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.
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, 3-7, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneda [US 20160086768] in view of Wada [US 20170183229] and Yasuda [US 20190204857] and Takijiri [US 20190354120].
Claim 1: Taneda teaches a ozone supply system which comprises an supply path to supply a gas (12) an ozone generator (11) provided in the supply path, and supplying an ozone containing gas downstream end of the ozone generator [abstract; Fig. 5-7]; the supply path branches into a plurality of branching paths on the downstream end of the ozone generator [Fig. 6]; at least one branching path of the plurality of branching path is a processing branching path connected to a processing part that uses the ozone gas (101) [0052-0053; Fig. 5 and 6], a remaining branching path of the plurality of branching path is a waste branching path connected to a waste part to discharge the ozone gas (22) [0057; Fig. 5-7]; the process branching path includes a process flow controller (15) configured to control a flow rate of the ozone gas to the processing part [0027, e.g. Fig. 5-7] and the waste branching path include a waste flow controller configured to control a flow rate of the ozone containing gas (23) [0058, Fig. 5 and 6]. However, Taneda does not appear to explicitly teach oxygen gas supplied from upstream of the supply path to the ozone generator. Wada is provided.
Wada teaches an ozone generating system [title], wherein a gas supply device (1) to output ozonized gas and supplied to the ozone generating apparatus (2) upstream [0038; Fig. 1]. Wada further teaches the gas supplying device includes oxygen [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas supplying device supplying oxygen to the ozone generating apparatus as taught by Wada since the prior art teaches that such system arrangement and device are well known in the ozone generation field. Although Taneda teaches a pressure sensor (14) can be provided in the supply path between the ozone generator and a single branch point of the plurality of branch paths [e.g. Fig. 5-7; 0026], the prior art does not appear to teach a controller that is configured or capable of controlling the flow rate of the ozone containing gas by the waste flow controller without adjusting the flow rate of the ozone containing gas by the process flow controller, based on a pressure value detected by the pressure sensor, and wherein the supply path branches into a plurality of branching path from a single branch point. Yasuda is provided.
Yasuda teaches a master controller that collectively controls the respective mass flow controllers (10) located on branch lines [Fig. 1] and can make adjustments based upon values collected from the main pressure sensor MP [0041]. Yasuda also teaches the supply path branches into a plurality of branching path from a single branch point [Fig. 1]. Although Yasuda does not explicitly teach without adjusting the flow rate of the ozone containing as by the process flow controller, Yasuda teaches the each of the mass flow controllers are configured to operate independently for each branch line during feedback loop [0047, 0052]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the taught system of Yasuda is capable of allowing for the mass flow controller for the waste line could be controlled without making adjustments to the flow rate of the ozone gas of the process flow controller based upon values collected from the pressure value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange a master controller that is configured to control the flow rate of the ozone containing gas either by the waste flow controller or the process flow controller for the different branch lines as taught by Yasuda so as to increase flexibility, efficiency and accuracy of gas supply and processing [0004].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the new limitation of the pressure sensor…configured to approximately detect a pressure inside the ozone generator. Takijiri is provided.
Takijiri teaches a fluid control device and flow rate ratio control device [title], wherein a pressure sensor (P) is provided in flow path [Fig. 1; 0033] and the pressure sensor is cable of measuring the gas reservoir [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also configure the pressure sensor of Taneda to measure the pressure a gas reservoir such as the ozone generator as taught by Takijiri since Takijiri teaches an arrangement of the pressure sensor is capable of doing so and facilitate the suppression of gas flow variations [0036].
Claim 3: Yasuda teaches the master controller is capable of controlling the flow rate and various parts of the ozone generating system based upon a feedback loop [0052; 0054]; therefore, the control unit would be capable of performing the functions described in claim 3.
Claim 4: Yasuda teaches that the control system can also monitor pressure based flow rate, and adjusted until the targeted pressure is achieved [0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the controller can be configured to decrease flow rate of the ozone gas in the case where the pressure value is lower than a target pressure.
Claim 5: Taneda teaches the plurality of the process branching paths is connected to plurality of processing parts, and the plurality of process flow controls are provided in the process branching path to control the flow rate (15) [0027; Fig. 5 and 6].
Claim 6: since Taneda teaches a plurality of process flow controls are provided in the process branching path, such controls would be capable of performing the functions in claim 6.
Claim 7: Taneda teaches the waste flow controller is a mass flow controller [0058].
Claim 11: Yasuda teaches the control system can also include a memory [0019; 0051] and as a result of a program stored in memory being executed and enabling the various devices to operate in collaboration with each other, is able to perform the functions of at least a valve control unit [0051]. Yasuda also teaches adjusting the functions of the system based upon the flow rates and pressure values collected [0012]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the controller of Yasuda is capable of perform the operation as recited by claim 11.
Claim 13: Yasuda teaches the master controller is capable of controlling downstream MFC (which would include the waste flow controller) [0041; Fig. 1] and in communication with the pressure sensor [0041; Fig. 1]; thereby controlling and delivering the targeted pressure of the gases [0003; 0045].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneda in view of Wada and Yasuda and Takijiri as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nagase [US 20130186471].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach an on-off valve between the waste flow controller and the waste part. Nagase is provided.
Claim 12: Nagase teaches providing an on-off valve downstream the MFC in order to facilitate calibration of the flow rate controller for gases passing the lines [0004]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use the master controller to also control the on-off valve with the MFC so as to automate the calibration function entirely. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an on-off valve so as taught by Nagase so as to improve calibration method and flow rate measurement of the gases flowing through branch lines such as the waste branch path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Taneda teaches supplying the flow at a constant fixed rate, therefore, teaching away from the claimed invention; however, it is pointed out that although Taneda teaches providing a constant flow pressure under a certain limit (e.g. lower than atmospheric pressure) [0050]; Takijiri teaches that one can break free from the conventional impression that the upstream side must be always fixed at a constant value lower than a limit pressure for safety, and that recognizes that as long as the pressure is less than the limit pressure, even the pressure varies, safety can be achieved [0009]. Therefore, the arguments of improperly combining the references together is not persuasive because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the various references since the prior art are directed to solving a problem in a similar field (e.g. gas supply control). As for arguments that the prior art does not teach a controller to control the flow rate of the waste flow, again it reiterated even though Yasuda does not explicitly teach without adjusting the flow rate of the ozone containing as by the process flow controller, Yasuda teaches the each of the mass flow controllers are configured to operate independently for each branch line during feedback loop [0047, 0052] Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the taught system of Yasuda is capable of allowing for the mass flow controller for the waste line could be controlled without making adjustments to the flow rate of the ozone gas of the process flow controller based upon values collected from the pressure value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange a master controller that is configured to control the flow rate of the ozone containing gas either by the waste flow controller or the process flow controller for the different branch lines as taught by Yasuda so as to increase flexibility, efficiency and accuracy of gas supply and processing [0004].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 allowed. The new claims 14-15 include limitations that are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220262600, JPH0864490.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights