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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 10, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“ monitoring port including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing into the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, …
wherein the fluid is trapped … “
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract, paragraphs 8 , 12, 14-15, 20, 22-23, 53-54, and 56 recite
“ monitoring port including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing into the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, …
wherein the fluid is trapped …”
But it is not shown.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ fluid supplying part”, “liquid supplying part”, trapping part”, “sensing part”, in claim 1; “control part” in claims 4 or 11, or “discharging part” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“a monitoring port” in claim 1 should be “a monitoring part”
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
“a substrate” in line 3 of claim 5 should be “the substrate”. Appropriate correction 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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “ monitoring port including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing into the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, …
wherein the fluid is trapped … “
Based on Fig. 1, and the earlier part of the claim 1, a suggested revision is as follows”: “ monitoring [[port]] part including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing [[into]] from the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, …
wherein the fluid is trapped … “
Claims 2-12 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Us Pat. Num. 3,793,805 to Hoffman (hereinafter Hoffman).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a device for supplying a solution comprising: a fluid supplying part (10) configured to provide a fluid (air from the atmosphere); a chemical liquid supplying part (11, 17) configured to provide a chemical liquid (liquid such as latex) having a specific gravity different from a specific gravity of the fluid; and a monitoring port including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing into the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part (22) configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, wherein a heat transfer is generated between the fluid and the chemical liquid, and wherein the fluid is trapped at a top portion or a bottom portion of the trapping part in accordance with a difference between the specific gravity of the fluid and the specific gravity of the chemical liquid. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu teaches all of the structure capable of the same function (control of viscosity and temperature), the resulting structure would expect to be capable of the same function, Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu and can be used for the same purpose as in the instant application Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu teaches all of the necessary structures the limitations would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including two materials with a relative relationship in their specific gravity. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
The coating apparatus in Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu would be capable of operating with these two materials. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman teaches the fluid supplying part (11) is configured to the fluid along a first direction (upwards) and the chemical liquid is configured to provide the chemical liquid in a second direction (downwards) different from the first direction. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman teaches the fluid supplying part (10) is configured to partially enclose the chemical liquid supplying part (11, 17) or pass through the chemical liquid supplying part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman teaches a control part (23) configured to stop a supply of the chemical liquid from the chemical liquid supplying part when the inflow of the fluid is identified by the monitoring part (22). (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chemical liquid discharging part (31) configured to discharge a chemical liquid having a first specific gravity onto a substrate; a chemical liquid supplying part (11, 17) configured to provide the chemical liquid to the chemical liquid discharging part; a fluid supplying part (10) configured to provide a fluid having a second specific gravity different from the first specific gravity; a chemical liquid supplying part (11, 17) configured to provide a chemical liquid having a second specific gravity different from the first specific gravity; and a monitoring port (15) including a trapping part configured to trap the fluid flowing into the chemical liquid supplying part and a sensing part (22) configured to sense an inflow of the fluid, wherein a heat transfer is generated between the fluid and the chemical liquid such that the chemical liquid (16) has a desired temperature, and wherein the fluid (air atmosphere) is trapped at a top portion (top) or a bottom portion of the trapping part in accordance with a difference between the first specific gravity and the second specific gravity. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman teaches chemical liquid discharging part (31) includes a slit nozzle configured to discharge the chemical liquid onto the substrate in a scan manner. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman teaches the fluid is trapped at the top portion of the trapping part when the first specific gravity of the chemical liquid is greater than the second specific gravity of the fluid, and the sensing part (22) is disposed at the top portion of the trapping part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman teaches the chemical liquid supplying part is configured to provide the chemical liquid along a first direction (upwards) and the fluid supplying part is configured to the fluid in a second direction different (downwards) from the first direction. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman teaches the fluid supplying part is configured to partially enclose the chemical liquid supplying part or pass through the chemical liquid supplying part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman teaches the fluid supplying part is configured to partially enclose the chemical liquid supplying part or pass through the chemical liquid supplying part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman teaches a control part configured to stop a supply of the chemical liquid when the inflow of the fluid is identified by the monitoring part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman teaches a control part configured to stop a supply of the chemical liquid when the inflow of the fluid is identified by the monitoring part. (See Hoffman, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-65, col. 3, lines 1-9, and Fig 1.)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us Pat. Num. 3,793,805 to Hoffman (hereinafter Hoffman) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,987,852 to Sakai et al (hereinafter Sakai) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040173153 A1 to Muramatsu et al (hereinafter Muramatsu).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman does not explicitly teach the fluid is trapped at the bottom portion of the trapping part when the first specific gravity of the chemical liquid is smaller than the second specific gravity of the fluid, and the sensing part is disposed at the bottom portion of the trapping part.
Sakai is directed to paint coating system.
Sakai teaches the sensing part (level gauge 22, 32) is disposed at the bottom portion of the trapping part. (See Sakai, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 6.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensing part is disposed at the bottom portion of the trapping part, because Sakai teaches when the liquid reaches its predetermined level the flow rate of the valve is controlled to regulate the paint flowing into the desired level. (See Sakai, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 6.)
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman does not explicitly teach the fluid is trapped at the bottom portion of the trapping part when the first specific gravity of the chemical liquid is smaller than the second specific gravity of the fluid.
Muramatsu is directed to process liquid supply nozzle.
Muramatsu teaches the fluid is trapped at the bottom portion of the trapping part. (See Muramatsu, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 6, 9-12, 65-67, 85, and 88. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluid is trapped at the bottom portion of the trapping part, because Muramatsu teaches this structure would allow the liquid to flow downward along the outer circumferential surface to wash away the coating liquid in the periphery. (See Muramatsu, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 5-6, 9-12, 65-67, 85, and 88. )
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman does not explicitly teach the first specific gravity of the chemical liquid is smaller than the second specific gravity of the fluid.
Muramatsu teaches siloxane-series polymers are known for forming film. (See Muramatsu, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, paragraph 5. )
Examiner is considering siloxanes to generally have a lower specific gravity than water. (See Benchchem, page, Table 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluid is trapped at the bottom portion of the trapping part, because Muramatsu teaches this structure would allow the liquid to flow downward along the outer circumferential surface to wash away the coating liquid in the periphery. (See Muramatsu, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, paragraphs 6, 9-12, 65-67, 85, and 88. )
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu teaches all of the structure capable of the same function (control of viscosity and temperature), the resulting structure would expect to be capable of the same function, Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu and can be used for the same purpose as in the instant application Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu teaches all of the necessary structures the limitations would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 8, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including two materials with a relative relationship in their specific gravity. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
The coating apparatus in Hoffman and Sakai and Muramatsu would be capable of operating with these two materials. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed 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)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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 Yuan can be reached at (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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights