments can be within a range of vacuum to 1000 psi ([0086], 14.7 psi = 1 atm, 1000 psi is many tens to atm, includes the claimed “A gas managing box assembly for a high pressure processing apparatus, the assembly comprising: a housing having an inner space; a supply module disposed in the inner space and configured to supply a process gas to a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus”, despite a high pressure processing apparatus is not part of the claim, ‘636 includes this);
‘636 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) an exhaust module configured to exhausting a gas occurring due to processing of an object in the chamber;
a charge module configured to charge a protection gas into the inner space to reach a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space; and
a control module configured to control the supply module and the exhaust module,
(1B) wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas.
Claim 3: wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value lower than a pressure of the process gas flowing in the supply module.
‘395 is analogous art in the field of manufacture of semiconducting materials and semiconductor devices, a wide variety of hazardous gases are employed or produced, with specific hazards being associated with toxicity, corrosivity, pyrophoricity, and flammability characteristics of such gases (col. 1, lines 36-42). ‘395 teaches that A pressure controller (not shown in FIG. 1) monitors the pressure in the gas cabinet 102. In the event of a pressure swing, as a result of gross leakage of hazardous gas into the gas cabinet interior volume, a large solenoid 130 opens the associated valve to relieve the pressure in the gas cabinet (col. 22, lines 1-2), The outer enclosure 110 also contains enclosure flow circuitry 114, which is (A) coupleable to a source of inert gas (not shown) via the inert gas feed line 116, for flowing inert gas into the gas cabinet 102 (col. 16, lines 65-68), The high pressure controller 271 will trigger a light or other high pressure alarm 270 and a relay within the assembly in the event of a high pressure condition (col. 24, lines 65-67), The interior volume gas is withdrawn from the interior volume via withdrawal line 122 and passed via feed line 182 to the scrubber 112, in which the hazardous constituents of the gas stream are chemically sorbed by the sorbent composition therein (col. 21, lines 16-20), A description of the operating logic of this system is set out below. A primary safety factor in the design of such gas containment and treatment system is the isolation of operating personnel from the hazardous gas and the containment of all hazardous gas in the event of a bulk leak (Fig. 12, col. 34, lines 34-39), for the purpose of compact containment/treatment systems (col. 5, lines 44-45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an inert gas feed line, a withdrawal line, and a vacuum sump discharge line of ‘395, to the gas box 16 of ‘636 and operated the apparatus with operating logic of Fig.12 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of compact containment/treatment systems (col. 5, lines 44-45).
As for the limitations of 1B and claim 3, the pressure in the inner space of the gas cabinet is either biased toward the external pressure or biased toward a pressure of the chamber at 1000 psi, in other words, the pressure in the inner space of the gas cabinet is either above 500 psi or below 500 psi. This is obvious rejection because this represents a limited choice according to KSR. Furthermore, it is obvious to operate at a lower pressure purging gas than higher pressure because of the cost of the purging gas.
‘636 also teaches some limitations of:
Claim 13: a gas box 16, in which the head valve assembly is coupled with transfer line 18 ([0075]), pressure within the reactor in various embodiments can be within a range of vacuum to 1000 psi ([0086], 14.7 psi = 1 atm, 1000 psi is many tens to atm, includes the claimed “A gas managing box assembly for a high pressure processing apparatus, the assembly comprising: a housing having an inner space”, despite a high pressure processing apparatus is not part of the claim, ‘636 includes this);
‘636 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 13: (13A) an exhaust module disposed in the inner space, and configured to exhaust a gas occurring due to processing of an object in a chamber of the high pressure processing apparatus at a temperature higher than an ignition point of a process gas;
a charge module configured to charge a protection gas into the inner space to reach a pressure higher than an external pressure of the housing to block external air from being introduced into the inner space; and
a control module configured to control the supply module and the exhaust module,
(13B) wherein the control module is configured to operate at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module such that a pressure of the inner space by the charging of the protection gas has a value biased toward the external pressure rather than a pressure of the chamber by the supply of the process gas.
