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.
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the second recited “a gas” is the same as the first. Similar issue with the second recited “an organic substance”.
Claims 2–12 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a gas” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends on claim 3. Claim 4 is also indefinite because the limitation of “the information of each temperature” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear what it the “information selected”. It is also unclear what is the “the detection result”.
Claims 5–6 are indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a gas” is the same as that recited in claim 1. Additionally, it looks like the published Spec. (hereinafter “Spec.”) introduces two different humidity detectors 21a and 21b respectively located on an upstream and downstream side of the filter, Spec. Fig. 5, [0037]. However, claim 6 relies on a singular “humidity detector” to detect humidity on both upstream and downstream side. Please clarify if this is what the applicant meant to claim. Note that this limitation potentially triggers 35 112(a) lack of written description and enablement.
Claim 7 has the same issue as recited in claim 6 because the Spec. discloses two separate temperature sensors 22a and 22b, and claim 7 relies on a singular temperature sensor to perform both functions. Please clarify if this is what the applicant meant to claim. Note that this limitation potentially triggers 35 112(a) lack of written description and enablement. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a gas” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “an organic substance” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a chamber” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it depends on claim 11.
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 are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 5–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hukill et al., US 2022/0327869 A1 (“Hukill”) in view of Garofalo et al., US 2022/0176294 A1 (“Garofalo”).
Regarding claim 1:
Hukill discloses that a cleaning apparatus for performing gas cleaning in a chamber (Hukill’s apparatus as shown in Fig. 6, Hukill Fig. 6, [0044]), comprising:
a gas flow path configured to receive a gas in the chamber and send the gas to the chamber (Hukill’s inlet 112, Hukill Fig. 6, [0054]);
a filter arranged in the gas flow path (Hukill’s filter element 104, Hukill Fig. 6, [0054];
a weight measurement device configured to measure a weight of the filter (Hukill discloses its filter can detect a quantity of mass disposed on or in the filter element, the device responsible for detecting quantity of mass is the claimed “weight measurement device”, Hukill Fig. 6, [0097]);
a humidity detector configured to detect a humidity of a gas in the gas flow path (Hukill discloses a humidity sensor, Hukill [0065]); and
a controller (Hukill’s controller 200, Hukill Fig. 6, [0057]) configured to control the gas cleaning.
Hukill does not disclose its filter is configured to adsorb an organic substance in a gas flowing through the gas flow path. Hukill also does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to estimate1 an adsorption state of an organic substance in the filter based on a measurement result of the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity detector.
However, Hukill discloses its filter sensors 110 or 150 are configured to transmit respective signals to one or more control units 200 or 300, to detect parameters relating to state or particle load of the filter element, Hukill Fig. 5, [0062]. Since Hukill discloses measuring humidity sensor and measuring quantity of mass, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hukill’s controller to utilize the information from humidity sensor and weight measurement sensor to estimate an adsorption state of the filter.
For the limitation of that the filter is configured to adsorb an organic substance in a gas, Garofalo discloses a smart filter system that are configured to adsorb VOC, Garofalo discloses its filter is equipped with various type of sensors, including VOC sensor and air humidity and water content sensor, Garofalo [0026]. Garofalo discloses its filter address the difficulty of knowing when a filter should be cleaned or replaced, and avoid unnecessary cost if the filter is changed too early or reduced performance if the filter is changed too late, Garofalo [0004]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Garofalo’s filter and various sensor in Hukill for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, Hukill’s controller would keep track of adsorption state of organic substance in the filter based on the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity sensor the same way as disclosed by Garofalo.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a water weight representing a weight of water contained in the filter, based on the detection result of the humidity detector (Garofalo’s air humidity and water content sensor is capable of determine water weight contained in the filter), and estimate the adsorption state based on a value obtained by excluding a dry weight of the filter and the determined water weight from a weight of the filter measured by the weight measurement device (Garofalo discloses a software application compares the date received at any given time against the initial baseline in order to determine filter element’s remaining life, Garofalo [0006], It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Garofalo’s software to use Garofalo’s humidity and water content detector to estimate an adsorption state based on a value obtained by excluding a dry weight of the filter—the initial baseline to determine the filter element remaining life based on water content).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the humidity detector is configured to detect a humidity of a gas on an upstream side of the filter in the gas flow path (Hukill discloses its sensor 110 could locate on an upstream side, Hukill Fig. 5, [0062]).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the humidity detector is configured to detect humidity of a gas on each of an upstream side and a downstream side of the filter in the gas flow path (Hukill discloses sensor 110 and 150, respectively located on an upstream and a downstream side of the filter, Hukill Fig. 5, [0062]), and
