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 Status
Claims 1-32 are pending:
Claims 1-5 and 21-32 have been withdrawn.
Claims 6-20 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 7-8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. X103
Claims 6-7, 10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Applicant's claimed invention relates to using a submersed purifier within a storage container to further purify a semiconductor processing fluid that is already at an ultra-high purity level (>99.99% pure). As described in the Application at paragraph [0007], even liquids that have been previously purified may contain "micron-scale or nano-scale dissolved or suspended molecules... in a concentration that may be in a range of parts per million (ppm) or less." The claimed invention addresses removal of these trace impurities during storage.
As amended, claim 6 recites a storage system for maintaining and improving the purity of an already-purified liquid during storage. The claim defines the liquid's purity at two distinct points: (1) a first purified state upon introduction into the storage container, and (2) a second purified state upon removal, with the impurity concentration reduced by at least 70 percent.
Neither Sajid nor Phelan, taken either alone or in some combination teaches or suggests a storage system for a purified liquid used in semiconductor manufacturing, where the liquid is at least 99.99 percent pure upon introduction into the storage container and exhibits a 70 percent reduction in impurity concentration upon removal from the storage container.
Sajid is directed to removing polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) pollutants from contaminated drinking water. The starting liquid in Sajid is not a "purified liquid" in a "first purified state" that is "at least 99.99 percent pure." Rather, Sajid's starting liquid is contaminated drinking water. Further, while Sajid reports removal efficiencies of approximately 90% for PAH pollutants, this is removal from contaminated water, not further purification of an already ultra- pure liquid.
Phelan is directed to point-of-use treatment of potable water using a disposable treatment device. See Phelan, Abstract. Like Sajid, Phelan addresses treatment of drinking water, not storage of ultra-pure semiconductor processing fluids. Phelan does not teach a "purified liquid" in a "first purified state" that is at least 99.99 percent pure upon introduction into a storage container. Phelan also does not teach that the liquid exhibits a 70% reduction of trace impurities at parts-per-million or parts-per-billion levels in a 99.99% pure semiconductor process liquid upon removal from the storage container.
The combination of Sajid and Phelan fails to teach each and every element of the storage system as recited by independent claim 6. As such, claim 6 is believed to be patentable over the combined teachings of Sajid and Phelan. Claims 7, 10, and 16-20, which depend from claim 6 and include additional distinguishing features, are also likewise patentable over the combination of Sajid and Phelan for at least those same reasons as discussed herein.
Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.
Claims 8-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Sajid in view of Phelan and further in view of Luo (US 6,022,477). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claims 8-9 depend from claim 6 and thus are also patentable for at least those same reasons discussed above and because they recite additional distinguishing features. Moreover, adding Luo to the combination does not cure the deficiencies of Sajid and Phelan noted above. Luo does not teach a storage system for purified semiconductor processing liquids in a first purified state that is at least 99.99 percent pure, nor does Luo teach a second purified state with a 70 percent reduction in impurity concentration.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Sajid in view of Phelan and further in view of Guo (US 9,073,041).
Claim 11 depends from claim 6 and thus is also patentable for at least those same reasons discussed above and because it recites additional distinguishing features. Additionally, Guo does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Sajid and Phelan noted above.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Sajid in view of Phelan and further in view of Fletcher (US 2,987,216).
Claim 12 depends from claim 6 and thus is also patentable for at least those same reasons discussed above and because it recites additional distinguishing features. Fletcher does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Sajid and Phelan noted above.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Sajid in view of Phelan and further in view of Tanny (US 6,527,146).
Claim 13 depends from claim 6 and thus is also patentable for at least those same reasons discussed above and because it recites additional distinguishing features. Tanny does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Sajid and Phelan noted above.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
This argument is not persuasive because the device of Sajid is capable of performing the intended use of treating a purified liquid because Sajid teaches all the structural limitations and therefore is able to achieve the same or similar results to that of the instant invention.
