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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 12, and 17 each recite “a pressure adjusting member configured to”
Prong 1: “adjusting member” is a generic placeholder
Prong 2: “adjusting member” is modified by the functional language of “configured for”
Prong 3: There is no further structure present in the claims as set forth.
Interpretation: A review of the specification as filed has shown that the pressure adjusting member is a back pressure regulator per ¶ 108 and 109. Therefore, the “pressure adjusting member” will be treated as a back pressure regulator or the like.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-1329304 (Kim hereinafter) in view of US 2011/0000507 (Toshima hereinafter) and further in view of US 4009734 (Sullivan hereinafter) and further in view of US 2019/0221455 (Seo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a substrate drying apparatus (Figures 4 and 5) that discloses a housing including a first body and a second body which are combined with each other to provide a treatment space in which a substrate is treated (Housing 4100 with first body 4110 and second body 4120 and treatment space between the first and second bodies); an actuator which moves the second body in a vertical direction with respect to the first body to seal or open the treatment space (Elevator 4200 with lift cylinder 4210); and a pipe which is coupled with the second body and in which a fluid flows (Pipe 4550).
Kim is silent with respect that the pipe includes a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body.
However, Toshima teaches a supercritical fluid handling system that discloses the use of a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body (Figure 4, pipes 371/372 per ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piping of Kim with the flexible piping of Toshima to allow the pipes to adaptively move relative to the motion of the second body while not breaking.
Kim is silent with respect that the stretchable pipe is a coil pipe and is configured to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
However, Sullivan teaches a self-retracting tubing discloses a flexible tubing that is a coil pipe (Figures 1-2 with Column 1 Lines 52-68). The resultant combination would take the flexible pipes for the fluid lines connected to the moving part of Kim (including the supercritical fluid lines from 4550 “an supply port may be connected to a supply line (4550) for supplying a supercritical fluid.”) and make them the flexible coil pipes to keep the hoses in a neat and tidy configuration and prevent fouling. The combination would inherently make sure to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the style of flexible tubing of Kim and Toshima with the coiled flexible hose of Sullivan to allow for a self-coiling aspect to be imparted therefore keeping any loose hose from being tangled on any other component.
Kim is silent with respect that the pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space, and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space.
However, Seo teaches a substrate processing system that discloses that a pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space (Figure 11, valve 1660 per ¶ 60), and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space (Figure 11, member 1640 per ¶ 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pipe of Kim with the valve and pressure regulator of Seo to allow for control over treatment space conditions.
Regarding claim 3, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the pipe includes a discharge pipe discharging the fluid from the treatment space (Discharge pipe 4750 of Kim and 372 of Toshima), wherein the coil pipe is located at the discharge pipe (Inherent of the combination), and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the discharge pipe than the lower end of the coil pipe (Evident of the Figures 4 and 5 of Kim and Figure 4 of Toshima).
Regarding claim 4, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the coil pipe is provided to be compressed when the second body moves in a downward direction (Inherent of the self-coiling property of Sullivan for the compression of the pipe to coil the pipe when the second body of Kim is moved downward).
Regarding claim 5, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the discharge pipe further includes: a first discharge pipe connected to a downstream side of the coil pipe (Pipe section on the outlet side to the coil pipe added to 4750 of Kim, at the side of 372 outside of 38 of Toshima); and a second discharge pipe which connects the coil pipe and the second body is at the upstream side of the coil pipe (Section of pipe of 4750 of Kim that connects 4700 to the inlet side of the coil pipe, equivalent to the hard connection of 372 and 32 of Toshima), and a height of the first discharge pipe is fixed when the second body vertically moves (Kim Figures 4 and 5 would keep the disclosed first section at the same height due to the coil pipe absorbing the vertical motion and this is also should in Figure 4 of Toshima when 372 is a coiled pipe), and wherein the second discharge pipe is provided to be vertically moved along with the vertical movement of the second body when the second body vertically moves (Evident form Figures 4 and 5 of Kim with the coil pipe moving the second discharge pipe).
Regarding claim 6, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the pipe includes a supply pipe supplying the fluid to the treatment space (Supply pipe 4550 of Kim in Figures 4 and 5 as equated to 371 of Figure 4 in Toshima), wherein the coil pipe is located at the supply pipe (Resultant of the combination of 371 of Toshima with the coiled pipe of Sullivan), and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the supply pipe than a lower end of the coil pipe (Figures 4 and 5 of Kim would allow for the coil pipe to be placed along 4550 such that an arbitrary upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream).
