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 .
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.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonini (EP 3 015 173 A1) in view of Williams et al. (US Pat No 5,779,159). All citations to Tonini unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Tonini shows a nozzle (Figs. 3-5) for injecting a processing liquid, the nozzle comprising a cylindrical housing (1) having a central axis (C) and defining a mixing chamber (3a/5b) therein,
wherein the housing comprises:
a liquid supply port (2) to supply the processing liquid into the mixing chamber of the housing;
a gas supply port (3) to supply a compressed gas into the mixing chamber of the housing; and
an injection port (14) to inject a mixture of the processing liquid and the compressed gas mixed in the mixing chamber,
wherein the injection port (14) has a plurality of outlets that extend around the central axis,
wherein the nozzle further comprises a rod member (16) disposed between the liquid supply port (2) and the injection port (14) in an extending direction of the central axis, the rod member having an inclined surface (at 14) in which a diameter increases toward the injection port (14), and
wherein a fluid passage (between 16 & 5b) is formed between an inner peripheral surface of the housing (1) and the inclined surface (at 14) to guide the mixture to the injection port (14).
Tonini does not teach the injection port has an annular shape.
However, Williams et al. teach an annular outlet is equivalent to a plurality of outlets (col. 1, lines 66-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an annular shaped outlet extending around the central axis, since the equivalence of a plurality of outlets and an annular shaped outlet for their use in the atomizing art and the selection of any known equivalents to an annular shaped outlet would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 2, Tonini as modified by Williams et al. show the fluid passage (between 16 & 5b) is disposed downstream of the mixing chamber (3a/5b).
Re claim 3, Tonini as modified by Williams et al. disclose the nozzle is configured to atomize and inject the processing liquid from the injection port (14; col. 6, lines 27-30).
Re claim 4, Tonini as modified by Williams et al. show a liquid supply pipe (8) to guide the processing liquid into the mixing chamber (3a/5b) of the housing along the central axis; and
a diffusion plate (4/10) to diffuse the processing liquid flowing through the liquid supply pipe (8), the diffusion plate (4/10) having a plurality of openings (10) arranged along a circumferential direction about the central axis.
Re claim 5, Tonini as modified by Williams et al. teach the processing liquid is an etching liquid (col. 1, lines 18-20) to etch a workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights