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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (KR10-2021-0193845, filed 12/31/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 7, 8, 11-14, 21, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1; machine translation provided and referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1, YOUN discloses a substrate processing apparatus that uses ozone and subsequently utilizes a process fluid treating apparatus for ozone decomposition (p0002). A process chamber 26 is utilized to clean a substrate using ozone water (i.e., a treating chamber configured to perform liquid treatment of a substrate by using ozone water; p0062-0063; FIG. 2) supplied by a process fluid supply 31. The ozone water is then discharged through a discharge conduit 210 to a process fluid treating apparatus 32 to remove or reduce the amount of ozone in the process fluid (i.e., a decomposition unit configured to decompose ozone in ozone water; p0063, p0065).
[AltContent: textbox (Pump)][AltContent: textbox (Heater)][AltContent: textbox (Circulation line)][AltContent: textbox (Inner space of housing)][AltContent: textbox (Discharge conduit)][AltContent: textbox (Discharge conduit)][AltContent: textbox (Process fluid supply)][AltContent: textbox (Process fluid treating apparatus)][AltContent: textbox (Process chamber)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown in FIG. 3, the process fluid treating apparatus 32 is connected to the discharge conduit 210 (i.e., a recovery pipe configured to recover the ozone water treated in the treating chamber to the decomposition unit; p0065). The apparatus 32 includes a housing 300 having an inner space to receive a set amount of process fluid (i.e., a tank coupled with the recovery pipe and having an internal space to which ozone water is recoverable therein; p0067). A circulation line 350 provides a path for the process fluid to circulate (i.e., a circulation pipe is connected to the tank) and is connected to the housing 300 via nozzle 353 (p0072, p0075). A heater 352 is provided on the circulation line 350 to heat the process fluid to facilitate ozone decomposition (i.e., a heater configured to heat the ozone water flowing through the circulation pipe is installed in the circulation pipe; p0072; p0074).
YOUN is deficient in explicitly disclosing “a liquid supply pipe configured to supply a liquid to the internal space”.
However, this claimed limitation can be broadly considered to be a duplication of parts, namely the claimed “recovery pipe” previously mapped by the discharge conduit 210 of YOUN. The mere duplication of parts or process steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04). The claim limitation broadly requires a generic “liquid supply pipe” that supplies a “liquid” to the same decomposition unit; such a broad recitation would be read upon by the disclosed or obvious over the duplicated discharge conduit 210 of YOUN.
While YOUN discloses a heater 352 as explained earlier, YOUN is deficient in disclosing a distinctly separate “heating member configured to heat the liquid”.
YOON ’110 discloses an ozone water decomposition system comprising a decomposition tank 110 supplied with ozone water by ozone water supply pipe 140 (FIG. 1, pg. 3, par. 5). The ozone water supply pipe 140 further includes a heater 160 installed on the ozone water supply pipe 140 (i.e., a heating member configured to heat the liquid; FIG. 2, pg. 3, par. 6). Advantageously, the inclusion of a heater on the supply pipe accelerates the decomposition of ozone water (pg. 3-4, spanning paragraph). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a heating member for heating the liquid along the liquid supply pipe as taught by YOON ‘110 for the ozone decomposing apparatus taught by YOUN.
[AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: textbox (Decomposition tank)][AltContent: textbox (Decomposition tank)][AltContent: textbox (Heater[img-media_image3.png])][AltContent: textbox (Heater)][AltContent: textbox (Supply pipe)][AltContent: textbox (Supply pipe)]
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. As further shown in FIG. 3, nozzle 353 is directly connected to the inner space of the housing 300 (i.e., the liquid supply pipe is directly connected to the internal space).
Regarding Claim 7, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. YOUN further discloses that the ozone discharged from the process chamber 26 includes water (i.e., “[a] process fluid may be ozone water or a mixture of ozone water and a liquid chemical”; i.e., wherein the liquid includes water; p0062).
