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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 May 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,817,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,817,329 “anticipate” application Claims 8 and 15. Accordingly, application Claims 8 and 15 are not patentably district from Patent Claims 8 and 16.
Here, Patent Claim 8 requires:
A method, comprising:
determining, by one or more processors and based on determining that a new batch of a semiconductor processing chemical was added to a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system, that a test is to be performed for the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum; and
causing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to be transitioned from a production supply configuration to an independent production and test configuration,
wherein, in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a production point of use (POU) or a chemical test POU, and
wherein, in the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to the chemical test POU or the production POU based on whether the first chemical supply line is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the day tank to the production POU or the chemical test POU.
While Application Claim 8 requires:
A method, comprising: determining, by one or more processors, that a test is to be performed for a semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system; causing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to operate in an independent production and test configuration; causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold; and causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold.
Here, Patent Claim 16 requires:
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
determine, based on determining that a new batch of a semiconductor processing chemical was added to a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system, that a test is to be performed for the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum; and
cause, based on determining that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to be transitioned from a production supply configuration to an independent production and test configuration,
wherein, in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a production point of use (POU) or a chemical test POU, and
wherein, in the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to the chemical test POU or the production POU based on whether the first chemical supply line is configured to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the day tank to the production POU or the chemical test POU.
While Application Claim 15 requires:
A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: determine that a test is to be performed for a semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system; cause, based on a determination that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to operate in an independent production and test configuration; cause, based on the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold; and cause, based on the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent claims 8 and 16 encompasses Application claims 8 and 15. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application claims 8 and 15 are anticipated by Patent claims 8 and 16 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application claims 8 and 15 are obvious over Patent claims 8 and 16.
Claims 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,026 “anticipate” application Claims 8-10. Accordingly, application Claims 8-10 are not patentably district from Patent Claims 8-10.
Here, Patent Claim 8 requires:
A method, comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, that a new batch of a semiconductor processing chemical was added to a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system;
causing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the new batch was added to the storage drum, the chemical dispensing system to be transitioned from a production supply configuration to an independent production and test configuration; and
causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system being configured in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold and a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold.
While Application Claim 8 requires:
A method, comprising: determining, by one or more processors, that a test is to be performed for a semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system; causing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to operate in an independent production and test configuration; causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold; and causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific Patent claim 8 encompasses Application claim 8. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application claim 8 is anticipated by Patent claim 8 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application claim 8 is obvious over Patent claim 8.
Similarly, claims 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 10, respectively, for the same reason set forth above.
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.
Claims 11-14 and 18-20 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 11 recites the limitation “a test” in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same test or a different test than the test introduced in Claim 8, line 2. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same test.
Claims 12-14 also recite “the test” and it is unclear if they are referring to the test of Claim 11 or the test of Claim 8. For purposes of examination, since the test of Claim 11 is being interpreted as the same test of Claim 8, then the tests of Claims 12-14 are also being interpreted as the test of Claim 8.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a test” in line 3. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same test or a different test than the test introduced in Claim 15, line 4. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same test.
Claims 19-20 also recite “the test” and it is unclear if they are referring to the test of Claim 18 or the test of Claim 15. For purposes of examination, since the test of Claim 18 is being interpreted as the same test of Claim 15, then the tests of Claims 19-20 are also being interpreted as the test of Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferri, Jr et al (US 5,417,346).
Regarding Claim 8, Ferri, Jr et al disclose a method (Figures 1A and 1B). The method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, that a test is to be performed for a semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system (via 12a or 12b; Col 6, lines 7-21); and
causing, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to operate an independent production and test configuration (to provide fluid flow to line 88 shown in Figure 1B),
causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system (from 12a to 14 as seen in Figures 1A and 1B) to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold (from 12a to 14 as seen in Figures 1A and 1B); and
causing, by the one or more processors and based on the chemical dispensing system operating in the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system (from 12b to the testing line 88 via 98b) to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold (from 12b to the testing line 88 via 98b; Col 6, lines 7-21 and Col 13, lines 6-12).
Regarding Claim 15, Ferri, Jr et al disclose a device (Figures 1A-1B), the device comprising:
one or more memories (Col 10, lines 11-23); and
one or more processors (Col 10, lines 11-23), coupled to the one or more memories (Col 10, lines 11-23), configured to:
determine that a test is to be performed for a semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum of a chemical dispensing system (via 12a or 12b; Col 6, lines 7-21);
cause, based on a determination that the test is to be performed, the chemical dispensing system to operate in an independent production and test configuration (to provide fluid flow to line 88 shown in Figure 1B);
cause, based on the independent production and test configuration, a first chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a day tank to a first one of a production point of use (POU) manifold or a chemical test POU manifold (from 12a to 14 as seen in Figures 1A and 1B); and
cause, based on the independent production and test configuration, a second chemical supply line of the chemical dispensing system to provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to a second one of the production POU manifold or the chemical test POU manifold (from 12b to the testing line 88 via 98b; Col 6, lines 7-21 and Col 13, lines 6-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are subject to the above Double Patenting Rejection but would otherwise be allowable.
Claims 11-14 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art appears to be Ferri et al (US 5,417,346).
Ferri Jr et al disclose a chemical dispensing system (Figures 1A-1B). The system comprising:
a first chemical supply line (from 12a to 14 as seen in Figures 1A and 1B) configured to:
provide a semiconductor processing chemical (Col 1, lines 16-21) in a day tank (12a) to a production point of use (POU) manifold (to 14 via at least 46a-46d and 48a-48d) when the chemical dispensing system is in a first independent production and test configuration (Figure 1; Col 4, lines 50-54) and
provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the day tank (12a) to a chemical test POU manifold (from 12a to the testing line 88 via 98b) when the chemical dispensing system is in a second independent production and test configuration (via opening valve 90); and
a second chemical supply line (from 12b) configured to:
provide the semiconductor processing chemical in a storage drum (12b) to the chemical test POU manifold when the chemical dispensing system is in the first independent production and test configuration (from 12b to the testing line 88 via 98b), and
provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum (12b) to the production POU manifold (to 14 via at least 46a-46d and 48a-48d) when the chemical dispensing system is in the second independent production and test configuration (Figures 1a-1b),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein the first chemical supply line is configured to simultaneously provide the semiconductor processing chemical in the day tank to the chemical test POU manifold while the second chemical supply line provides the semiconductor processing chemical in the storage drum to the production POU manifold when the chemical dispensing system is in the second independent production and test configuration.
The prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious these limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights