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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 7/14/2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-20, 24, and 25 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
In response to the IDS filed 5/27/2026, new ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. (US 10,744,275; cited by Applicant) in view of Miyazaki (WO 2010/110171; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lauer discloses an apparatus for heating a chemical liquid, comprising: a flow path provided as a path through which a chemical liquid used to treat a substrate passes (125, 126); a heating element disposed to surround at least a portion of the flow path, and that heats the chemical liquid (116; col. 8, lines 36-48); a light source irradiating the heating element with light (400); and a cover member entirely covering the heating element and disposed between the heating element and the light source (100, see elements 117, 118, 119, 120), wherein the heating element is an immersion-type immersion heater that is in direct contact with the chemical liquid that is heated by the heating element (see 116, 125, 126, 128)
Lauer does not expressly disclose wherein the heating element has a material including one or more of silicon (Si) or silicon dioxide (SiO2). Rather, Lauer discloses the light absorber may be black or dark or may be made from a material for absorption of light in a broad spectrum or selective absorption in a narrow wavelength, and for example may be made ceramics, metal, or plastic (col. 4, lines 35-50). The light absorber may be a compounded thermoplastic extrudable plastic or from an injection-molded part coated by metal vapor or an extrusion part coated by metal vapor or it may be made of a metal, in particular stainless steel, or a ceramic material, in particular Al.sub.2O.sub.3 or AlN (col. 4, lines 51-64). It is possible to design the light emitter for a broad spectrum comprising visible light and infrared light, for selective wavelengths shorter than infrared light, or for only infrared light (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 5).
Miyazaki discloses a fluid heating device including a lamp heater (4) and an amorphous carbon pipe functioning as a light-absorbing element (1; abstract). The light-absorbing element may also be a colored quartz glass, such as black, a glass containing bubbles, SiC, Teflon, and a polyimide pipe (machine translation, page 3, paragraph 5).
Because it is known in the art to have a quartz light absorber, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known material for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the heating element has a material including one or more of silicon (Si) or silicon dioxide (SiO2). Quartz is understood to include Si and SiO2.
Claims 3-4, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 25 are considered to be met by Lauer, in view of Miyazaki, as applied above and which results in: wherein the cover member is configured to transmit the light, irradiated from the light source, to the heating element (Lauer: 114; col. 7, lines 57-63); wherein the cover member is made of quartz (Lauer: col. 6, lines 9-15); wherein the heating element has any one of a cross shape and a ring shape in a width direction (Lauer: 128, or cross-shape adjacent 128); further comprising a temperature sensor connected to an outlet of the flow path to measure a temperature of the chemical liquid, wherein it is confirmed whether a temperature of the heating element has risen based on the measured temperature of the chemical liquid (Lauer: col. 6, lines 46-58); further comprising a sidewall member disposed to surround a remaining portion of the flow path when the heating element is disposed to surround a portion of the flow path (Lauer: 111, 118, or 120); wherein the heating element is heated using photon excitation (Lauer: col. 4, lines 35-64).
Regarding claims 5-6, and 13, Lauer, in view of Miyazaki, is capable of being used such that a temperature of the heating element rises to a predetermined temperature before the chemical liquid passes through the flow path; and wherein the material of the heating element does not react with the chemical liquid; and wherein the sidewall member is made of a material that does not react with the chemical liquid. The apparatus may be used with a chemical liquid that does not react with the modified colored quartz heating element or with the sidewall. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. (US 10,744,275; cited by Applicant), in view of Miyazaki (WO 2010/110171; previously cited), and further in view of Cai et al. (CN 110784944; previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Lauer, in view of Miyazaki, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the light source includes at least one of a light emitting diode (LED) source or a laser diode (LD) source.
Cai discloses a fluid heating device having a light heating component (abstract), wherein a light emitting element (101) can be a halogen light source, gas discharge light source, laser light, or LED light source, or a combination thereof (machine translation, page 5, see discussion of a laser or LED).
Because it is known in the art to have a laser or LED light source for heating, and the results of the substitution would be predictable, namely, providing a known structure for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the light source includes at least one of a light emitting diode (LED) source or a laser diode (LD) source.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. (US 10,744,275; cited by Applicant), in view of Miyazaki (WO 2010/110171; previously cited), and further in view of Ino et al. (US 5,302,230).
Regarding claim 24, Lauer, in view of Miyazaki, is relied upon as above and is further capable of using a chemical liquid that is isopropyl alcohol (IPA) or deionized (DI) water that is non-reactive to the single crystal Si. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Lauer, in view of Miyazaki, does not expressly disclose wherein the silicon (Si) or silicon dioxide (Si02) material making up the heating member is a single crystal silicon (Si) material.
Ino discloses a device for heat treatment by light irradiation including tungsten halogen lamps (4), a support plate (3) comprises of single crystal silicon which is heated due to absorption of light from the lamps, producing heat to heat a substrate (1).
Because it is known in the art to use a single crystal silicon as a light absorbing material, and the results of the substitution would be predictable, namely, providing a known material for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the silicon (Si) or silicon dioxide (Si02) material making up the heating member is a single crystal silicon (Si) material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the system for treating a substrate as defined by claim 15. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation, absent impermissible hindsight, to further modify the closest prior art, Onoda et al. (JP 2009-038210), to have the heating element arrangement as claimed. Also see the Applicant's Remarks filed 4/10/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights