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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 18th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3 and 17. Claims 1, 4-16, 18 and 19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 14 have overcome the 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed September 18th, 2025. Therefore, the 103 rejections of claims 1, 14 and their dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has presented arguments directed to rejections that are no longer maintained in this Office action. Because the rejections of claims 1-8 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been withdrawn, Applicant’s arguments directed to those rejections are considered moot and need not be addressed further. The Examiner has reconsidered the prior art and the claims as amended and has determined that the withdrawn rejections are no longer applicable. Accordingly, no response to those arguments is necessary.
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sichel fails to cure the deficiencies of Amaya in view of Fochtman and further in view of Fukui because Sichel uses hydrogen peroxide to degrade remaining chlorine, whereas the claimed invention uses hydrogen peroxide to remove remaining hypohalogenous acid. Applicant further contends that the applied references fail to teach the claimed downstream arrangement of hydrogen peroxide addition, anion removal, and platinum group catalyst carriers. These arguments are not persuasive.
Amaya in view of Fochtman discloses a water treatment apparatus comprising hypohalogenous acid addition and ultraviolet irradiation of the treated water. Sichel discloses adding hydrogen peroxide downstream of ultraviolet treatment in order to reduce or neutralize residual halogen oxidants present in treated water. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “remaining chlorine” in aqueous systems includes hypochlorous acid and related hypohalogenous species, which are chemically interrelated oxidizing agents. Thus, Sichel’s teaching of adding hydrogen peroxide to reduce residual chlorine would have suggested adding hydrogen peroxide to remove remaining hypohalogenous acid in a similar water treatment system. Fukui further discloses downstream purification units including ion exchange and catalytic treatment stages for removing residual chemical species following oxidation processes. The arrangement of peroxide addition followed by ion exchange and catalytic treatment represents a predictable downstream polishing configuration in water treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Sichel’s downstream hydrogen peroxide addition into the Amaya/Fochtman system to neutralize residual oxidants, and to further include downstream ion exchange and catalytic treatment as taught by Fukui to remove residual anions and peroxide, in order to improve treated water quality and prevent residual oxidant carryover. Accordingly the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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 9-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaya (JP2015100733A: an English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Fukui (WO2015068635A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and further in view of Sichel (US-20120298591-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Amaya discloses a water treatment apparatus comprising: hypohalogenous acid addition unit (Amaya abstract "hypobromous acid feeder") that adds hypohalogenous acid to water to be treated that contains organic materials (Amaya abstract "urea"); an ultraviolet ray radiating apparatus that is positioned downstream (Amaya shown in Fig. 1) of the hypohalogenous acid addition unit (Amaya par. 4 of p.7 "ultraviolet oxidation device" #33) and that radiates ultraviolet rays to the water to be treated to which the hypohalogenous acid has been added, wherein the water to be treated contains anions (Amaya example 2 equation on p. 9).
Amaya does not disclose a hydrogen peroxide addition unit that is positioned downstream of the ultraviolet ray radiating apparatus and that adds hydrogen peroxide to the water to be treated in order to remove remaining hypohalogenous acid, wherein the ultraviolet rays are radiated to the water to be treated; anion removing unit that is positioned downstream of the hydrogen peroxide addition unit and that removes the anions from the water to be treated to which the hydrogen peroxide has been added; and platinum group catalyst carriers that are positioned downstream of the anion removing unit and that removes the hydrogen peroxide that is contained in the water to be treated from which the anions have been removed.
Sichel discloses a water treatment system in which hydrogen peroxide is added downstream of an ultraviolet irradiation stage to react with and neutralize residual oxidizing species remaining after UV treatment (Sichel abstract claims 25 and 35). Sichel teaches that hydrogen peroxide is introduced following ultraviolet irradiation in order to reduce or neutralize residual halogen oxidants present in treated water (chlorine). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hypohalogenous acid species such as hypochlorous acid and related halogen oxidants are forms of residual halogen oxidants in aqueous systems such as that formed by the addition of chlorine in Sichel. Thus, Sichel renders obvious the limitation of a hydrogen peroxide addition unit positioned downstream of the ultraviolet ray radiating apparatus for removing remaining hypohalogenous acid.
Fukui teaches an anion removing unit (Fukui Fig. 2 #8) that is positioned downstream of the hydrogen peroxide addition unit and that removes the anions from the water to be treated to which the hydrogen peroxide has been added (Fukui p. 3 par 4 teaches that UV oxidation treatment generates hydrogen peroxide by association of excess OH radicals and the anion removing unit is located downstream of the UV oxidation treatment illustrated by Fig. 2); and platinum group catalyst carriers (Fukui Fig. 2 #9) that are positioned downstream of the anion removing unit and that removes the hydrogen peroxide that is contained in the water to be treated from which the anions have been removed.
