DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-18 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 4 and 6 have been canceled. Claim 18 is newly added to continue prosecution of previously anticipated claim 1. It appears that no new matter has been entered. The amendments to the claims have adopted the previously indicated allowable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 18 remains pending as it is merely a reintroduction of previously anticipated claim 1.
Applicant remarks that the rejection to previously anticipated claim 1 and now embodied claim 18 is improper for the reasons discussed page 8 last two paragraphs to page 9 of the remarks in the response filed on 5/5/2026. The remarks are not persuasive as Mizuno/Mizuno ‘141 certainly teaches the cited steps as indicated below. In particular, the remarks are narrowly tailored and not commensurate in scope with the claim language, as taken under a broad reasonable interpretation of the claim language as contextually congruent with the instant application and the prior art of record. The operation/processing modes of Mizuno are at least the minimum steps/limitations claimed during operation for the switching of the exhaust path to recovery path or vice versa, and the remarks would arguably require the interpretation of importation of limitations from the written description into the claim language itself, which is improper without clear nonce style means plus function language. Accordingly this action must be made Final.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 2022/0285141);
Mizuno discloses in claim 18: A gas management assembly (1 figure 1) for a substrate processing apparatus (ph 0003 etc…), the gas management assembly comprising: an exhaust module (at 30 including 32/33/35A/35B/37/39) including a basic exhaust line (32/34B) that is formed to exhaust a chamber gas (in 10/31) containing a process gas (via 201 to 10) supplied to a chamber (of 10) of the substrate processing apparatus to a discharge system (of 43) including a scrubber (see 39); a recovery connection module (at 37) including a recovery exhaust line (36A) upstream of the scrubber (37) that is branched (via 34A) from the basic exhaust line (32) and formed to exhaust the chamber gas to a recovery system (via 37 and “Recovery Container”); and a control module (at 40) configured to perform automatic switching of an exhaust path (of 31 via MFC and change over valve 33 and see ph 0020-0024 and process steps ph 0025-0030) of the chamber gas from one of the basic exhaust line (of 34B) and the recovery exhaust line (of 34A) to the other based on at least one of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) an operation mode of the substrate processing apparatus (as discussed id), a pressure of the chamber (i.e. chamber pressure in 10), or a pressure of the recovery exhaust line (via MFC of 33 id), wherein the operation mode is at least one of (again alt group, MPEP 2131) a process start mode, a processing mode (id), a process end mode, or a process abort mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claims 1 and 15 “the control module switches the exhaust path to the basic exhaust line in a case where the operation mode is the processing mode and the pressure of the chamber exceeds a maximum switching pressure, and the maximum switching pressure is higher than the minimum switching pressure” in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights