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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "adding the hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, and/or water" in lines 3-4 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is noted that dependent claim 4 depends directly from claim 3, and indirectly from independent claim 1. Moreover, both of these claims include respective steps of adding hydrogen peroxide (see claim 1 at line 5) and also adding sulfuric acid and/or water (see claim 3 at line 3). As such, the adding step of claim 4 is unclear because it fails to specify how it relates to the earlier recited steps as it fails to refer back to the earlier steps, but then also refers to steps of adding that have already been set forth. Consequently, it is unclear whether a new step is being recited or if the earlier recited steps are being further limited.
Claim 4 also requires a step of “electrolyzing the solution in response to the measured value of each concentration” (see lines 7-8); however, the claim earlier just requires a measured value of “sulfuric acid concentration and/or a persulfuric acid concentration” (see lines 4-5). As such, it is unclear whether the later recitation of lines 7-8 now requires the “and” as the limitation refers to “each concentration” (see line 8).
For each of the above noted limitations, the examiner will be applying the following claim interpretation. The step of “adding” will be treated as referring back to the earlier recited adding steps and so as requiring at least the addition of one of the hydrogen peroxide, the sulfuric acid or the water as claimed. Furthermore, with respect to the limitation referring to “the measured value of each concentration” will be treated as just requiring a measured value of either the sulfuric acid concentration or the persulfuric acid concentration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0172185 to Yamakawa, (hereinafter referred to as “YAMAKAWA”) in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0251108 to Nagai et al., (hereinafter referred to as “NAGAI”) and US Pub. No. 2015/0307819 to Ida et al., (hereinafter referred to as “IDA”).
Regarding claim 1, YAMAKAWA teaches a method for starting up an electrolytic sulfuric acid solution manufacturing system for manufacturing an oxidizing solution containing a persulfuric acid component generated by electrolyzing a solution composed mainly of a sulfuric acid component (see generally YAMAKAWA at Abstract teaching a system allowing for monitoring of the concentrations of an electrolyzed sulfuric acid in a cleaning system; see also YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 and ¶47-¶59 teaching the system which would necessarily include a start-up when the system is first started), the method comprising: supplying the solution to an electrolytic cell to perform electrolysis (see YAMAKAWA at ¶62-¶66 teaching the sulfuric acid being moved through circulation line 4 so as to provide the solution to electrolysis apparatus 2).
While YAMAKAWA teaches a method for manufacturing an oxidizing solution containing persulfuric acid which would have a startup process (see teachings of YAMAKAWA cited above), YAMAKAWA fails to explicitly teach the startup method including a step of adding hydrogen peroxide water to the solution composed mainly of the sulfuric acid component present in the system to enhance the oxidizing power of the solution as claimed.
However, NAGAI teaches a cleaning system using persulfuric acid that has an electrolysis reactor for regenerating persulfuric acid (see NAGAI at Abstract). Furthermore, NAGAI also teaches that the electrolytic production of persulfuric acid is advantageous because it allows for on-site production of the persulfuric acid but also acknowledges that persulfuric acid could be procured separately to be used (see NAGAI at ¶100 indicating that procured persulfuric acid could be used during startup while the electrolytic production of persulfuric acid is being initiated).
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in the methods of electrolytic production of persulfuric acid, that during process startup the concentration of electrolytically produced persulfuric acid would be low until the electrolysis has time to operate and increase the persulfuric acid concentration. Additionally, IDA teaches that it is known to supplement the electrolytically produced persulfuric acid by adding hydrogen peroxide to the sulfuric acid to generate persulfuric acid when needed (see IDA at ¶27). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that at startup in a method of electrolytically generating persulfuric acid for cleaning that the addition of hydrogen peroxide water could be used to increase the persulfuric acid concentration at startup while the electrolytically produced persulfuric acid is generated via the electrolysis cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied hydrogen peroxide, as taught by IDA, to the sulfuric acid cleaning solution of YAMAKAWA during startup since it would be a known time in which the electrolytically generated persulfuric acid would be low, as taught by NAGAI, as a means to supplement the persulfuric acid concentration in the cleaning solution.