Regarding claim 7, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the coil pipe is provided to be tensioned when the second body moves in a downward direction (Resultant combination that when the coil pipe along 4550, specifically just after the branch and only on the “vertical section”, the downward motion of 4120 would cause the coil to expand and cause tension).
Regarding claim 8, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that wherein the supply pipe further includes: a first supply pipe connected to an upstream side of the coil pipe (Portion of 4550 just after the branch leading to the line that extends the length of 4100/4200 in Figures 4 and 5 of Kim would lead into the coil pipe); and a second supply pipe which connects the coil pipe and the second body at a downstream side of the coil pipe (Second supply pipe being the horizontal portion of the pipe leading to 4520 in Figures 4 and 5 of Kim, the downstream side of the coil pipe would be connected to supply 4520), and a height of the first supply pipe is fixed when the second body vertically moves (Inherent due to the line feeding 4510 not needing to change in height), and wherein the second supply pipe is provided to be vertically moved along with the vertical movement of the second body when the second body vertically moves (Inherent of the combination of Kim and Sullivan).
Regarding claim 10, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose a supercritical fluid is configured to flow through the pipe (Kim, “The substrate processing apparatus 100 includes a process for the supercritical fluid can be used as a supercritical fluid to perform the step of processing the substrate (S).” and “an supply port may be connected to a supply line (4550) for supplying a supercritical fluid.” of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the second body is located below the first body (Figures 4 and 5 of Kim), and the pipe includes: a first supply pipe connected to the first body to supply the fluid to the treatment space (Supply pipe from 4550 to 4510 of Kim); a second supply pipe connected to the second body to supply the fluid to the treatment space (Supply pipe 4550 leading to 4520 of Kim and equated to 371 of Toshima); and a discharge pipe which discharges the fluid to the treatment space (Discharge pipe 4750 of Kim, equated to 372 of Toshima), and wherein the coil pipe is connected to each of the second supply pipe and the discharge pipe (Resultant combination to replace the flexible pipes 371/372 of Toshima with the coil pipe of Sullivan).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a substrate drying apparatus (Figures 4 and 5) that discloses a housing provided with a first body and a second body which are combined with each other to form a treatment space in which an organic solvent remaining on a substrate is dried by a fluid for drying in a supercritical state (Housing 4100 with first body 4110 and second body 4120 and treatment space between the first and second bodies for the substrate “S” with a supercritical fluid for drying the substrate); an actuator configured to move up and down the second body with respect to the first body to seal or open the treatment space (Elevator 4200 with lift cylinder 4210); a support unit configured to support the substrate within the treatment space (Support 4300); and a discharge pipe coupled to the second body to discharge the fluid for drying in the supercritical state from the treatment space (Discharge pipe at 4750 from 4700).
Kim is silent with respect that the pipe includes a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body.
However, Toshima teaches a supercritical fluid handling system that discloses the use of a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body (Figure 4, pipes 371/372 per ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piping of Kim with the flexible piping of Toshima to allow the pipes to adaptively move relative to the motion of the second body while not breaking.
Kim, per Toshima, is silent with respect that the stretchable pipe is a coil pipe, wherein the discharge pipe includes a coil pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the up and down movement of the second body, and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the discharge pipe than a lower end of the coil pipe when the second body moves up and seals the treatment space; and that the coil pipe is configured to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
However, Sullivan teaches a self-retracting tubing discloses a flexible tubing that is a coil pipe (Figures 1-2 with Column 1 Lines 52-68). The resultant combination would be such that the discharge pipe includes a coil pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the up and down movement of the second body (Inherent of the coil pipe of Sullivan’s coil pipe, and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the discharge pipe than a lower end of the coil pipe when the second body moves up and seals the treatment space (Evident of the Figures 4 and 5 of Kim and Figure 4 of Toshima). Therefore the flexible pipes for the fluid lines connected to the moving part of Kim (including the supercritical fluid lines from 4550 “an supply port may be connected to a supply line (4550) for supplying a supercritical fluid.”) and make them the flexible coil pipes to keep the hoses in a neat and tidy configuration and prevent fouling. The combination would inherently make sure to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the style of flexible tubing of Kim and Toshima with the coiled flexible hose of Sullivan to allow for a self-coiling aspect to be imparted therefore keeping any loose hose from being tangled on any other component.
Kim is silent with respect that the discharge pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space, and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space.
However, Seo teaches a substrate processing system that discloses that a pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space (Figure 11, valve 1660 per ¶ 60), and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space (Figure 11, member 1640 per ¶ 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the discharge line of Kim with the valve and pressure regulator of Seo to allow for control over treatment space conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the coil pipe is provided to be compressed when the second body moves down (Inherent of the self-coiling property of Sullivan for the compression of the pipe to coil the pipe when the second body of Kim is moved downward).
Regarding claim 14, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the discharge pipe further includes: a first discharge pipe connected to a downstream side of the coil pipe (Pipe section on the outlet side to the coil pipe added to 4750 of Kim, at the side of 372 outside of 38 of Toshima); and a second discharge pipe which connects the coil pipe and the second body at the upstream side of the coil pipe (Section of pipe of 4750 of Kim that connects 4700 to the inlet side of the coil pipe, equivalent to the hard connection of 372 and 32 of Toshima), and a height of the first discharge pipe is fixed when the second body vertically moves (Kim Figures 4 and 5 would keep the disclosed first section at the same height due to the coil pipe absorbing the vertical motion and this is also shown in Figure 4 of Toshima when 372 is a coiled pipe), and the second discharge pipe is provided to be vertically moved along with the vertical movement of the second body when the second body vertically moves (Evident form Figures 4 and 5 of Kim with the coil pipe moving the second discharge pipe).
Regarding claim 15, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, and Sullivan would further disclose that the second discharge pipe (Section of pipe of 4750 of Kim that connects 4700 to the inlet side of the coil pipe, equivalent to the hard connection of 372 and 32 of Toshima) includes a first portion (End at 4700 of Figures 4 and 5 of Kim), a second portion (Portion after the first portion), a third portion (Portion after the second portion), and a fourth portion (Portion after the third portion) sequentially disposed from an upstream side to a downstream side of the discharge pipe (Figures 4 and 5 of Kim), and the first portion is extended in a downward direction with respect to the ground from a point coupled to the second body (Portion at the reference line 4700 of Kim Figures 4 and 5), the second portion is extended in a direction parallel to the ground from the first portion (Immediate right angle portion of 4750 of Figures 4 and 5 of Kim after the vertical portion from 4700), and the fourth portion is extended horizontally with respect to the ground from the third portion (Portion of 4750 just before leading to an unknown downstream location in Figures 4 and 5 of Kim), and when the second body moves downward, the first portion moves in a down direction and the coil pipe is compressed (Inherent of the coil pipe connected and compressed during the downward motion of the second body).
Kim, per Toshima and Sullivan, is silent with respect that the third portion is extended vertically upward with respect to the ground from the second portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the third portion, located between the second and fourth portions, in a “vertical” orientation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only requires routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that the resultant combination would be teach that when the second body moves down, the first portion and the third portion move in a down direction and the coil pipe is compressed.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a substrate drying apparatus (Figures 4 and 5) that discloses a housing provided with a first body and a second body which are combined with each other to form a treatment space in which an organic solvent remaining on a substrate is dried by a fluid for drying in a supercritical state (Housing 4100 with first body 4110 and second body 4120 and treatment space between the first and second bodies for the substrate “S” with a supercritical fluid for drying the substrate); an actuator configured to move up and down the second body with respect to the first body to seal or open the treatment space (Elevator 4200 with lift cylinder 4210); a support unit configured to support the substrate within the treatment space (Support 4300); and a supply pipe coupled to the second body to discharge the fluid for drying in the supercritical state to the treatment space (Supply pipe at 4550 to 4520).
Kim is silent with respect that the pipe includes a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body.
However, Toshima teaches a supercritical fluid handling system that discloses the use of a stretchable pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the vertical movement of the second body (Figure 4, pipes 371/372 per ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piping of Kim with the flexible piping of Toshima to allow the pipes to adaptively move relative to the motion of the second body while not breaking.
Kim, per Toshima, is silent with respect that the stretchable pipe is a coil pipe, wherein the supply pipe includes a coil pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the up and down movement of the second body, and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the supply pipe than a lower end of the coil pipe when the second body moves up and to seal the treatment space; and that the coil pipe is configured to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
However, Sullivan teaches a self-retracting tubing discloses a flexible tubing that is a coil pipe (Figures 1-2 with Column 1 Lines 52-68). The resultant combination would be such that the supply pipe includes a coil pipe that is stretchable and contractible according to the up and down movement of the second body (Inherent of the coil pipe of Sullivan’s coil pipe, and an upper end of the coil pipe is located upstream of the supply pipe than a lower end of the coil pipe when the second body moves up and to seal the treatment space (Evident of the Figures 4 and 5 of Kim and Figure 4 of Toshima). Therefore the flexible pipes for the fluid lines connected to the moving part of Kim (including the supercritical fluid lines from 4550 “an supply port may be connected to a supply line (4550) for supplying a supercritical fluid.”) and make them the flexible coil pipes to keep the hoses in a neat and tidy configuration and prevent fouling. The combination would inherently make sure to maintain structural and sealing integrity during thermal and pressure cycling in a supercritical state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the style of flexible tubing of Kim and Toshima with the coiled flexible hose of Sullivan to allow for a self-coiling aspect to be imparted therefore keeping any loose hose from being tangled on any other component.