‘395 is analogous art as discussed above. ‘395 further teaches that there is the potential for fire and/or for explosion (col. 5, lines 25-26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an inert gas feed line, a withdrawal line, and a vacuum sump discharge line to prevent fire, as taught by ‘395, to the gas box 16 of ‘636 and operated the apparatus with operating logic of Fig.12 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of compact containment/treatment systems (col. 5, lines 44-45).
As for the limitations of 13B, the pressure in the inner space of the gas cabinet is either biased toward the external pressure or biased toward a pressure of the chamber at 1000 psi, in other words, the pressure in the inner space of the gas cabinet is either above 500 psi or below 500 psi. This is obvious rejection because this represents a limited choice according to KSR. Furthermore, it is obvious to operate at a lower pressure purging gas than higher pressure because of the cost of the purging gas.
‘395 also teaches a pressure controller that monitors the pressure in the gas cabinet and operated the apparatus with operating logic of Fig.12, including purge gas and vent due to leak of the hazardous gas, as taught by ‘395, to the gas box of the combined apparatus of ‘636 and ‘395 would have had the limitations of:
Claim 4: further comprising: a detection module configured to detect an environment of the inner space,
wherein the control module is configured to control the charge module based on a detection result of the detection module.
Claim 5: wherein the detection module includes a pressure gauge, and
the control module is configured to control the charge module to charge the protection gas for the inner space to reach a set pressure when a pressure of the inner space detected by the pressure gauge is lower than the set pressure.
Claims 6 and 14: further comprising: a detection module configured to detect an environment of the inner space; and
a discharge module configured to discharge a gas from the inner space;
wherein the control module is configured to operate the discharge module when determining that a gas leaks from at least one of the supply module and the exhaust module to the inner space based on a detection result of the detection module.
Claim 7: wherein the control module is configured to control the charge module to charge the protection gas into the inner space to dilute the leaking gas during a discharge process of the gas from the inner space.
Claim 8: wherein the charge module includes a gas regulation charger configured to charge the protection gas into the inner space while regulating a flow rate of the protection gas.
Claim 9: wherein the charge module includes an emergency open/close charger configured to charge the protection gas at a maximum set flow rate into the inner space during the discharge process of the gas.
Claim 10: As shown by the pressure/time plot of FIG. 14, the pressure level in the gas cabinet after occurrence of the bulk gas leak will oscillate between +2 psig and -2 psig (‘395, col. 36, lines 9-12, includes the claimed “wherein the detection module includes at least one of a pressure gauge and a gas detector, and
the control module is configured to determine that the gas leaks when a pressure of the inner space detected by the pressure gauge is higher than a set pressure or the gas detector detects the process gas”).
Claim 12: introduce controlled amounts of dopant impurities (e.g., boron) into microelectronic device wafers and is a crucial process in microelectronic/semiconductor manufacturing (‘636, [0002]), Use of such reactants can allow optimization of hydrogen to boron ratios to form desired products ([0082], includes the claimed “wherein the object includes a semiconductor wafer, the process gas includes at least one of hydrogen, deuterium, fluorine, ammonia, and chlorine”, note these are intended use of the apparatus, see claim interpretation above),
The outer enclosure 110 also contains enclosure flow circuitry 114, which is (A) coupleable to a source of inert gas (not shown) via the inert gas feed line 116, for flowing inert gas into the gas cabinet 102 (‘395, col. 16, lines 65-68, includes the claimed “and the protection gas includes an inert gas”).
As for the claims 16-17, the set point of protection gas pressure is merely an engineer’s choice, depending on the hazardous gas used and the safety margin to be applied.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘636 and ‘359, as being applied to claims 1 and 13 rejection above, further in view of Lim (KR 102396669, hereafter ‘669).
