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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 15, 2026. Claim 11 has been amended. Claim 18 has been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are pending in the application. Claim 20 has been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Amendment
Objection to Claim 13 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f) of claim 12 has been maintained since applicant has not amended claim 12 such as to avoid it from being interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR10-1519553B1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kim).
In regard to Claim 11, Kim discloses an apparatus (#100) for purifying a process gas containing at least one pollutant gas, comprising:
a reactor vessel (#110) which is designed as a centrifugal separator and which has a cylindrical region (#111) and a tapering region (#118) and into which oxygen or an oxygen-containing gas can be introduced as a reaction gas into at least one gas inlet (#113 air inlet pipes) arranged on the cylindrical region (#111) and can be discharged through at least one gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) arranged on the tapering region (#118) (see figures 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0045]), wherein
the at least one gas inlet (#113) is arranged and formed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas into the reactor vessel (#110) tangentially to a circumferential surface of the cylindrical region (#111) (see figures 2a-2c and 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0045]), and
a pollutant gas inlet (#112) which is arranged on the cylindrical region (#111) and is designed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas into the reactor vessel (#110) (see figures 2a-2c and 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0043]), so that
the at least one pollutant gas and the reaction gas are mixed with each other in the direction of the gas outlet and chemically react with each other on their way through the reactor vessel (see figures 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0045]-[0047]), and
the gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) is arranged and designed to discharge process gas not reacted in the chemical reaction and reaction products of the chemical reaction from the reactor vessel (#110) (see figure 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0048] and [0051]; Kim shows in figure 5b wherein the discharge pipe #116 has an outlet end arranged on the tapering region #118, i.e. at least one gas outlet arranged on the tapering region.),
wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#112) is arranged opposite the gas outlet and is formed to introduce the pollutant gas into the reactor vessel rotationally symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) (see figures 2c and 5b below and paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0051]; Kim discloses pollutant gas inlet is arranged opposite to the gas outlet opening arranged on the tapering region.).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to Claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas and/or the defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel (see paragraph [0044]; Kim discloses a valve (#112a) is installed in the semiconductor waste gas inlet pipe (#112) so as to regulate the supply amount of semiconductor waste gas or to bypass it. Furthermore, a blower (#112b) may be installed in the semiconductor waste gas inlet pipe (#112) to blow semiconductor waste gas. This is considered equivalent to the defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regard to Claim 14, Kim discloses wherein a heating device (#114) is arranged in or on the reactor vessel (#110) for supporting the chemical reaction (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and paragraphs [0040]-[0041] and [0046]).
In regard to Claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#112) is arranged at an end face of the cylindrical region (#111) of the reactor vessel (#110 (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and [0043]).
In regard to Claim 16, Kim discloses wherein the tapering region (#118) of the reactor vessel (#110) is formed as a conically tapering region (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and paragraphs [0041] and [0051]).
In regard to Claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the gas outlet is curved in an arcuate manner by 90º (see figure 5b below).
PNG
media_image3.png
685
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
In regard to Claim 19, Kim discloses wherein a filter element, a scrubber (#130) and/or a collecting container for reaction products is attached to the gas outlet (see figure 5b and paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Examiner notes that although Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the scrubber is removably attachable to the gas outlet, making the scrubber separable is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for ease of maintenance and/or replacement, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Smith, J. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0071548, hereinafter Smith).
In regard to Claim 13, Kim discloses the apparatus as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a temperature sensor is/are arranged on or in the gas outlet and/or a flow velocity sensor is/are arranged in or on the at least one gas inlet or the pollutant gas inlet.
However, Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber. The apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber. The exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas. The amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump. A controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber. The opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]). This is considered equivalent to a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the at least one pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kim by further having a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber, wherein the apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber, wherein the exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas, whereby the amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump, and a controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber, wherein the opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices, thereby maintaining process efficiency within the apparatus (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]).
Claims 11-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiban, S. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0195001) hereinafter Shiban.
