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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/27/24. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-20 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards (WO 2009/010792A2).
Regarding Claim 18, Edwards teaches a treatment method of a semiconductor process gas, comprising: generating a hydrogen gas ([p.5 ln10] “The gas may be an inert purge gas, for example nitrogen or argon, and may comprise a reactant, for example water vapour, oxygen, hydrogen”); performing a plasma treatment in which a process gas ([p.9 ln30] “gas conveyed to gas conduit 46 may be the exhaust gas from a process chamber in which a cleaning process is taking place, and so may contain cleaning gas, such as NF.sub.3, together with fluorine (F.sub.2)”) and the hydrogen gas are reacted using plasma (Fig. 1: output of 38); and performing a wet treatment (Fig. 1: water enters through channel 64) in which a by-product ([p.5 ln 20] “acidic gases contained within the gas stream, such as HF”) generated by the plasma treatment is wet-treated.
Regarding Claim 19, The treatment method of claim 18, wherein generating the hydrogen gas includes performing electrolysis of water vapor ([p.5 ln10] “The gas may be an inert purge gas, for example nitrogen or argon, and may comprise a reactant, for example water vapour, oxygen, hydrogen”) or of water to generate the hydrogen gas.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards.
Regarding Claim 1, Edwards teaches a device comprising: a plasma treatment system configured to perform a plasma treatment in which a process gas ([p.9 ln30] “gas conveyed to gas conduit 46 may be the exhaust gas from a process chamber in which a cleaning process is taking place, and so may contain cleaning gas, such as NF.sub.3, together with fluorine (F.sub.2)”) and a hydrogen gas ([p.5 ln10] “The gas may be an inert purge gas, for example nitrogen or argon, and may comprise a reactant, for example water vapour, oxygen, hydrogen”) are reacted using plasma (Fig. 1: output of 38); a hydrogen supply system (Fig. 1: 50, 22) configured to supply the hydrogen gas to the plasma treatment system; and a wet treatment system (Fig. 1: water enters through channel 64) configured to perform a wet treatment ([p.11 ln14] “water mist”) in which a by-product ([p.5 ln 20] “acidic gases contained within the gas stream, such as HF”) generated by the plasma treatment is wet-treated.
Edwards does not explicitly teach in Fig. 1 a scrubber. However, Fig. 1 includes water entering the chamber via channel 64 for wet treatment process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards in order for the device to act as a scrubber since the water mist captures the acidic gases such as HF into the water flow through the outlet of chamber 60.
Regarding Claim 8, Edwards teaches the scrubber of claim 1, wherein the plasma treatment system includes a body (Fig. 1: 20, 30) having an internal space (Fig. 1: 60), a plasma generator (Fig. 1: 38) configured to generate the plasma, a process gas inlet (Fig. 1: 44, 46) through which the process gas inflows, and a hydrogen gas inlet (Fig. 1; 50) through which the hydrogen gas inflows, and wherein the hydrogen gas inlet and the process gas inlet are connected to different portions of the body, or are connected together to a common inlet connected to the body (Fig. 1: 44, 46 are different from 50).
Regarding Claim 9, Edwards teaches the scrubber of claim 1, wherein the plasma treatment system includes a body (Fig. 1: 20, 30) having an internal space (Fig. 1; 60), and a plasma generator (Fig. 1: 38) configured to generate the plasma and including a gas flow passage (Fig. 1: gas flow from 44, 46, 50), and the process gas is supplied through the gas flow passage.
Regarding Claim 10, Edwards teaches the scrubber of claim 1, wherein the process gas is used as a discharge gas configured to generate the plasma (Fig. 1: 38 in combination with gasses from 44, 46, 50 generates the plasma in 60).
Regarding Claim 15, Edwards teaches the scrubber of claim 1, wherein the plasma generated in the plasma treatment system is or includes at least one of arc plasma, gliding arc plasma, plasma generated by dielectric barrier discharge, plasma generated by corona discharge, microwave plasma, capacitively coupled plasma, inductively coupled plasma, direct current plasma, alternating current plasma, or radio frequency plasma (Fig. 1: 38 is a plasma torch. NOTE: it is well known that plasma torch create plasma via DC, AC or RF).
Regarding Claim 16, Edwards teaches the scrubber of claim 1, wherein the wet treatment system includes at least one wet treatment unit including a spray nozzle configured to spray a wet treatment material, and a water tank communicated (Fig. 1: water supply enter via channel 64) or connected to the at least one wet treatment unit .
Regarding Claim 17, Edwards teaches device comprising, a plasma treatment system configured to decompose a process gas including a fluorine-including gas ([p.9 ln30] “gas conveyed to gas conduit 46 may be the exhaust gas from a process chamber in which a cleaning process is taking place, and so may contain cleaning gas, such as NF.sub.3, together with fluorine (F.sub.2)”) using plasma (Fig. 1: output of 38); and a hydrogen supply system (Fig. 1: 50, 22) configured to supply a hydrogen gas ([p.5 ln10] “The gas may be an inert purge gas, for example nitrogen or argon, and may comprise a reactant, for example water vapour, oxygen, hydrogen”) to the plasma treatment system.
Edwards does not explicitly teach in Fig. 1 a scrubber. However, Fig. 1 includes water entering the chamber via channel 64 for wet treatment process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards in order for the device to act as a scrubber since the water mist captures the acidic gases such as HF into the water flow through the outlet of chamber 60.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7, 11-14, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844