DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 02/03/2023. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim at this time. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/03/2023. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant disagrees with the examiner. This is not found persuasive because simply disagreeing without providing any argument or analysis supporting that conclusion is not a bona fide traverse of the election requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, “range” has been misspelled “reange”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the flow restrictor” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the term “relatively low flat range” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low flat range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 7, 12–13 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0012755 to Lee et al.
With regard to claims 1 & 13, Lee discloses an apparatus for supplying gas in a facility for processing a substrate (abstract), comprising: a gas supply line (4800, 4810, 4891, 4892) connecting a gas storage unit (4850) and a process chamber (4000) for processing a substrate (Fig. 5; ¶ 0080); a gas discharge line (4900) connected to the process chamber (4000) (Fig. 5; ¶ 0080); and a flow control unit (5000) installed in the gas supply line (4800, 4810, 4891, 4892) (Fig. 5; ¶ 0080), and controlling a gas flow rate of drying gas supplied through the gas supply line (4800, 4810, 4891, 4892) through a metering valve (4816a) and a mass flow controller (7000), disposed in parallel (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0080, 0104).
With regard to claims 2 & 13, Lee further discloses the gas supply line comprises a plurality of branch lines (4800, 4810, 4891, 4892), disposed in parallel, wherein the flow control unit comprises, a first control unit having a first on-off valve (4813a) and the mass flow controller (7000) (Fig. 5; ¶ 0103); and a second control unit having a second on-off valve (4816b) and the metering valve (4816a) (Fig. 5; ¶ 0104), wherein the first control unit and the second control unit are installed on different branch lines among the plurality of branch lines (4810a, 4810b, 4810c, 4814) (Fig. 5).
With regard to claims 7 & 17, Lee further discloses the first control unit is provided in plural (Fig. 5), and the plurality of first control units are respectively installed on different branch lines (4510a, 4810b, 4810c) among the plurality of branch lines (4510a, 4810b, 4810c, 4814) (Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 12, Lee further discloses the drying gas is a supercritical fluid (¶ 0054).
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 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.
Claims 4–6, 8–11, 15–16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
With regard to claims 4 & 15, Lee fails to disclose the second control unit is provided in plural, and the plurality of second control units are respectively installed on different branch lines among the plurality of branch lines. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of second control units installed on a plurality of branch lines, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claims 5 & 16, Lee as modified above further discloses the plurality of metering valves (4816a) of the plurality of second control units are set to have different opening rates, respectively (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0104, 0106).
With regard to claim 6, Lee as modified above further discloses the plurality of metering valves (4816a) of the plurality of second control units are set to sequentially increase opening rates (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0104, 0106).
With regard to claims 8 & 18, Lee further discloses the mass flow controller of the plurality of first control units control a flow rate of the drying gas within different flow rate ranges, respectively (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0103, 0106).
Lee fails to disclose a plurality of mass flow controllers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of mass flow controllers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claims 9 & 18, Lee, as modified above, further discloses the plurality of mass flow controllers of the plurality of first control units have a flow rate [range], sequentially increasing, for controlling the drying gas (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0103, 0106).
With regard to claim 10, Lee further discloses the first control unit has a flow restrictor (4812).
Lee fails to disclose that the flow restrictor is installed between the second on-off valve and the mass flow controller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to install the flow restrictor between the second on-off valve and the mass flow controller, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 11, Lee further discloses the flow restrictor (4812) is at least one of an orifice, a mesh member, and a porous member (Fig. 5; ¶ 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 attached. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
December 9, 2025