DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17967041 application filed October 17, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on September 15, 2025. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-20 acknowledged
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 .
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 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.
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.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the overflow path is configured to connect to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank and closer to the outlet for the buffer tank than the gas inlet along a direction from the nozzle the outlet for the buffer tank, such that the overflow solution is directed out of the bath to the drain through the overflow path” in the specification. Although the specification teaches “In some embodiments, an overflow path is disposed closer to the buffer tank than the gas inlet in order to prevent an overflow condition in the bath” ([0067]), it does not teach the overflow path is connected to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank. Furthermore, Fig. 3 clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is above both the outlet of the nozzle 170 and the buffer tank 175, and also clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is closer to the gas inlet 172 than the buffer tank 175 See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the overflow path is configured to connect to the nozzle bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank and closer to the outlet for the buffer tank than the purge gas inlet along a direction from the nozzle the outlet for the buffer tank, such that the overflow solution is directed out of the bath to the drain through the overflow path” in the specification. Although the specification teaches “In some embodiments, an overflow path is disposed closer to the buffer tank than the gas inlet in order to prevent an overflow condition in the bath” ([0067]), it does not teach the overflow path is connected to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank. Furthermore, Fig. 3 clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is above both the outlet of the nozzle 170 and the buffer tank 175, and also clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is closer to the gas inlet 172 than the buffer tank 175 See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claim 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the overflow path is configured to connect to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank and closer to the outlet for the buffer tank than the gas inlet along a direction from the nozzle the outlet for the buffer tank, such that the overflow solution is directed out of the bath to the drain through the overflow path” in the specification. Although the specification teaches “In some embodiments, an overflow path is disposed closer to the buffer tank than the gas inlet in order to prevent an overflow condition in the bath” ([0067]), it does not teach the overflow path is connected to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank. Furthermore, Fig. 3 clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is above both the outlet of the nozzle 170 and the buffer tank 175, and also clearly shows that the overflow path 173 is closer to the gas inlet 172 than the buffer tank 175 See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claims 22-24, 26-34 and 36-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 21, 25 or 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 21-29 and 32-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsuihiji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6406622), hereinafter “Tsuihiji”, in view of Dunham et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170291141), hereinafter “Dunham”:--Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39: Tsuihiji teaches a water filtration and recovery method, comprisingspraying water from a shower SW3 down onto the substrate W, then directing the waste water to a tank 50;injecting a gas through a blower 55 to the tank 50; flowing the waste water through a filter 53 out of the tank to return to a recirculation filtration path (Fig. 10), which comprises flowing the water through a filtration system to a filtered water tank 104 then to a pure tank water 106 (Fig. 9, 10; Col 15, Lines 6-44);collecting the waste water through pipes 61-63 positioning at different heights on the side of the tank 50, wherein each of the pipes has a valve, and the valves are opened in the order of high position to low position to enable the waste water to be drained out (Col. 16, Line 62 through Col. 17, Line 15, Fig. 8-9), wherein the position of the pipes 61-63 may be adjusted to different heights so that the layer of waste water that is above the height is allowed to drain out (Col. 17, Line 35-51; Col. 7, Lines 34-38; Claim 34). Tsuihiji further teaches that waste water that has been filtered and is determined to contain wastes below a desired threshold may be reused or returned to nature as clean water (Col. 11, Lines 15-30), and that water that is drained out of pipe 61 and filter 66 is almost clear water containing little waste (Col. 16, Line 67 through Col. 17, Line 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to direct the water that is drained out of pipe 61 and filter 66 to a drain because Tsuihiji teaches that water that is drained out of pipe 61 and filter 66 is almost clear water containing little waste, and that waste water that has been filtered may be returned to nature as clean water. It is noted that the waste water that is drained out to pipe 61 is a layer of overflow water that is above the pipe 61. Tsuihiji further teaches that the filtration system directs the waste water through a reverse osmosis system 105, a pure water tank 106, a UV disinfecting device 107, an absorbing device 108/109, a device 110 for mixing carbon dioxide, a water tank 111, and a filter 112 before returning to the shower SW3 (Fig. 10; Col. 20, Lines 20-64). It is noted that any of the tank or container mentioned above, i.e. 104, 106, 111,…. may be considered the claimed buffer tank. Tsuihiji is silent about a sensor, and fails to teach the claimed feature of using a sensor to monitor a condition in a tank. Dunham, also directed to a water filtration system, teaches that the system comprises manual or automated monitoring and testing to detect baseline analysis and key attribute metrics for contaminants and operational parameters ([0040]), such as a water level sensor in a tank ([0049-0050]), or a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor and a flowmeter that may be arranged downstream from the UV disinfecting device ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to add a water level sensor, a temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor, and a flowmeter to monitor condition in a tank in the water filtration system of Tsuihiji because Dunham teaches that this is necessary. It is noted that since the gas is injected into the tank 50 by a blower, it forces at least some water from the tank into the recirculation filtration path. It is noted that the size and location of the components shown in Fig. 9 and 10 are symbolic, and one of skill in the art may arrange the location of the components to optimize the process unless being discouraged by Tsuihiji. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton’). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Tsuihiji discloses that, for example, the tank 50 may have a diameter of 3 meters and a depth of 4 meters (Col. 2, Lines 45-53). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to arrange the components such that the overflow pipe 61 is closer to a buffer tank, such as tank 104, 106 or 111, than to the gas blower 55 in the invention of Tsuihiji because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claim 23, 40: It is noted that generating an alarm and enable a shutdown valve when a water level sensor detects an abnormal condition is a standard practice in the art.--Claim 24, 37: It is noted that arranging or positioning components within an apparatus have little patentable weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to arrange the overflow path 61-63 opposite from gas inlet 54.--Claim 38: Fig. 9 shows that the overflow path 61-63 is between the gas inlet 54 and a buffer tank.--Claim 34: Although Tsuihiji is silent about a diameter of the port that connect a pipe to the tank 50, Tsuihiji discloses that, for example, the tank 50 may have a diameter of 3 meters and a processing capacity of 3 m3/hr (Col. 2, Lines 45-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to have a port having a diameter of 5-6 mm in the invention of Tsuihiji since it has been established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 30 and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsuihiji in view of Dunham as applied to claim 25 above, in further in view of Dryer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6021791), hereinafter “Dryer”:--Claims 30, 31: Tsuihiji modified by Dunham teaches the invention as above, wherein Tsuihiji further teaches that a filter is provided to remove particulates from the recirculating liquid. Tsuihiji does not teach measuring an amount of contamination in the system. Dryer, also directed to a method of operating a wet apparatus, teaches that instead of indirectly estimating the level of contamination in a bath, greater efficiencies can be obtained by directly monitoring the contamination levels in the bath by using particle counters and/or automated chemical monitors (Col. 12, Lines 9-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to directly monitor the contamination levels in the bath by using particle counters and/or automated chemical monitors in the invention of Tsuihiji modified by Dunham because Dryer teaches that this would be more efficient than indirectly monitoring .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Applicant’s amendments have overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). These rejections are withdrawn. However, it is noted that the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained due to a related issue.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the term “overflow path” is not a generic placeholder, this argument is persuasive. Claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Tsuihiji fails to teach the claimed feature “wherein the overflow path is configured to connect to the bath at a location between the nozzle and the outlet for the buffer tank and closer to the outlet for the buffer tank than the gas inlet along a direction from the nozzle the outlet for the buffer tank, such that the overflow solution is directed out of the bath to the drain through the overflow path”, this argument is not persuasive. For better illustration, Fig. 9 and 10 of Tsuihiji is copied below. It is noted that the size of each components and its location shown in the figure is symbolic. One of skill in the art may arrange the location of the components to optimize the process unless being discouraged by Tsuihiji. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton’). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
PNG
media_image1.png
774
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since Tsuihiji discloses that, for example, the tank 50 may have a diameter of 3 meters and a depth of 4 meters (Col. 2, Lines 45-53). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to arrange the components such that the overflow pipe 61 is closer to a buffer tank, such as tank 104, 106 or 111, than to the gas blower 55 in the invention of Tsuihiji because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--It is noted that the amended features do not have support in the original disclosure, as explained above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713