‘359 also teaches some limitations of:
Claims 11 and 15: A pressure controller (not shown in FIG. 1) monitors the pressure in the gas cabinet 102. In the event of a pressure swing, as a result of gross leakage of hazardous gas into the gas cabinet interior volume, a large solenoid 130 opens the associated valve to relieve the pressure in the gas cabinet (col. 22, lines 1-2, includes the claimed “further comprising: a detection module configured to detect an environment of the inner space”);
‘359’s pressure controller is not an oxygen detection module. The combination of ‘636 and ‘359 does not teach the limitations of:
Claims 11 and 15: an introduction module configured to introduce external air into the inner space; and
wherein the control module is configured to control oxygen concentration in the inner space to reach set oxygen concentration by operating the introduction module based on the oxygen concentration in the inner space that is detected through the detection module.
‘669 is analogous art in the field of Residual Gas Detection Device Before And After Processing In Semiconductor Chamber (title), a device which stably detects gas before and after a high-pressure process in a semiconductor chamber and checks residual gas in the chamber before driving the semiconductor chamber to prevent an explosion accident that occurs while driving the semiconductor chamber and an explosion accident caused by high concentrations of deuterium and hydrogen leaking into the public (abstract). ‘669 teaches that As shown in FIG. 2, the fluid control unit 20 includes a case module 210 having an accommodating space therein, and an exhaust line module 220 installed at the upper end of the case module 210 to communicate with the accommodating space inside. and an air line module 230 installed at the lower end of the case module 210 to communicate with the receiving space inside (P4, 2nd last complete paragraph), As such, the residual gas detection apparatus 1 before and after the process of the semiconductor chamber includes a double chamber unit 10, a fluid control unit 20, an oxygen detection unit 30, a hydrogen detection unit 40, and a purging gas supply unit 50, and A control unit (not shown) for controlling the fluid control unit 20 and the like are included as components (P3, 2nd last paragraph), and the case module 210 including the first valve 201 , the second valve 202 and the third valve 203 is installed in the accommodating space, and one end of the case module 210. and the exhaust line module 220 connected to the exhaust pipe 401 of at least one of the oxygen detection unit 30 or the hydrogen detection unit 40, and an external air injection module at a different location from the exhaust line module 210. , Residual gas detection apparatus before and after the process of the semiconductor chamber, including an air line module 230 for allowing air to be introduced into the accommodating space (P7, lower portion).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an air line module 230 and oxygen sensor 30 of ‘669, to the gas box of ‘636 and then combined with ‘395, for the purpose of preventing an explosion accident, as taught by ‘669 (abstract).
Note the air line module 230 read into the “an introduction module” and the oxygen detection unit 30 or the hydrogen detection unit 40 reads into the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘286, as being applied to claims 1 and 13 rejection above, ‘669.
For substantially the same reason as discussed in item 5 above, claims 11 and 15 are rejected over ‘286 in view of ‘669.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new grounds of rejections above.
In regarding IDS, Applicants argue that as all references are listed in the IDS, the English translation of foreign office action is not necessary, see the top of page 7.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The English translation of foreign office action is necessary because the examiner needs to know how the foreign office action treated various references. On the other hands, all the references listed in the IDS, except the foreign office action, had been considered.
The office has set requirement for the examiner to explain the relevancy of each reference item to item correspondence to the rejected claim.
In regarding 112(b) rejection, Applicants’ amendment overcomes the previous rejection but also introduces new 112(d) issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 0425796 is cited for “both the power and purging gas represent significant operating costs” (col. 2, lines 9-10) for encapsulation of semiconductor chips (abstract). US 20040118286 is cited for gas cabinet with ventilation gas feed 25 and outlet 63 (Fig. 4), alarm ([0087]), toxic gas monitor ([0088]), at pressure of 1500 torr (about 2 atm, claim 23), and control unit (claim 53) for low pressure processing chamber. As Applicants asserted that the chamber is not part of the apparatus, ‘286 can be applied in a 102(a)(1) rejection.
TW 202143275 is cited for an insulating box 11, a poisonous gas detector 33, and inert gas feed 15 (Fig. 3 or 4).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights