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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on the 18812078 application filed 08/22/24
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are pending and claim(s)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 have been fully considered
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 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(s) 1 has the phrase, “ammonia concentration of greater than or equal to 90-95%,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the use of a numerical range (90 to 95) immediately following a lower-bound limit (“greater than or equal to”) presents a logical contradiction that renders the boundaries indiscernible. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot sufficiently determine whether the limitation requires the concentration to be strictly ≥ 95%, or if any value ≥ 90% suffices. For example, if the ammonia concentration achieved by an accused system is 92%, it satisfies the condition of being greater than 90%, but fails the condition of being greater than 95%. This drafting formulation leaves the public insufficiently able to determine the boundaries of the claim.
Claim(s) 1 has numerous uses of language within parenthesis (not counting mere abbreviations) which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the uses of the language within parenthesis as utilized therein, is tantamount to a variation on the phrase "for example", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 1 has the phrase(s) “similar below” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the phrase is unclear as to what it is referring too.
Claim(s) 1,2 has/have the phrase(s) “i.e.” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the uses of the language within as utilized therein, is tantamount to a variation on the phrase "for example", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 1 has the phrase, “normal or slightly positive pressure,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the claim describes the feed gas as being at a ‘normal or slightly positive pressure.’ The word ‘normal’ could loosely imply standard atmospheric pressure, but ‘ slightly positive’ is entirely subjective relative terminology. When a subjective term is used in a claim, the examiner must determine whether the specification supplies an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Because the specification fails to sufficiently provide a numerical ceiling defining what constitutes ‘slightly’ positive, the term necessitates the exercise of subjective judgement without restriction, rendering the claim indefinite. The term “normal or slightly positive pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim(s) 1 has the phrase, “having a certain height to diameter ratio’,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the word ‘certain’ acts as a non-limiting placeholder. Because the bounds of this ratio are not sufficiently delineated, the claim fails to sufficiently point out the invention.
Claim(s) 1 language fails to sufficiently have proper antecedent basis, thereby rendering the language to be unclear as to what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language. The claim recites the feed gas entering ‘a certain adsorption tower of the n adsorption towers’ but subsequently transitions to discussing the aggregate behavior of ‘the n adsorption towers’ and ‘ the n’ adsorption towers’ without properly establishing how the sequential operation of a single tower relates to the collective cyclic operation described in the later half the claim. Furthermore, the claim introduces ‘an intermediate gas (IG) buffer tank’ but later confusingly refers to ‘ the intermediate gas (IG) buffer tank’ and ‘a lower pressure intermediate gas (LPIG)’ flowing into the same. The inconsistent introduction of mechanical elements and gas streams via indefinite articles (‘a/an’) versus definite articles (‘the’) breaks the logical chain required for proper claim construction, resulting in a failure to particularly point out the invention.
Claim(s) 1 language utilizes inappropriate exemplary language, thereby rendering the language to be unclear as to what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language. Claim 1 states: ‘the exhaust gas gener4ated in a GaN-MOCVD epitaxial process is used as feed gas (F), which typically comprises the following main components: 55%...of hydrogen, 25% of nitrogen, 20% of ammonia…” the use of exemplary language such as “typically comprises” within the body of a claim is inappropriate. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.
If stated in the claims, exemplary language leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. By stating what the feed gas ‘typically comprises,’ it is unclear whether the volumetric percentages (55%...of hydrogen, 25% of nitrogen, 20% of ammonia) act as strict, enforceable limitations of the claim, or if they are merely illustrative embodiments of a broader, unbounded feed gas composition. If the percentages are merely exemplary, the claim is indefinite for failing to positively limit the composition of the feed gas, leaving the public to guess at the actual scope of the claimed process.
Claim(s) 2,5,6,7,8 has/have the phrase(s) “preferably” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language.
Particularly, the uses of the language within as utilized therein, is tantamount to a variation on the phrase "for example", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In dependent claims 3 and 4, they have language that fails to have sufficiently discernible boundaries, thereby rendering the language to be unclear as to what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language. The claim recites the steps of ‘ purge pressurization (PP) and waiting (-) need to be flexibly arranged according to the alternating timing.’ A method claim must set forth active, positive steps delimiting how the process is actually practiced. Stating that process steps are to be ‘flexibly arranged’ provides insufficient sequence, duration or exact operational framework. It is an attempt to claim an outcome without detailing the steps required to achieve it, leaving the claim boundaries indiscernible.
Prior Art Discussion
US 11,179,668 B2 and US 11,772,037 B2: These references disclose comprehensive methods for extracting and recycling hydrogen and ammonia from MOCVD process exhaust gas utilizing Full Temperature Range Pressure Swing Adsorption (FTrPSA). There patents reach the precise chemical engineering required to treat GaN-MOCVDE exhaust gas utilizing multi-tower PSA systems operating at medium and high temperature to obtain high-yield liquid ammonia and purified hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights