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
The amendments filed 6/17/2026 are entered.
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(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng (CN 2487438 Y).
Regarding claim 1, Feng teaches an inlet nozzle assembly (FIG. 1) for an abatement apparatus for treating an effluent stream (FIG. 1, the waste gas stream treated by the assembly) from a semiconductor processing tool (abstract), said inlet nozzle assembly comprising: a delivery nozzle (FIG. 2, footstock 1 and the ring beneath it) configured to deliver said effluent stream into an abatement chamber (FIG. 2, reaction chamber 21); and a mount (FIGS. 1 and 2, guide ring 3) configured to couple with an enclosure (FIGS. 1 and 2, gas treatment groove 2 and the ring above it) defining said abatement chamber, said mount being further configured to receive said delivery nozzle for delivery of said effluent stream into said abatement chamber, wherein said mount comprises a downstream surface (FIG. 1, the lower surface of the guide ring 3) which couples with said enclosure (FIG. 1, the lower surface of the guide ring 3 is coupled to the gas treatment groove 2 and the ring above it) defining said abatement chamber and an upstream surface (FIG. 1, the upper surface of the guide ring 3) from which said delivery nozzle extends (FIG. 1, the upper surface of the guide ring 3 contacts the assembly of the footstock 1 and the ring beneath it); and wherein said delivery nozzle is configured to extend from said mount distal from said abatement chamber (FIG. 2) and said delivery nozzle comprises: an upstream inlet portion (FIG. 1, the upper portion of the waste gas pipeline 14) defining an inlet chamber (FIG. 1, the interior volume of the upper portion of the waste gas pipeline 14) for receiving said effluent stream: a delivery portion (FIG. 1, the lower portion of the waste gas pipeline 14) defining a delivery chamber (FIG. 1, the interior volume of the lower portion of the waste gas pipeline 14) for delivery of said effluent stream into said abatement chamber: an upstream body (FIG. 1, the cylindrical portion of footstock 1 above the ring) comprising said inlet portion and at least a part of said delivery portion; a downstream body (FIG. 1, the cylindrical portion of footstock 1 below the ring) comprising a remainder of said delivery portion, wherein said downstream body is dimensioned to extend from said upstream surface, through said mount and said enclosure to said abatement chamber (FIG. 2, the lower cylinder of the footstock 1 extends past the upper surface of the guide ring 3, through the guide ring 3 and its interior volume, and into the reaction chamber 21); and a dividing plate (FIG. 1, the ring positioned above the guide ring 3) positioned between the inlet chamber and the delivery chamber (FIG. 2, the aforementioned ring is installed between the bottom of the upper and lower cylinders of footstock 1) and defining an aperture (FIG. 1, the aperture of the ring above the guide ring 3) which couples said inlet chamber with said delivery chamber (FIGS. 1 and 2, the aperture of the aforementioned ring is a part of the assembly that connects each of the cylinders of the footstock 1 together); characterized in that said delivery nozzle is dimensioned to locate said dividing plate upstream of said upstream surface of said mount (FIG. 2, the ring above the guide ring 3 is located above (i.e., upstream) of the upper surface of the guide ring 3).
Regarding claim 2, Feng teaches that said delivery nozzle is dimensioned to extend from a surface of said mount distal from said abatement chamber (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Feng teaches that said delivery nozzle is dimensioned to upstand from said surface of said mount (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Feng teaches that at least a part of said delivery portion is dimensioned to upstand from said upstream surface (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Feng teaches that said mount is configured to receive at least a portion of a remainder of said delivery portion therewithin (FIG. 2, part of the lower portion of the footstock 1 is held within the guide ring 3).
Regarding claim 8, Feng teaches that said delivery portion is dimensioned to extend from upstream of said upstream surface to said abatement chamber (FIG. 2, the lower portion of the footstock 1 extends from above the guide ring 3 to below it).
Regarding claim 12, Feng teaches that said upstream body is dimensioned to provide one of a plurality of different lengths of said at least a part of said delivery portion (FIG. 2, the footstock 1 has a number of different lengths based on a position along its cross section).
Regarding claim 13, Feng teaches that said upstream body is dimensioned to provide a length of said delivery portion which delivers a selected flow profile of said effluent stream into said abatement chamber (FIG. 2, the footstock 1 delivers a flow profile).
Regarding claim 14, Feng teaches that said upstream body is dimensioned to provide a length of said delivery portion which avoids backflow of said effluent stream from said abatement chamber (FIG. 2, as with most nozzles, the footstock 1 is designed not to allow backflow).
Regarding claim 15, Feng teaches that the dividing plate separates said effluent stream into a least a pair of vortices (FIG. 2, above the ring above the guide ring 3, the waste fluid comes into the assembly, but below the ring, the hydrogen jet pipes 12 separate the injected stream into two, and each stream may include some turbulent flow (i.e., vortices)) and wherein said upstream body is dimensioned to provide a length of said delivery portion which prevents said pair of vortices from extending into said abatement chamber (FIG. 2, as with most nozzles, the footstock 1 is designed not to allow backflow).
Regarding claim 16, Feng teaches that said upstream body is formed of material having at least one of a lower use temperature and a lower oxidation resistance than material forming said downstream body (FIG. 2, the ignition rod 13 causes a combustion reaction in the reaction chamber 21, meaning that the lower portion of the footstock 1 operates at a higher temperature than the upper portion of the footstock 1).
Regarding claim 17, Feng teaches an abatement apparatus comprising at least one inlet nozzle assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Feng teaches a plurality of said inlet nozzle assemblies, each having a having a different length (FIG. 2, the assembly includes a number of waste gas pipelines 14, each of which is a different length).
Regarding claim 19, Feng teaches a method (the method operated by the assembly of FIG. 1) comprising configuring the inlet assembly of claim 1 to deliver the effluent stream into the abatement chamber (FIG. 2, reaction chamber 21).
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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-19 above, and further in view of Andrew (GB 2533293 A).
Regarding claim 20, Feng fails to teach that the upstream inlet portion comprises a coupling and transitions from a circular cross- section at the coupling to an obround cross-section at the dividing plate; and wherein the delivery chamber has an obround cross-section.
However, Andrew teaches that the upstream inlet portion comprises a coupling and transitions from a circular cross- section at the coupling to an obround cross-section at the dividing plate; and wherein the delivery chamber has an obround cross-section (FIG. 2, inlet assembly 50 transitions from a circular cross-section to an obround cross-section, and transitions as it passes a middle plate (baffle portion 210)).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Feng by making it so the pipes 14 transition from having circular cross-sections to obring cross-sections, as taught by Andrew, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Feng with these aforementioned teachings of Andrew with the motivation of giving the flow a greater surface area to make mixing and reaction easier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, on page 5 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that the middle plate of top seat 1 of Feng is not located between two chambers and does not have an aperture. However, the rejection above has been changed in response to the matter introduced in the amendments that was not found in previous claims. Therefore the Applicant’s arguments do not apply to the ring above the guide ring 3, which is now used to teach the divider plate in the rejection above.
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
