DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 7 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 12/10/2025.
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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US Patent 5,851,293) in view of Ikeda et al. (US Patent 7,736,440).
Regarding Claim 1, Lane discloses a passage system (Figure 3 especially) comprising: an exhaust-gas transfer pipe 152 (pipe 152 transfers exhaust gas from process tool 150) configured to deliver exhaust gas to an abatement reactor 156 (as described in col. 11, lines 55-65, scrubber 156 provides treatment to remove scrubbable components from the effluent gas and therefore is readable as an abatement reactor; it is noted that col. 2, lines 24-29 describe the scrubber to abate solubilizable components and particulate species therein); a first two-way valve 154 attached to the exhaust-gas transfer pipe 152; a bypass pipe (157, 158) that branches off from the exhaust-gas transfer pipe 152 at a position upstream of the first two-way valve 154 (as shown in Figure 3) and bypasses the abatement reactor 156; a second two-way valve 162 attached to the bypass pipe (157, 158), the first two-way valve 154 and the second two-way valve 162 being vertically positioned (as shown in Figure 3; it is noted that col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 5 describes valve 162 as being located at the “upper end” of line 158 and therefore the system is oriented such that the first two-way valve 154 and the second two-way valve 162 are vertically positioned in the manner shown) and having flow passages for the exhaust gas extending in a vertical direction (as shown in Figure 3 in accordance with the second two-way valve 162 being located at the upper end of line 158); wherein the second two-way valve 162 is located higher than the first two-way valve 154 (as shown in Figure 3).
Lane does not disclose an inert-gas supply line configured to supply an inert gas into the bypass pipe, the inert-gas supply line being coupled to the bypass pipe at a position below the second two-way valve; and a heating device configured to heat the inert gas in the inert-gas supply line.
Ikeda teaches an exhaust gas system (as shown in Figure 2) and further teaches an inert-gas supply line 5 configured to supply an inert gas into the bypass pipe 7, the inert-gas supply line 5 being coupled to the bypass pipe at a position upstream of a second two-way valve 8; and a heating device configured to heat the inert gas in the inert-gas supply line (col. 5, lines 42-49; the inert gas is heated and therefore necessarily includes some form of a heating device to heat the inert gas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Lane to include a heated inert-gas supply line coupled to the bypass pipe upstream of the second two-way valve as taught by Ikeda for the purpose of providing a means of preventing adhesion of solid product with an inner wall of the pipes (as taught by Ikeda; col. 5, lines 42-49). It is noted that modifying Lane to provide an inert-gas supply line upstream of the second two-way valve 162 as taught by Ikeda necessarily couples the inert-gas supply line to the bypass pipe at a position below the second two-way valve 162.
Regarding Claim 2, Lane further discloses the exhaust-gas transfer pipe 152 has a vertical segment extending in the vertical direction (the portion of 152 coupled to the inlet of the scrubber complex 156), the bypass pipe (157, 158) has an ascending segment extending upwardly (the portion of the bypass pipe extending upwardly to and through the valve 162), the first two-way valve 154 is disposed in the vertical segment (as shown in Figure 3), and the second two-way valve 162 is disposed in the ascending segment (as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Lane in view of Ikeda is seen as further disclosing the bypass pipe (157, 158 of Lane) has an ascending segment extending vertically (segment 158 extends vertically as shown in Figure 3 toward the valve 162 which is disclosed as being located at the “upper end” of line 158), and the inert-gas supply line (as taught by Ikeda at 5) is coupled to the ascending segment (the inert-gas supply line is coupled to the bypass line 157, 158 of Lane and therefore, even if not directly coupled to the ascending segment, the inert-gas supply line is at least indirectly coupled to the ascending segment).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US Patent 5,851,293) in view of Ikeda et al. (US Patent 7,736,440) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tom (US Patent 5,151,395).
Regarding Claim 6, Lane is silent on the structure of the valves and therefore does not disclose each of the first two-way valve and the second two-way valve is a ball valve.
Tom teaches an exhaust gas system including a first two-way valve 618 and a second two-way valve 620 such that each of the valves is a ball valve (col. 30, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Lane such that each of the first two-way valve and the second two-way valve is a ball valve as taught by Tom for the purpose of utilizing a readily available structure known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously applied art fails to teach the inert-gas supply line being coupled to the bypass pipe at a position below the second two-way valve” as recited in amended claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive because, as described above and in the previous Office action, Ikeda teaches an inert gas supply line 5 coupled to a bypass pipe at a position upstream of a two-way valve 8. Therefore, in light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lane to include a heated inert-gas supply line coupled to the bypass pipe upstream of the second two-way valve (i.e. upstream of valve 162) as taught by Ikeda. Therefore, as described previously, providing an inert-gas supply line in Lane coupled to the bypass line at any location upstream of valve 162 will necessarily provide the inert-gas supply line being coupled to the bypass pipe at a position below the second two-way valve 162 because Lane discloses valve 162 as being located at the “upper end” of line 158. Applicant argues that if Ikeda’s configurations are incorporated into Figure 3 of Lane, then the inert-gas supply line 5 of Ikeda should be coupled to the line 157 at a position upstream of valve 159 and therefore the inert-gas supply line 5 is positioned at the same height as the valve 159. These arguments are not persuasive because even if this is accurate, the inert-gas supply line is coupled at a position below the height of valve 162 of Lane, which is relied upon as readable on the recited second two-way valve.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753