Amaya solves urea/TOC removal by adding hypohalogenous acid in an ultrapure water line and already teaches downstream UV oxidation stage in the broader system. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking robust oxidation and management of downstream residual oxidants would have been motivated to implement UV-halogen AOP conditions known in the art (as taught by Sichel) so that UV radiation acts upon halogenated water to generate reactive radicals and enhance organic destruction. Sichel teaches a predictable, routine downstream H2O2 dose as a quenching step after UV. Fukui teaches the well-known sequence of placing anion exchange between the UV stage and the platinum group catalyst bed to protect the catalyst and remove anions, then decompose residual H2O2 on a platinum group supported catalyst to ultra-low levels. Implementing this sequence in the apparatus of Amaya would have been a straightforward, predictable optimization using familiar unit operations yielding no unexpected result, merely improved control of oxidants and TOC compatible with ultrapure water requirements.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Amaya, Fukui and Sichel discloses the water treatment apparatus of claim 9, wherein the anion removing unit is anion exchangers (Fukui par. 4 of p. 4), further comprising an ion exchange tower (Fukui 2nd to last par. on p. 5) in which the anion exchangers and the platinum group catalyst carriers are loaded (Fukui par. 5 on p. 5).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Amaya, Fukui and Sichel discloses the water treatment apparatus of claim 10, wherein the ion exchanger tower is a regenerative ion exchanger tower (Fukui describes an anion exchange resin tower in par. 7 of p. 5, does not disclose replacement of resin and in par. 5 that the platinum catalyst serves to protect the resin) in which the anion exchangers, cation exchangers, and the platinum group catalysts are separately loaded (Fukui Figs. 2 and 4 show anion exchange resin tower#8, mixed bed ion exchange apparatus #18, and platinum catalyst tower#9 are separate), and wherein the anion exchangers and the platinum group catalyst carriers are loaded adjacent to each other (Fukui Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Amaya, Fukui and Sichel discloses the water treatment apparatus of claim 9, wherein the anion removing unit is anion exchangers (Fukui par. 4 of p. 4), further comprising: an ion exchanger tower in which the anion exchangers are loaded (Fukui #8 Fig. 2); and a catalyst tower in which the platinum group catalyst carriers are loaded (Fukui#9 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Amaya, Fukui and Sichel discloses a water treatment method comprising: adding hypohalogenous acid to water to be treated that contains organic materials (Amaya abstract "hypobromous acid feeder" and “urea”); radiating ultraviolet rays to the water to be treated (Amaya p. 7 “ultraviolet oxidation device”), wherein the hypohalogenous acid has been added to and is included in the water to be treated, and the water to be treated includes anions (Amaya example 2equation on p. 9); adding hydrogen peroxide to the water to be treated in order to remove remaining hypohalogenous acid (Sichel claims 16, 20 and 35 suggest adding hydrogen peroxide “quenching the water to reduce a second portion of the dissolved chlorine species”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hypohalogenous acid species such as hypochlorous acid and related halogen oxidants are forms of residual halogen oxidants in aqueous systems), wherein the ultraviolet rays are radiated to the water to be treated; removing the anions from the water to be treated to which the hydrogen peroxide has been added (Fukui p. 4); and removing the hydrogen peroxide by platinum group catalyst carriers, wherein the hydrogen peroxide is contained in the water to be treated from which the anions have been removed (Fukui p. 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaya (JP2015100733A: an English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Fukui (WO2015068635A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Sichel (US-20120298591-A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US8480906B2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Amaya, Fukui and Sichel discloses the water treatment apparatus of claim 12, wherein the ion exchanger tower is a dual-bed ion exchanger tower (Fukui p. 2 describes “mixed bed type or a 4-bed 5-tower type”) in which cation exchangers are further loaded (Fukui describes this in par. 4 on p. 4).
Fukui does not explicitly disclose that the ion exchanger is regenerative.
Kobayashi discloses ultrapure water production systems and expressly describes a regenerative ion exchange apparatus (mixed bed type or 4-bed 5-tower type) used in semiconductor water treatment systems. The reference teaches that mixed-bed and multi-bed (4-bed/5-tower) ion exchange configurations are implemented as regenerative systems in which ion exchange resins are regenerated for continued operation (Kobayashi col. 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 incorporate the known regenerative dual-bed ion exchange configuration of Kobayashi into the combined Amaya-Sichel-Fukui system in order to provide continuous ultrapure water production suitable for semiconductor cleaning processes. Regenerative mixed-bed and multi-bed ion exchange towers were well-known in the ultrapure water art for maintaining high purity levels while allowing resin reuse through regeneration cycles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 14-16 and 18 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779