DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 & 14-20 in the application remain pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14-16 & 19-20 were amended. Claims 10-13 are cancelled. Claims 5-9 & 14-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. 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
4. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 1-4 are withdrawn per cancellation of claim 3 and amendments of claim 1.
5. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2010/0037963 A1) of claims 1-2 are withdrawn per amendments of claim 1.
6. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (US 2010/0037963 A1) and Kamikawa et al. (US 20010003067 A1) of claim 3 are withdrawn per cancellation of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Claims 1-2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2010/0037963 A1) in view of Kamikawa et al. (US 2001/0003067 A1) hereinafter Kamikawa (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Yamamoto & Kamikawa are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “chemical liquid”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Yamamoto since Yamamoto meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of using various different liquids, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus for supplying a chemical liquid (abs; fig 1-2), comprising:
a storage tank (7) in which a chemical liquid is stored ([0045]; [0047]; fig 1);
a discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) through which the chemical liquid stored in the storage tank (7) is discharged ([0049]-[0051]; [0061]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0070]-[0072]; fig 1);
a first valve (71) installed in the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0049]-[0051]; [0061]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0070]-[0072]; fig 1);
a level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) connected to the storage tank (7) so as to check a water level of the chemical liquid in the storage tank (7) and receiving the chemical liquid at a same water level as the water level of the chemical liquid in the storage tank ([0007]; [0015]; [0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0071]; [0073]; fig 1);
a second valve (11) installed on the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11),
a controller (80) configured to control the first valve (71) and the second valve (11), wherein the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) has a first end (see fig 1, end of 21u) connected to an upper space (see fig 1, top of tank 7) of the storage tank (7) and a second end (see fig 1, end of 21l) connected to the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0054]-[0055]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0073]; fig 1), however Yamamoto does not disclose a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to the level tube.
Kamikawa discloses an apparatus for supplying a chemical liquid (abs; fig 1-4), comprising a purge gas supply line (6) for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube ([0021]; [0087]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to the level tube in the apparatus of Yamamoto, because Kamikawa teaches the use of a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube to fill/pressurize the container/tube with nitrogen to prevent the chemicals stored in the tank from being exposed to outside air and vary the atmosphere ([0087]).
As regards to claim 2, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the controller (80) opens the first valve (71) for a predetermined time and can perform a stagnant chemical liquid drain mode so that the stagnant chemical liquid in the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) is discharged through the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0054]-[0055]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0073]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 4, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-2), a leveling line within level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) wherein the controller (80) opens the first valve (71) for a predetermined time and can perform a stagnant chemical liquid drain mode so that the stagnant chemical liquid in the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) is discharged through the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0054]-[0055]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0073]; fig 1), however Yamamoto does not disclose wherein the purge gas supply line supplies purge gas to pressurize the chemical liquid in the leveling line.
Kamikawa discloses an apparatus for supplying a chemical liquid (abs; fig 1-4), comprising a purge gas supply line (6) for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube wherein the purge gas supply line (6) supplies purge gas capable of pressurizing a chemical liquid in a leveling line within the liquid container/tube ([0021]; [0087]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the purge gas supply line supplies purge gas to pressurize the chemical liquid in the leveling line in the stagnant chemical liquid drain mode in the apparatus of Yamamoto, because Kamikawa teaches the use of a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube wherein the purge gas supply line supplies purge gas capable of pressurizing a chemical liquid in a leveling line within the liquid container/tube to fill/pressurize the container/tube with nitrogen to prevent the chemicals stored in the tank from being exposed to outside air and vary the atmosphere ([0087]).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Applicants have amended claim 1 to include "a second valve installed on the level tube; and a controller configured to control the first valve and the second valve," and contend that the cited art does not disclose or suggest at least the features of amended claim 1. Kamikawa discloses a purge gas supply pipeline 6 and vent pipeline 6A which connect to "the opening portion of the external tank 2." However, Kamikawa is silent as to a valve, let alone a second valve as required by amended claim 1, related to the purge gas supply pipeline. As such, Kamikawa, alone or together with Yamamoto, cannot disclose or suggest claim 1 as amended.
(b) Applicants note that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest claim 1. Consequently, there cannot be any disclosure or suggestion with regard to dependent claims therefrom, at least by virtue of their dependency from one of claim 1.
9. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) In view of Applicant' s amendments to claim 1 and various claims depending therefrom, Examiner has reevaluated the teachings of Yamamoto and Kamikawa as a whole for what they disclose or fairly suggest.
As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a storage tank (7) in which a chemical liquid is stored ([0045]; [0047]; fig 1); a discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) through which the chemical liquid stored in the storage tank (7) is discharged ([0049]-[0051]; [0061]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0070]-[0072]; fig 1); a first valve (71) installed in the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0049]-[0051]; [0061]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0070]-[0072]; fig 1); a level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) connected to the storage tank (7) so as to check a water level of the chemical liquid in the storage tank (7) and receiving the chemical liquid at a same water level as the water level of the chemical liquid in the storage tank ([0007]; [0015]; [0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0071]; [0073]; fig 1); a second valve (11) installed on the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11), a controller (80) configured to control the first valve (71) and the second valve (11), wherein the level tube (see fig 1, 21+line leading to 11) has a first end (see fig 1, end of 21u) connected to an upper space (see fig 1, top of tank 7) of the storage tank (7) and a second end (see fig 1, end of 21l) connected to the discharge line (see fig 1, 2+10+branches of 2 leading to 71) ([0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0051]; [0054]-[0055]; [0058]; [0061]-[0064]; [0066]-[0073]; fig 1), however Yamamoto does not disclose a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to the level tube.
Kamikawa discloses a purge gas supply line (6) for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube ([0021]; [0087]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to the level tube in the apparatus of Yamamoto, because Kamikawa teaches the use of a purge gas supply line for supplying purge gas to a liquid container/tube to fill/pressurize the container/tube with nitrogen to prevent the chemicals stored in the tank from being exposed to outside air and vary the atmosphere ([0087]).
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2 & 4 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
10. 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 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights