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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the second liquid outlet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudry et al. US 2003/0101869 (hereafter Baudry) and further in view of Drewery et al. US 2020/0105509 (hereafter Drewery) and Jin CN106693653 published 24 May. 2017 as translated by EPO (hereafter Jin).
Regarding claim 1, Baudry teaches an exhaust gas abatement system (Figs 1-2) for use in semiconductor processing (CVD, ¶5), comprising:
a vacuum pump comprising an exhaust outlet;
a water eductor (64) coupled to an exhaust outlet, the water eductor comprising:
an inlet (62) coupled to an exhaust outlet;
a nozzle configured to provide injected water;
a mixing throat (labeled below), in which, when in use, said injected water (from 80) mixes with the exhaust flow from the vacuum pump; and
an expander diffuser (66) coupled to the mixing throat and defined by a chamber having an increasing cross-sectional area in the direction of an outlet of the water eductor;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mixing throat)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a separator (separator comprising 68) coupled to the water eductor, the separator comprising:
a first chamber (68) comprising:
an inlet (inlet from 64 to 68) coupled to the outlet (outlet from 64) of the water eductor and, when in use, receiving an exhaust flow from the water eductor,
a first liquid outlet (76), and
a gaseous exhaust outlet (gas exhaust from 68 to pump 78),
and configured to be partially filled with liquid such that an uppermost surface of the liquid defines a fill-line, and wherein the first liquid outlet is arranged below the fill-line and the gaseous exhaust outlet is arranged above the fill-line (where the structure of Baudry would be fully capable of performing the function in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g); further, it would have been obvious for the liquid outlets to be below a liquid fill line because the density of the liquid would be greater than the gas an thus the gas would be above the liquid in a head space); and
a second chamber (78) comprising a liquid inlet (inlet from 76) in fluid communication with the first liquid outlet (76) of the first chamber (68) such that liquid flows through the liquid inlet of the second chamber, and the second chamber having a further liquid outlet (76),
an exhaust gas abatement apparatus (flare 79) coupled (via pump 78) to the gaseous exhaust outlet of the separator;
wherein the system is configured such that, in use, an exhaust flow from the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump is conveyed to the separator via the water eductor (Fig 1, ¶59, ¶61),
and wherein the separator is configured, in use, to separate a gaseous component of the exhaust flow and a non-gaseous component of the exhaust flow (59).
Baudry does not teach
a vacuum pump comprising an exhaust outlet;
the water eductor coupled to the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump;
wherein the water eductor comprises:
an inlet coupled to the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump;
a nozzle configured for the injection of water, where Baudry does not provide details how the fluids are introduced into the eductor.
wherein the second chamber is arranged such that, in use, liquid flows through the second chamber in a direction substantially opposite to the direction of liquid flow through the first chamber; and
Drewery teaches a CVD (¶4-5) comprising a vacuum pump (130) comprising an exhaust outlet, where the vacuum pump provides a clean and/or low pressure environment in the processing chamber (¶2).
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 system of Baudry (Fig 1) by incorporating the vacuum pump (130) of Drewery in order to provide a clean and/or low pressure environment in the processing chamber (¶2).
The modification would have resulted in the vacuum pump (130 of Drewery) attached to the process chamber (Baudry 12; Drewery 132) to provide a clean and/or low pressure environment in the processing chamber, the outlet of the vacuum pump coupled to the water eductor (Baudry 64) in order to pump and condense the gas (Baudry ¶21-24), and wherein the system is configured such that, in use, an exhaust flow from the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump is conveyed to the separator via the water eductor.
The modification would have resulted in the water eductor comprising an inlet coupled to the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump for the vacuum pump to supply fluid to the eductor.
Jin teaches a water eductor (Fig 1) comprising an inlet (22), a nozzle (21) configured for the injection of water, a mixing throat (23, 24), in which, when in use, said injected water mixes with the flow; and an expander diffuser (25) coupled to the mixing throat and defined by a chamber having an increasing cross-sectional area in the direction of an outlet of the water eductor, where the nozzle allows for injection of a pressurized source (¶41).
