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 12/10/2025. Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 12-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onoda et al. (JP 2009-038210). Claims 10, 11, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Onoda, Kwak (KR 200142850), and Cai et al. (CN 110784944). Applicant argues that Onoda fails to disclose that “the heating element is heated using photon excitation.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rod heater (27) made of, for example, SiC or carbon, is irradiated and heated with infrared rays from halogen lamps (28) (translation, pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; translation, page 5, paragraph 1). Since infrared rays are part of the electromagnetic spectrum and comprise photons, the limitation is considered to be met by the prior art. Applicant also argues that Onoda does not disclose that “the heating element has a material including one or more of Silicon (Si) or silicon dioxide (SiO2).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rod heater (27) is made of, for example, SiC or carbon (translation, pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; translation, page 5, paragraph 1), and SiC is understood to be silicon carbide which is a material including silicon.
The rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Onoda in view of Mizukawa et al. (US 2005/0089317) is withdrawn as those claims have been canceled.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, modified ground(s) of rejection are presented below.
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.
(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) 1, 3-6, 9, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onoda et al. (JP 2009-038210).
Regarding claim 1, Onoda discloses an apparatus for heating a chemical liquid (Figure 1: 11), comprising: a flow path provided as a path through which a chemical liquid used to treat a substrate passes (25); a heating element disposed to surround at least a portion of the flow path (27); a light source irradiating the heating element with light (28); and a cover member entirely covering the heating element and disposed between the heating element and the light source (14/15), wherein the heating element is heated using photon excitation, and heats the chemical liquid, and wherein the heating element has a material including one or more of silicon (Si), or silicon dioxide (SiO2) (see 27, 28; translation, pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; page 5, paragraph 1).
Note that using the apparatus to heat a chemical liquid and using the liquid to treat a substrate is intended use capable of being met by the apparatus of Onoda. 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.
Regarding claims 3-4, Onoda is relied upon on as above and further discloses wherein the cover member is configured to transmit the light, irradiated from the light source, to the heating element (see 14, 27, 28; translation: abstract; pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; page 5, paragraph 1); wherein the cover member is made of quartz. (see 14, 27, 28; translation: abstract; page 3, paragraph 6; pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; page 5, paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitations directed to “wherein 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” are intended use of the apparatus of Onoda, since it is capable of being used as claimed and with a liquid that is not corrosive to the heating element. 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.
Regarding claims 9, and 12, Onoda is relied upon on as above and further discloses wherein the heating element has any one of a cross shape and a ring shape in a width direction (element 27 is in an annular shape); 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 (22)
Regarding claims 13, the limitation directed to “wherein the sidewall member is made of a material that does not react with the chemical liquid” is intended use of the apparatus of Onoda, since it is capable of being used as claimed and with a liquid that is not corrosive to the sidewall. Also note the sidewall is made of quartz. 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.
Regarding claims 14-19, Onoda is relied upon on as above and further discloses wherein the cover member is configured to transmit the light, irradiated from the light source, to the heating element (see 14, 27, 28; translation: abstract; page 3, paragraph 6; pages 3-4, bridging paragraph; page 5, paragraph 1); a system for treating a substrate, comprising: an apparatus for storing a chemical liquid that stores the chemical liquid used to treat the substrate (33); a jet configured to jet the chemical liquid onto the substrate to allow the substrate to be treated (26, 38, W).
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) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (JP 2009-038210) in view of Kwak (KR 200142850).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Onoda is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose 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.
Kwak discloses a temperature riser tube of a semiconductor cleaning device (abstract), comprising a lamp heater (23), an inlet of the temperature riser body (20-1), an exit of the riser body (20-2), and a temperature sensor (22), for measuring the temperature of the chemical liquid, located adjacent to the exit (Figure 2a).
Because it is known in the art to provide a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the chemical liquid, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, monitoring the temperature of the chemical as is known, 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 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (JP 2009-038210) in view of Cai et al. (CN 110784944).
Regarding claim 11, Onoda 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.
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 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