DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are restricted for the reasons stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/19/2025 and the Requirement for Election/Restriction mailed 8/26/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to. It is suggested that “is supplied” in the last line of the claim be deleted since the amendment to claim 9 makes “is supplied” redundant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the disclosure shows various inverted cones including and not including threaded sidewalls (see figure 3 and 7), the original disclosure does not specifically teach excluding threaded sidewalls. Therefore, a new matter rejection is provided, necessitated by the amendment to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Rice (U.S. Patent 3,917,756) in view of Klaus (U.S. Patent 3,147,924).
Regarding claim 1, Rice teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate (apparatus in figures 1 and 2, the material is considered intended use), comprising: a mixing nozzle having a mixing space that is shaped as an inverted cone (figure 2 item 10 is considered reading on a mixing nozzle, with item 12 considered the mixing space comprising an inverted cone both proximate item 26 and item 14), the mixing nozzle including a first inlet installed on a side surface of the mixing space (item 22), a second inlet positioned higher than the first inlet (item18 is positioned higher than item 22) installed on a top surface of the mixing space (item 18), and an outlet installed at a lower portion of the mixing space (item 20); a first chemical supply unit connected to the first inlet (column 2 lines 3-8 teaches a source of pressurized liquid which is considered reading on a first chemical supply unit); a second chemical supply unit connected to the second inlet (column 1 line 68 to column 2 line 3 teaches a source of pressurized gas which is considered reading on a second chemical supply unit); wherein the first chemical supply unit is configured to supply a first chemical solution to the mixing space through the first inlet (column 2 lines 3-8 teaches a source pressurized liquid for item 22), at a first flow rate that causes the first chemical solution to naturally form a vortex within the mixing nozzle such that the first chemical solution reaches the tip of the inverted cone where the outlet is positioned while moving spirally along non-threaded sidewalls (the spiral flow is a function of the flow rate which is considered intended use, and a high enough flow rate along with a specific velocity of the material being supplied would create a vortex, note item 16 is not threaded) the second chemical supply unit is configured to supply a second chemical solution to the mixing space through the second inlet (column 1 line 68 to column 2 line 3 teaches a source of pressurized gas for item 18), that is positioned higher than the first inlet at a second flow rate lower than the first flow rate such that the second chemical dropped into the first chemical that is moving spirally (item 18 is above item 22 and the flow rate is considered intended use), and the a solution mixture that is formed of the first chemical solution and the second chemical solution after being mixed in the mixing space (column 2 lines 32-37 teaches a gas liquid mixture by ball 26, which is located in item 12) the second chemical is mixed into the first chemical as the second chemical is dropped into the first chemical that is moving spirally within the mixing space (the materials are mixed as go through the inverted cone mixer). Regarding claim 1, Rice is silent to a supply tank connected to the outlet, supply tank is supplied with, through the outlet. Regarding claim 1, Klaus teaches a supply tank connected to the outlet (figures 1, 2, and 4, item 12 which is connected to a nozzle item 1 outlet item 3), supply tank is supplied with, through the outlet (material from item 3 is fed into item 21 after being mixed in item 1). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Rice with the tank configuration of Klaus in order to store the mixture. Regarding claim 1, Rice is silent to a supply tank connected to the outlet, supply tank is supplied with, through the outlet. Regarding claim 1, Klaus teaches a supply tank connected to the outlet (figures 1, 2, and 4, item 12 which is connected to a nozzle item 1 outlet item 3), supply tank is supplied with, through the outlet (material from item 3 is fed into item 21 after being mixed in item 1). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Rice with the tank configuration of Klaus in order to store the mixture.
Regarding claim 3, Rice teaches a third inlet and a third chemical supply unit configured to supply a third chemical solution through the third inlet into the mixing space (item 24 and column 2 line 3-8 teach an additional inlet and a source of pressurized liquid). Regarding claim 3, Rice is silent to an additional feed on the top surface positioned higher than the first inlet. Regarding claim 3, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Rice with the tank configuration of Klaus in order to store the mixture. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the inlet in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Rice teaches wherein the third flow rate is greater than the second flow rate (the flow rates are considered intended use of the pressurized gas source and pressurized liquid source taught in column 1 line 68 to column 2 line 8 and the apparatus is considered capable of pressurizing the second inlet to be higher than the third inlet). Regarding claim 4, Rice is silent to the distances between the inlets. Regarding claim 4, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Rice with the tank configuration of Klaus in order to store the mixture. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the inlet in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 4, and the first inlet and the third inlet are separated by a distance that is greater than a distance between the first inlet and the second inlet.
Regarding claim 6, Rice is silent to wherein a distance from the top surface of the inverted cone to a position where the second chemical solution is dropped onto the first chemical solution is greater than a distance from the top surface of the inverted cone to the first inlet. Regarding claim 6, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of the nozzle in order to obtain the desired volume of mixed product since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, the flow rate is considered intended use.
Regarding claim 8, Rice teaches wherein the second chemical supply unit includes a supply line connected to the second inlet and an orifice installed in the supply line to control the second flow rate of the second chemical solution (column 1 line 68 to column 2 line 3 teaches a source of pressurized gas for item 18 which inherently requires a supply line with an orifice for material to pass through from the source of pressurized gas to the inlet item 18, the flow rate is considered capable of being controlled by the pressurized source of gas).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a time period for which the first chemical supply unit is configured to supply the first chemical solution is equal to a second time period for which the second chemical supply unit is configured to supply the second chemical solution is supplied (the feed times are considered intended use of the chemical supply units taught in column 1 line 68-column 2 line 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues that no new matter is added by way of the amendments to the claims. However, claim 1 recites “non-threaded sidewalls of the inverted cone.” While the disclosure shows various inverted cones including and not including threaded sidewalls (see figure 3 and 7), the original disclosure does not specifically teach excluding threaded sidewalls. Therefore, a new matter rejection is provided, necessitated by the amendment to claim 1.
The claim 10 objection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim.
Applicant argues that prior art of record does not teach the vortex flow within the mixing nozzle, however the fluid flow is considered intended use and a function of both the viscosity and the flow rate of the fluid.
Applicant argues that Klaus (U.S. Patent 3,147,924) does not teach a second inlet positioned higher than the first inlet. However, this is taught in the primary reference to Rice (U.S. Patent 3,917,756).
Applicant additionally argues that the positioning of the inlets of Klaus teaches away from the inlet configuration of the instant amended claim 1. However, regarding claim 1, Klaus is not relied on for the positioning of the inlets, which is taught in Rice.
Applicant additionally argues that the prior art does not teach the second chemical is mixed into the first chemical as the second chemical is dropped into the first chemical that is moving spirally, however the flow rates are considered intended use. A second fluid in Rice flows downward in the inverted cone where it is mixed with material from the lower inlet.
The remarks regarding claim 10 have been considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to both preceding claim 3 and claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the multiple inlets, inverted cone, third supply unit, and fourth supply unit.
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 ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774