Kim is silent with respect that the supply pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space, and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space.
However, Seo teaches a substrate processing system that discloses that a pipe includes a pressure reducing valve configured to selectively discharge the fluid from the treatment space (Figure 11, valve 1660 per ¶ 60), and pressure adjusting member configured to adjust a flow rate of the fluid to maintain a pressure in the treatment space (Figure 11, member 1640 per ¶ 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the supply line of Kim with the valve and pressure regulator of Seo to allow for control over treatment space conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the supply pipe further includes: a first supply pipe connected to an upstream side of the coil pipe (Pipe section on the inlet side to the coil pipe added to 4550 of Kim); and a second supply pipe which connects the coil pipe and the second body at a downstream side of the coil pipe (Section of pipe of 4550 of Kim that connects 4720 to the outlet side of the coil pipe), and a height of the first discharge pipe is fixed when the second body vertically moves (Kim Figures 4 and 5 would keep the disclosed first section at the same height due to the coil pipe absorbing the vertical motion), and the second supply pipe is provided to be vertically moved along with the vertical movement of the second body when the second body vertically moves (Evident form Figures 4 and 5 of Kim with the coil pipe moving the second supply pipe).
Regarding claim 19, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 where the combination of Kim, Toshima, Sullivan, and Seo would further disclose that the second supply pipe (Line of 4550 leading to 4520 of Kim Figures 4 and 5) includes a fifth portion (Portion immediately after the coil tubing) and a sixth portion (Portion after the fifth portion) which are sequentially disposed from the coil pipe to a downstream side of the supply pipe (Evident of the combination), and the fifth portion is extended in a downward direction with respect to the ground from a point coupled to the second body (Point at 520 connecting to 4550 of Kim), the sixth portion is extended in a direction parallel to the ground from the fifth portion (Horizontal portion of 4550 leading towards 4520 of Kim), and when the second body moves down, the fifth portion moves in the downward direction and the coil pipe is tensioned (Inherent operation for the coil pipe to tension when the second body raises).
Claims 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-1329304 (Kim) in view of US 2011/0000507 (Toshima) in view of US 4009734 (Sullivan) in view of US 2019/0221455 (Seo) and further in view of US 2017/0018322 (Kitamura hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe.
However, Kitamura teaches a connecting pipe of a high pressure fluid handling system that discloses a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe (¶ 37-40 and Figures 2 and 3 with D1 being the diameter of the equivalent coil tubing and D2 being the diameter of the non-coil tubing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative diameters of the coiled tubing of Kim/Toshima/Sullivan/Seo with the sizing taught by Kitamura to minimize pressure drops per ¶ 38 and 40 of Kitamura.
Regarding claim 16, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect that a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid for drying in the supercritical state flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe.
However, Kitamura teaches a connecting pipe of a high pressure fluid handling system that discloses a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid for drying in the supercritical state flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe (¶ 37-40 and Figures 2 and 3 with D1 being the diameter of the equivalent coil tubing and D2 being the diameter of the non-coil tubing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative diameters of the coiled tubing of Kim/Toshima/Sullivan/Seo with the sizing taught by Kitamura to minimize pressure drops per ¶ 38 and 40 of Kitamura.
Regarding claim 20, Kim’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe.
However, Kitamura teaches a connecting pipe of a high pressure fluid handling system that discloses a cross-sectional area of a passage through which the fluid for drying in the supercritical state flows in the coil pipe is formed to be smaller than a cross-sectional area of a pipe connected to an upper end of the coil pipe and a lower end of the coil pipe (¶ 37-40 and Figures 2 and 3 with D1 being the diameter of the equivalent coil tubing and D2 being the diameter of the non-coil tubing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative diameters of the coiled tubing of Kim/Toshima/Sullivan/Seo with the sizing taught by Kitamura to minimize pressure drops per ¶ 38 and 40 of Kitamura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-20, particularly independent claims 1, 12, and 17, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762