In regard to Claim 11, Shiban discloses an apparatus (#10) for purifying a process gas containing at least one pollutant gas, comprising:
a reactor vessel which is designed as a centrifugal separator and which has a cylindrical region (#61) and a tapering region (#180) and into which oxygen or an oxygen-containing gas can be introduced as a reaction gas into at least one gas inlet (#80 air inlet pipe) arranged on the cylindrical region (#61) and can be discharged through at least one gas outlet (#101) arranged on the tapering region (#180) (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]), wherein
the at least one gas inlet (#80) is arranged and formed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas into the reactor vessel tangentially to a circumferential surface of the cylindrical region (#61) (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]), and
a pollutant gas inlet (#67) which is arranged on the cylindrical region (#61) and is designed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas into the reactor vessel (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]), so that
the at least one pollutant gas and the reaction gas are mixed with each other in the direction of the gas outlet (#101) and chemically react with each other on their way through the reactor vessel (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]), and
the gas outlet (#101) is arranged and designed to discharge process gas not reacted in the chemical reaction and reaction products of the chemical reaction from the reactor vessel (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]),
wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#67) is arranged opposite the gas outlet (#101) and is formed to introduce the pollutant gas into the reactor vessel rotationally symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the gas outlet (see figures 16-18 and 29-30 and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and [0086]).
In regard to Claim 12, Shiban discloses wherein the defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas and/or the defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel (see paragraph [0071]; Shiban discloses wherein valve #81 controls flow of combustion air through tube #80. The resulting turbulence thoroughly mixes the air with the heated gases to completely combust the gases. This is considered equivalent to wherein the defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regard to Claim 14, Shiban discloses wherein a heating device (#69 heater rods) is arranged in or on the reactor vessel for supporting the chemical reaction (see figures 16-18 and paragraph [0071]).
In regard to Claim 15, Shiban discloses wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#67) is arranged at an end face of the cylindrical region of the reactor vessel (see figures 16-18 and 29).
In regard to Claim 16, Shiban discloses wherein the tapering region (#180) of the reactor vessel is formed as a conically tapering region (see figure 29).
In regard to Claim 17, Shiban discloses wherein the gas outlet (#101) is curved in an arcuate manner by 90º (see figure 29).
In regard to Claim 19, Shiban discloses wherein a filter element, a scrubber and/or a collecting container for reaction products is removably attachable to the gas outlet (see paragraph [0073]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiban in view of Smith, J. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0071548, hereinafter Smith).
In regard to Claim 13, Shiban discloses the apparatus as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a temperature sensor is/are arranged on or in the gas outlet and/or a flow velocity sensor is/are arranged in or on the at least one gas inlet or the pollutant gas inlet.
However, Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber. The apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber. The exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas. The amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump. A controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber. The opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]). This is considered equivalent to a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the at least one pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Shiban by further having a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber, wherein the apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber, wherein the exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas, whereby the amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump, and a controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber, wherein the opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices, thereby maintaining process efficiency within the apparatus (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Kim's semiconductor waste-gas inlet pipes 112 are connected to an upper side surface of cylindrical portion 111. More particularly, Kim states that a plurality of inlet pipes 112 are connected to the "upper side" of cylindrical portion 111 and are installed approximately parallel to a tangential direction of cylindrical portion 111. Kim explains that this arrangement causes the semiconductor waste gas to swirl within cylindrical portion 111 and flow generally from the upper region toward the lower region. Thus, Kim's inlet pipes 112 are lateral, tangential inlets located on the circumferential side of cylindrical portion 111. Kim's discharge pipe 116 is a different structure. The discharge pipe is connected to reaction chamber 115 and carries gaseous byproducts and uncollected solid powder from reaction chamber 115 to wet cyclone 130. Kim describes the discharge pipe as being "installed between the reaction chamber 115 and the wet cyclone 130." Kim's Figure 5b likewise depicts discharge pipe 116 as extending internally through the heating cyclone before exiting toward wet cyclone 130. The Office Action appears to treat the lower end of discharge pipe 116, which extends into the conical portion, as a gas outlet "arranged on" tapering region 118. But a portion or end of an internal pipe merely extending into or terminating within the space defined by the tapering region is not an outlet arranged on the tapering region. The outlet of Kim's discharge pipe is part of an internal reaction-chamber and transfer-pipe assembly, not an outlet mounted, attached, or otherwise arranged on the wall or terminal portion of tapering region 118. Kim states that conical portion 118 separates heavier solid powder, which falls into storage portion 120, from lighter gas, which passes through reaction chamber 115 and then through discharge pipe 116 to wet cyclone 130. This is materially different from amended claim 11. In the claimed apparatus, the gas outlet is arranged on the tapering region, while the pollutant gas inlet is arranged opposite that outlet.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the broadest most reasonable interpretation is utilized for the phrase “arranged on tapering region”. The broadest most reasonable interpretation for this phrase is the gas outlet is being placed anywhere within or on a tapering region. The claimed phrase “arranged on tapering region” does not strictly limit the gas outlet to be structurally fixed or connected to the tapering region. Therefore, Kim reasonably and broadly reads on the claimed invention. In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “[T]he application describes the gas outlet as being located at the point of the tapering region having the smallest diameter, opposite the reactor plate supporting the pollutant-gas inlets. The arrangement establishes a generally axial path from the pollutant-gas inlet arrangement at one end of the reactor vessel toward the gas outlet at the opposite end of the tapering region. Kim instead introduces semiconductor waste gas laterally through tangential pipes 112 positioned on the circumferential surface of cylindrical portion 111. Those tangential side inlets are not opposite the identified outlet of discharge pipe 116 along the outlet's longitudinal axis. The Office Action has not identified any disclosure in Kim stating that inlet pipes 112 are positioned opposite the gas outlet, and the figures relied upon do not necessarily establish that relationship.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the application describes the gas outlet as being located at the point of the tapering region having the smallest diameter, opposite the reactor plate supporting the pollutant-gas inlets,) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Kim also does not disclose that pollutant-gas inlet pipe 112 is "formed to introduce the pollutant gas into the reactor vessel rotationally symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the gas outlet," as now required by claim 11. Kim expressly teaches a different flow configuration. Paragraph [0043] states that the semiconductor waste-gas inlet pipes 112 are installed approximately parallel to the tangential direction of cylindrical portion 111 so that the semiconductor waste gas is introduced approximately parallel to that tangential direction. Kim explains that four inlet pipes may be spaced by approximately 90 degrees around the cylindrical portion, with each pipe oriented approximately parallel to a tangent of the cylindrical portion, thereby causing the incoming waste gas to swirl and travel from the upper region toward the lower region. Introducing gas tangentially is not the same as introducing gas rotationally symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the gas outlet. A tangential inlet introduces gas with a circumferential directional component offset from the central longitudinal axis. The resulting flow is intentionally directional and swirling. By contrast, amended claim 11 requires the pollutant gas inlet itself to be formed so that the pollutant gas is introduced rotationally symmetrically with respect to the outlet's longitudinal axis. The claimed limitation concerns how the pollutant gas is introduced, not merely whether multiple inlet pipes happen to be spaced around the circumference of the vessel. Even if Kim's four inlet pipes 112 are distributed at approximately equal 90-degree intervals, that geometric spacing does not establish that the resulting introduction of pollutant gas is rotationally symmetric about the longitudinal axis of the gas outlet. Kim's pipes remain individually oriented in respective tangential directions. Kim discloses four localized tangential gas streams that generate circumferential swirling, rather than an inlet arrangement that introduces pollutant gas rotationally symmetrically about the outlet axis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the claim does not exclude the presence of more than one pollutant gas inlet. Therefore, even if, assuming arguendo, that Kim discloses four pollutant gas inlets instead of one, the pollutant gas is still being introduced into the reactor vessel rotationally symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal axis, as shown in figure 5b. Further, applicant discloses on figure 4 of instant invention that the pollutant gas inlet and the gas inlet are introduced into the reactor vessel tangentially and rotationally symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal axis of the gas outlet. Therefore, there is no clear distinction between Kim and the instant invention. In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