the controller is configured estimate the adsorption state based on a measurement result of the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity detector, in a state in which a difference between the humidity of the gas on the upstream side and the humidity of the gas on the downstream side which are detected by the humidity detector is smaller than a humidity threshold (as discussed in claim 1, modified Hukill’s controller would keep track of adsorption state of organic substance in the filter based on the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity sensor the same way as disclosed by Garofalo, including when the humidity difference is smaller than a humidity threshold).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of a gas on each of an upstream side and a downstream side of the filter in the gas flow path (Hukill discloses its sensor could be a temperature sensor, and Hukill a sensor 110 and 150 located on both upstream and downstream side of the filter, Hukill Fig. 5, [0062]),
wherein the controller is configured to estimate the adsorption state based on a measurement result of the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity detector, in a state in which a difference between the temperature of the gas on the upstream side and the temperature of the gas on the downstream side which are detected by the temperature detector is smaller than a temperature threshold (as discussed in claim 1, modified Hukill’s controller would keep track of adsorption state of organic substance in the filter based on the weight measurement device and a detection result of the humidity sensor the same way as disclosed by Garofalo, including when the temperature difference is smaller than a temperature threshold).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to estimate, as the adsorption state, one of an amounts of an organic substance already adsorbed in the filter and an amount of a still adsorbable organic substance in the filter (Garofalo discloses a sensor 25, which could be VOC sensor, that is located on the filter 10, and therefore would be sensing an amounts of an organic substance already adsorbed in the filter, and compare it with a baseline indicating an initial state of the filter to determine a filter element’s remaining lifetime, Garofalo Fig. 1, [0006],[0026] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a replacement timing of the filter based on the adsorption state estimated for the filter (Hukill Abstract).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Hukill discloses that the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to notify the determined replacement timing of the filter (Hukill [0009]).
Claims 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aichi et al., US 2019/0302613 A1 (“Aichi”) in view of Hukill and Garofalo.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Hukill does not disclose that a lithography apparatus for forming a pattern on a substrate, comprising: a forming device configured to form a pattern on the substrate; a chamber configured to accommodate the forming device; and a cleaning apparatus defined in claim 1 and configured to perform gas cleaning in the chamber.
In the analogous art of air filters, Aichi discloses a lithography apparatus for forming a pattern on a substrate (Archi’s imprint apparatus 10, Aichi Fig. 1, [0022]), comprising:
a forming device configured to form a pattern on the substrate (Archi discloses test substate W2 where imprinting material could form a pattern on the substrate, Archi Fig. 1, [0036]);
a chamber (Archi’s chamber C, Aichi Fig. 1, [0026]) configured to accommodate the forming device; and
a cleaning apparatus (Archi’s chemical filter 18, Archi Fig. 1, [0028]) and configured to perform gas cleaning in the chamber.
Archi does not its cleaning apparatus is constructed as recited in claim 1, however, Archi discloses a need to replace it chemical filter 18 at an appropriate time, Archi Fig. 1, [0034]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Archi’s current filter with the filter as discussed in claim 1 for the benefits of accurate indication of when to replace the filter.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Archi discloses that an article manufacturing method comprising:
forming a pattern on a substrate using a lithography apparatus defined in claim 11 (Archi’s step S1 and S2, Archi Fig. 4, [0036]–[0036]);
processing the substrate having undergone the forming (Archi’s step S4, Archi Fig. 4, [0038]); and
manufacturing an article from the substrate having undergone the processing (Archi’s step S5 and S7, Archi Fig. 4, [0038]–[0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Hukill does not disclose that the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine the water weight based on the detection result of the humidity detector and information representing a relationship between a humidity of a gas in the gas flow path and a water content of the filter.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Hukill for the controller to determine the water weight based on information representing a relationship between a humidity of a gas in the gas flow path and a water content of the filter because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claim 4 would be allowable because it depends on claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 This limitation does not trigger 35 U.S.C. §101 because weight measurement of humidity detector is not something one can done in the mind with the help of pen and paper.
Prosecution Insights