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 eductor (64) of Baudry by including a nozzle (21) configured for the injection of water of Jin in order to inject the pressurized source (¶41).
MPEP 2144.04 VI C states that where mere rearrangement of parts which would not have modified the operation of the device distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to rearrange the parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the first chamber (68) and second chamber (78) inlets/outlets such that the liquid in the first chamber and the liquid in the second chamber flow in substantially opposite directions as a matter of obvious rearrangement of parts. For instance, first chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left and the second chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left, where it would have been obvious to rearrange the second chamber and/or the inlet/outlet such that the flow is substantially from left to right.
Regarding claim 4, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Baudry further teaches wherein the separator further comprises a third chamber (72), the third chamber having a liquid inlet (inlet from line 70) fluidly connected to the second liquid outlet (outlet from 70) and a further liquid outlet (outlet from 72 to 74).
Baudry does not teach where said third chamber being arranged such that liquid flows through the third chamber in a direction substantially opposite to the direction of liquid flow through the second chamber.
MPEP 2144.04 VI C states that where mere rearrangement of parts which would not have modified the operation of the device distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to rearrange the parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the third chamber (72) and second chamber (78) inlets/outlets such that the liquid in the third chamber and the liquid in the second chamber flow in substantially opposite directions as a matter of obvious rearrangement of parts. For instance, third chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left and the second chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left, where it would have been obvious to rearrange the second chamber and/or the inlet/outlet such that the flow is substantially from left to right.
Regarding claim 5, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Baudry further teaches wherein the separator further comprises a mist extractor (¶59).
Regarding claim 6, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Baudry further teaches wherein the water eductor is configured to substantially prevent back-flow of gas through the exhaust outlet of the vacuum pump (¶58-59).
Regarding claim 7, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Baudry further teaches wherein the water flow rate through the nozzle of the water eductor is at least 0.5 gallons per minute at 5 psi (¶58-59, where the structure of Baudry would be fully capable of performing the function in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Baudry does not teach wherein the water eductor has a length of less than about 200 mm; a height of less than about 150 mm; and a width of less that about 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to make the water eductor have a length of less than about 200 mm; a height of less than about 150 mm; and a width of less that about 50 mm in order to minimize the eductor size/weight, minimize material cost, allow the eductor to be more easily manuverable for shipping/installation, and/or to allow the eductor to fit in tight spaces in a system. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 9, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Baudry does not teach wherein the separator has a length of less than about 250 mm; a height of less than about 150 mm; and a width of less than about 150 mm.
It would have been obvious to make the separator have a length of less than about 250 mm; a height of less than about 150 mm; and a width of less than about 150 mm in order to minimize the separator size/weight, minimize material cost, allow the separator to be more easily manuverable for shipping/installation, and/or to allow the separator to fit in tight spaces in a system. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Baudry further teaches wherein the water eductor is configured to be heated to a temperature of at least 100 °C during operation (¶58-59, where the structure of Baudry would be fully capable of performing the function in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, Baudry in view of Drewery and Jin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Baudry does not teach wherein the water eductor is manufactured from a polymeric material and/or a metallic material.
It would have been obvious to make the water eductor to be manufactured from a metallic material in order to realize the high strength and chemical resistance with metallic materials such as brass or steel. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 8 Jul. 2026:
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the previous 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the rejections in view of Mahawili are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees the Mahawili does not teach the separator as claimed. The Mahawili rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 in view of Baudry and Drewery is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the invention of claim is not obvious in view of Baudry, Drewery, and Jin because Baudry does not teach the direction of flow within the separator chambers.
Examiner disagrees.
MPEP 2144.04 VI C states that where mere rearrangement of parts which would not have modified the operation of the device distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to rearrange the parts.
Merely rearranging components in the Baudry system such that the first chamber (68) has one substantially horizontal flow and that the second chamber has an opposite substantially horizontal flow would have been obvious as mere rearrangement of parts which would not have affected the operation of the device.
For instance, first chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left and the second chamber flow is shown in Fig 1 as being substantially from right to left, where it would have been obvious to rearrange the second chamber and/or the inlet/outlet such that the flow is substantially from left to right.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