Regarding claim 2, YAMAKAWA as modified by NAGAI and IDA teaches the method wherein startup of the system takes place either during an initial operation after completion of the system, or after the replacement of the oxidizing solution containing the persulfuric acid component in the system, or during an operation after the concentration of the persulfuric acid component in the oxidizing solution stored in the system decreases due to shutdown of the system (see rejection of claim 1 as to the teachings of YAMAKAWA in view of NAGAI and IDA which after the time of initial setup, i.e. completion, would require a first startup).
Regarding claim 3, YAMAKAWA as modified by NAGAI and IDA teaches the method further comprising adding sulfuric acid and/or water to all or part of the solution composed mainly of the sulfuric acid component present in the system (see YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 depicting pure water line 8 and sulfuric acid line 9; see also YAMAKAWA at ¶50).
Regarding claim 4, YAMAKAWA as modified by NAGAI and IDA teaches the method comprising:
adding the hydrogen peroxide water, sulfuric acid, and/or water in response to a measured value of a sulfuric acid concentration and/or a persulfuric acid concentration in the solution composed mainly of the sulfuric acid component (see YAMAKAWA at ¶50 and ¶62 teaching the supplying during operation or at startup; see also NAGAI at ¶51 teaching the monitoring of sulfuric acid concentration which could then be used to control the addition of sulfuric acid and water during operation which since YAMAKAWA requires the sulfuric acid concentration within a set concentration as discussed at ¶59 and ¶67, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the monitoring and control as taught by NAGAI);
electrolyzing the solution in response to the measured value of either the sulfuric acid concentration or the persulfuric acid concentration so that the persulfuric acid concentration reaches a target value (see YAMAKAWA at ¶67 teaching the adjustment of the electrolyzing condition based on the concentration of the oxidizing substances, i.e. the persulfuric acid, in the sulfuric acid solution); and
heating or cooling the solution in response to a measured value of a temperature of the oxidizing solution so that the temperature reaches a target value (see YAMAKAWA at ¶59 teaching the measuring of the solution temperature in the preheat tank which is then delivered to heater 17 which heats up to the treating temperature as taught in ¶66). Moreover, it would have been obvious to have used a temperature measuring device as taught by YAMAKAWA to not just passively monitor temperature but to actively control the temperature so as to ensure the temperature of the solution is within the required limits during treatment.
Regarding claim 5, YAMAKAWA as modified by NAGAI and IDA teaches the method wherein the system comprises:
a storage tank that stores the oxidizing solution (see YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 depicting storage tank 3);
an electrolytic cell that processes the oxidizing solution (see YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolysis apparatus 2);
a circulation pipe provided with a liquid feed mechanism for circulating the solution between the storage tank and the electrolytic cell (see YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 depicting supply line 4);
a control mechanism that controls temperature of the oxidizing solution in the storage tank and/or temperature of the solution supplied to the electrolytic cell (see YAMAKAWA at ¶62-¶64 teaching the cooling of the solution being supplied to the electrolysis apparatus which although not explicitly stated it would have been obvious to have set up a controller to monitor and actively adapt the operation of the cooler so as to provide the sulfuric acid solution to the electrolysis apparatus within the stated temperature range);
a hydrogen peroxide addition mechanism (see rejection of claim 1 above related to the combination of NAGAI and IDA teaching the addition of hydrogen peroxide which would necessarily include an addition mechanism similar to the water and sulfuric acid supply lines of YAMAKAWA); and
an addition mechanism for sulfuric acid and/or water (see YAMAKAWA at Fig. 2 depicting supply lines 8 and 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2019/0136380 to Nagai et al., teaching a method for treating surface of plastic
US Pub. No. 2013/0319875 to Uchida teaching a sulfuric acid electrolysis method and sulfuric acid electrolysis apparatus
US Pub. No. 2013/0068260 to Yamakawa et al., teaching a method of cleaning electronic material and cleaning system
US Pub. No. 2013/0008354 to Constantz et al., teaching methods and systems of bicarbonate solution
US Pat. No. 2011/0017606 to Uchida et al., teaching an electrolysis method
US Pat. No. 5,520,793 to Genders et al., teaching methods of producing hydrogen iodide electrochemically
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794