Amended claim 6 which is directed to an apparatus merely adds limitations that are either process-related or functional recitations that are inherently disclosed in Sajid. Specifically, Sajid teaches:
wherein upon introduction into the sealable storage container in a first purified state, the purified liquid is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains an impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million (the membrane pore size can range 0.05-.10 micron, see ¶22 of Sajid, the prior art micron size corresponds to 50-100 nm therefore the membrane is capable of performing the intended function), and
wherein upon removal from the sealable storage container in a second purified state, the concentration of the impurity in the purified liquid is reduced by at least 70 percent from its concentration when the purified liquid is in the first purified state (the enclosure can contain sufficient adsorbent to reduce the amount of targe pollutant in the water by 70-90%, see ¶32 of Sajid; therefore the absorbent is capable of performing of the intended function).
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations “purified liquid” and “a liquid in a semiconductor manufacturing process” are not given patentable weight because the type of liquid whether purified or from a semiconductor manufacturing process does not physically change the structure of the claimed device.
The claimed limitations “a first purified state…” and a “second purified state…” are directed to process/method steps and are only given patentable weight to the extent that the device is capable of performing said process/method steps when in-use.
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.
Claims 6-7, 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872).
Regarding claim 6, Sajid teaches a storage system for containing a liquid (see ABS and Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a …container (beaker shown in Fig. 2) comprising an interior,
a fixed volume of a purified liquid disposed in the interior (liquid comprising PAHs, see Fig. 2),
wherein the purified liquid is a liquid used in a semiconductor manufacturing process (this limitation is recited as an intended use, see MPEP § 2144.07) and
a purifier submersed in the fixed volume of purified liquid (cloth fiber was knotted to the bag so that the bag can be easily manually immersed, see ¶44), the purifier comprising: a purifier body comprising a porous membrane (fiber knotted porous membrane membrane) having pores of sub- micron average pore size (average pore size ranging from 0.08-0.12 um, see claim 1) defining a sealed interior and adsorbent (carbon-based adsorbents, see ¶9) at disposed within the interior (the porous membrane containing at least one adsorbent, see claim 1),
wherein upon introduction into the container in a first purified state, the purified liquid is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains an impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million (the membrane pore size can range 0.05-.10 micron, see ¶22, the prior art micron size corresponds to 50-100 nm therefore the membrane is capable of performing the intended function), and
wherein upon removal from the container in a second purified state, the concentration of the impurity in the purified liquid is reduced by at least 70 percent from its concentration when the purified liquid is in the first purified state (the enclosure can contain sufficient adsorbent to reduce the amount of targe pollutant in the water by 70-90%, see ¶32 therefore the absorbent is capable of performing of the intended function).
Sub-micron range per the instant specification is defined as less than 1 micron.
Sajid does not teach that the interior is a sealable storage interior.
In a related field of endeavor, Phelan teaches a treatment device and method (see ABS) comprising a sealable storage container (disposable water bottle or reusable water bottle) for housing treatment packs (see ¶36).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the container of Sajid to be a sealed container (i.e. water bottle) as disclosed by Phelan because these containers are commonly used thus convenient for a wide range of applicants particularly for treatment of water (Phelan, see ¶36) which is desirable in Sajid; and the sealable nature reduces further contamination.
Regarding claim 7, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6, wherein the membrane is a microporous membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.05 to 1 micron (Sajid, average pore size ranging from 0.08-0.12 um, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6, wherein the adsorbent is selected from: carbon-based adsorbent (Sajid, carbon-based adsorbents, see ¶48)…
Regarding claims 14-20, , Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
With respect to the limitations, “wherein the container contains liquid that is at least 99.99 percent pure, and contains impurity having a size below 100 nanometers, at a concentration below 100 parts per million (see claim 14); wherein the liquid is useful as a semiconductor processing fluid (see claim 15); wherein the liquid is a polar organic solvent or a non-polar organic solvent (see claim 16); wherein the liquid is isopropyl alcohol or ammonium (see claim 17); wherein the liquid is selected from: an alkane (methane, butane, hexane, and other C3 through C10 alkanes), n-butyl acetate (nBA), isopropyl alcohol (IPA), 2-ethoxyethyl acetate (2EEA), an amine (e.g., ammonium), a xylene,cyclohexanone, ethyl lactate, methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), isoamyl acetate, undecane, propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME), and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA) (see claim 18); wherein the impurity is an alkane (see claim 19); wherein the liquid is a polar organic solvent and the impurity is a hydrocarbon, a metal oxide, or a metal ion (see claim 20)”, Sajid is capable of operating with the claimed liquid. The material worked upon does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. Note also MPEP 2115.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Luo (USPN 6,022,477) .
Regarding claim 8, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the membrane is an ultrafiltration membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.001 microns to 0.05 microns.
In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches a method and apparatus for isolation purification of biomolecules (see ABS) wherein the membrane is an ultrafiltration membrane having pores of an average pore size in a range from 0.001 microns to 0.05 microns (a membrane that is an ultrafiltration membrane which inherently has a pore size range between 0.01-0.1um by evidence of Hyflux membranes, therefore overlaps with the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01-0.1 micron overlaps the claimed range of 0.05-1 micron. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the membrane of Sajid to be ultrafiltration membrane as disclosed by Luo because the UF membrane holds larger molecules back and allows smaller molecules to go through (Luo, see C10/L50-60) thereby increasing filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the membrane comprises polymer selected from: a polyamide, a polyimide, a polyamide-polyimide, a polysulfone, a fluoropolymer, a polyolefin, and a nylon.
In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches a method and apparatus for isolation purification of biomolecules (see ABS) wherein the membrane comprises a polysulfone (Luo, polysulfone hollow fiber ultrafiltration cartridge, see C11/L25-35).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the membrane of Sajid to be polysulfone membrane as disclosed by Luo because it is desirable to select a membrane based on its molecular weight and the pore size compared with the size of the targeted products (Luo, see C11/L30-40).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Guo (USPN 9,073,041).
Regarding claim 11, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein there is from 0.5 g to 5 grams adsorbent per 50 milliliter of solvent in the container.
In a related field of endeavor, Guo teaches a precipitated silica sorbents (see ABS) wherein there is from 0.5 g to 5 grams adsorbent per 50 milliliter of solvent in the container (the claimed concentration range is 0.01-0.1 grams/ milliliter) (0.30 grams of powered silica is added to 30 millimeters of pH adjusted CTAB solution, see C6/L64-C7/L5; the concentration of Guo is 0.01 g/mL which a data point in range).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adsorbent of Sajid to 0.01 g/ml of absorbent per solvent as disclosed by Guo because the microporosity of the adsorbent is maximized for the design of optimal sorbent materials (Guo, see C16/L5-11).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Fletcher (USPN 2,987,216).
Regarding claim 12, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the container includes a removable liner.
In a related field of endeavor, Fletcher teaches a disposable liner for a container (see ABS) comprising a removable liner (removable liner, see C2/L65-72).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Sajid by incorporating a removable liner as disclosed by Fletcher because it is the simple addition of known removable liner to a known container device obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of creating a protective barrier and easy removable of contents within the container with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajid (US 2020/0156010) in view of Phelan (US 2013/0213872) and further in view of Tanny (USPN 6,527,146).
Regarding claim 13, Sajid and Phelan teach the storage system of claim 6.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the container has an interior volume in a range from 1 to 200 liters.
In a related field of endeavor, Tanny teaches a water dispensing apparatus with filter integrity testing system (see ABS) comprising container has an interior volume in a range from 1 to 200 liters (the container may have a capacity from 0.5-5 liters, see C5/L33-38).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-5 liters partially overlaps the claimed range of 1-200 liters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Sajid by adjusting the size to be in the range of 0.5-5 liters as disclosed by Tanny because doing so is a mere change in shape and/or dimension. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773