Regarding Claim 8, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 7. Although modified YOUN does not explicitly state that the claimed heating member heats the liquid to a temperature higher than room temperature and equal to or below a boiling point of the liquid, YOON ‘110 discloses that treated ozone water is discharged from the decomposition apparatus 100 through an ozone water outlet 119, i.e., the water remains in liquid form even after treatment. As is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, at moderate temperatures, e.g., 40-60°C, ozone rapidly decomposes to oxygen gas within a matter of minutes, and above 70°C, such a decomposition is even more rapid. Thus, even though the prior art does not specify the temperatures to which the liquid is heated, the claimed temperature range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP§2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. The instant limitation requiring “the apparatus includes two decomposition units” is directed to a mere duplication of parts and would be obvious to any one of ordinary skill in the art to include. The mere duplication of parts or process steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04).
The limitation “the ozone water treated in the treating chamber is alternately recovered by the two decomposition units” is directed to both a material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and a manner or method by which the claimed apparatus is utilized and therefore are not subject to patentable weight. The 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 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 12, as described in the rejection of Claim 1, YOUN discloses an apparatus that includes a decomposition unit configured to decompose ozone in ozone water. Briefly, as shown in FIG. 3 of YOUN, process fluid treating apparatus 32 is connected to the discharge conduit 210 (i.e., a liquid supply pipe configured to supply a liquid to the internal space; p0065). The apparatus 32 includes a housing 300 having an inner space to receive a set amount of process fluid (i.e., a tank having an internal space to which ozone water is recoverable therein; p0067). A circulation line 350 provides a path for the process fluid to circulate (i.e., a circulation pipe is connected to the tank) and is connected to the housing 300 via nozzle 353 (p0072, p0075). A heater 352 is provided on the circulation line 350 to heat the process fluid to facilitate ozone decomposition (i.e., a heater configured to heat the ozone water flowing through the circulation pipe is installed in the circulation pipe; p0072; p0074).
YOUN is deficient in disclosing a distinctly separate “heating member for heating the liquid, the heating member included along the liquid supply pipe”.
YOON ’110 discloses an ozone water decomposition system comprising a decomposition tank 110 supplied with ozone water by ozone water supply pipe 140 (FIG. 1, pg. 3, par. 5). The ozone water supply pipe 140 further includes a heater 160 installed on the ozone water supply pipe 140 (i.e., a heating member for heating the liquid, the heating member included along the liquid supply pipe; FIG. 2, pg. 3, par. 6). Advantageously, the inclusion of a heater on the supply pipe accelerates the decomposition of ozone water (pg. 3-4, spanning paragraph). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a heating member for heating the liquid along the liquid supply pipe as taught by YOON ‘110 for the ozone decomposing apparatus taught by YOUN.
Regarding Claim 13, modified YOUN makes obvious the ozone decomposition unit of Claim 12. YOUN further discloses that the ozone discharged from the process chamber 26 includes water (i.e., “[a] process fluid may be ozone water or a mixture of ozone water and a liquid chemical”; i.e., wherein the liquid includes water; p0062).
Regarding Claim 14, modified YOUN makes obvious the ozone decomposition unit of Claim 12. As noted in the rejection of Claim 12, the discharge conduit 210 of YOUN reads upon the claimed “liquid supply pipe directly supplies the liquid to the internal space”. YOUN discloses a circulation line 350 as the only other pipe that is configured to direct fluid into the process fluid treating apparatus 32. However, the additional claimed limitation of “the ozone decomposition unit is configured to operate to have the ozone water introduced into the internal space through a recovery pipe” can be broadly considered to be a duplication of parts, namely the discharge conduit 210 of YOUN. The mere duplication of parts or process steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04). The claim limitation broadly requires a generic “liquid supply pipe” that supplies a “liquid” to the same ozone decomposition unit; such a broad recitation would be read upon by the disclosed or duplicated discharge conduit 210 of YOUN.
Regarding Claim 21, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. YOON ‘110 further discloses ozone water supply pipe 140 includes a heater 160 installed on the ozone water supply pipe 140 (i.e., the heating member is included along the supply pipe; FIG. 2, pg. 3, par. 6).
Regarding Claims 22 and 25, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus and ozone decomposition unit of Claims 1 and 12, respectively. YOON ‘110 further discloses the ozone water supply pipe 140 includes a check valve for checking the supply of ozone water to the tank (i.e., a valve included in/along the liquid supply pipe; pg. 4, par. 3). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Check valves are common in any liquid purification/treatment apparatuses and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in modified YOUN as taught by YOON ‘110 for a better/improved management of fluid flow.
Modified YOUN is deficient in explicitly disclosing that the valve is downstream from the heating member (Claim 22) or the equivalent that the heating member is upstream from the valve (Claim 25). However, as noted, YOON ‘110 discloses that the check valve is designed for “checking [the] supply of ozone water to the decomposition tank” (pg. 4, par. 3) indicating that the most logical placement for such a valve would be at the inlet 117 to the decomposition tank as this position provides the most accurate measurement for the total amount of water being passed into the decomposition tank (and not the decomposition tank and some length of pipe 140). As then shown in FIG. 2, the heater 160 is located upstream of the inlet 117, satisfying the claimed limitation that the valve is downstream from the heating member (Claim 22)/the heating member is upstream from the valve (Claim 25).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of SUNDSTROM (US 2021/0403358 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 2. Modified YOUN is deficient in disclosing a controller configured to control a first valve installed in the liquid supply pipe and a second valve installed in the recovery pipe.
SUNDSTROM discloses a system for the decomposition of dissolved ozone in an aqueous solution (p0085). The system includes a flow control device comprising flow control valves (p0085), i.e., multiple valves (p0112), and further includes a controller operably connected to any pump or valve within the system so as to enable the controller to directions within the system as needed (p0110). Advantageously, the use of valves and a controller for controlling said valves provides for greater control over the operation of the system (p0110); thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a controller and valves as taught by SUNDSTROM in the apparatus made obvious by modified YOUN.
The limitations “so that the ozone water flowing through the recovery pipe starts to be introduced into the internal space in a state where the internal space is filled with the liquid at a certain water level” (Claim 4) and “so that the liquid is supplied to the internal space while the ozone water flowing through the recovery pipe is introduced into the internal space (Claim 5) are directed toward intended results from the use or practice of the claimed apparatus. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Claim(s) 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) as applied to Claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of KIM (KR 2008/0014248 A; machine translation provided and referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 10, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. YOUN further discloses a gas discharge valve 361 on a gas discharge line 360 that is opened to discharge gas inside the housing 300 (i.e., a vent pipe configured to discharge gas generated by decomposition of ozone in the internal space is connected to the tank; p0076). Although YOUN is deficient in explicitly disclosing a densitometer configured to measure a concentration of ozone in the ozone water in the tank, YOUN does disclose a discharge valve 371 on a discharge line 370 connected to the bottom of the housing 300 that is opened to discharge the process fluid once ozone in the process fluid is decomposed (i.e., a drain pipe configured to discharge ozone water therein is connected to the tank; in response to the concentration of ozone… reaching a set value or less, the apparatus is configured to have the ozone water in the internal space discharged through the drain pipe; p0076). This implies that YOUN must have some capability to determine the level/degree to which the ozone in the process fluid is decomposed such that the process fluid can be safely discharged. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that such a capability is a densitometer.
Indeed, ozone densitometers are known in the art as disclosed by KIM. KIM teaches an apparatus for generating ozone water for use in cleaning substrates (abstract). The apparatus includes an ozone supply unit 20 with a circulation line 140, 142, 144; the apparatus further includes a densitometer on the circulation line 142 to determine whether or not the concentration of ozone in ozonated water satisfies a predetermined threshold (i.e., a densitometer configured to measure a concentration of ozone in the ozone water in the tank; pg. 6, last paragraph). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide a densitometer to measure ozone concentration in water as taught by KIM for the apparatus made obvious by modified YOUN.
Regarding Claim 24, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 1. YOUN further discloses pump 351 on the circulation line 350 (i.e., a pump included in the circulation pipe; p0073, FIG. 3). Heater 352 is further shown to be downstream of the pump 351 (i.e., the heater is downstream from the pump; FIG. 3). Modified YOUN is deficient in disclosing a densitometer included in the circulation pipe or that the heater is downstream from the densitometer.
Although YOUN is deficient in explicitly disclosing a densitometer in the process fluid treating apparatus 32, YOUN does disclose discharging the process fluid once ozone in the process fluid is decomposed (p0076). This implies that YOUN must have some capability to determine the level/degree to which the ozone in the process fluid is decomposed such that the process fluid can be safely discharged. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that such a capability is a densitometer.
Indeed, ozone densitometers are known in the art as disclosed by KIM. KIM teaches an apparatus for generating ozone water for use in cleaning substrates (abstract). The apparatus includes an ozone supply unit 20 with a circulation line 140, 142, 144; the apparatus further includes a densitometer on the circulation line 142 to determine whether or not the concentration of ozone in ozonated water satisfies a predetermined threshold (i.e., a densitometer included in the circulation pipe; pg. 6, last paragraph). While it is recognized that the disclosed densitometer is not taught to be part of a circulation pipe of a decomposition unit as claimed, KIM nevertheless discloses the use of a densitometer to determine ozone concentration in a circulation pipe. In recognizing that YOUN discloses a capability to determine ozone concentration, albeit fails to explicitly disclose a densitometer, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to utilize the KIM-taught densitometer for the purpose of determining ozone concentration. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide a densitometer in a circulation pipe as taught by KIM for the apparatus made obvious by modified YOUN.
Modified YOUN is deficient in disclosing that the heater is downstream from the densitometer. However, such a limitation is directed toward a simple rearrangement of parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange the components of the taught product such that the heater is downstream from the densitometer because it is a simple rearrangement of parts. As claimed, a circulation pipe continually circulates ozone water through the decomposition unit; any ozone water that enters the circulation pipe must pass by the densitometer and the heater, i.e., the order by which the ozone water passes is insignificant given steady state conditions in the decomposition unit. Absent a showing of significance or unexpected results, the claimed locations of the components are prima facie obvious and do not modify the operation of the invention and further, do not add patentable significance (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP §2144.04).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of SHIMOMURA et al. (US 2007/0000827 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, modified YOUN makes obvious the apparatus of Claim 21. Modified YOUN is deficient in explicitly disclosing a second tank wherein the liquid supply pipe is branched to connect to the tank and to the second tank at a branching point, and the heating member is upstream from the branching point.
SHIMOMURA discloses a dissolved ozone decomposing apparatus where ozone water flows from a supply port to a first and a second decomposing column (p0009). In an embodiment, SHIMOMURA discloses that a plurality of dissolved ozone decomposing apparatuses are used and that the supply ports of the apparatuses are connected to “a common supply pipe in parallel” (p0014; see also p0017: “a plurality of the apparatuses as a unit to be connected to a common piping in parallel”), e.g., as shown in FIG. 9A and described in p0071, an apparatus including a singular supply port 51 (i.e., the liquid supply pipe) branching off to four separate decomposing columns 30 (i.e., a tank and a second tank) with common inlet 31a (i.e., a branching point; the liquid supply pipe is branched to connect to the tank and to the second tank at a branching point). Advantageously, such a parallel configuration provides for a higher flow rate of ozone water for decomposition (p0014). Thus, prior to the effectively filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide for a second tank and the liquid supply pipe to be branched to connect to the tank and to the second tank at a branching point as taught by SHIMOMURA for the apparatus made obvious by modified YOUN.
[AltContent: textbox (Decomposing columns)][AltContent: textbox (Common inlet 31a)][AltContent: textbox (Supply port)]
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art is deficient in explicitly disclosing the limitation that “the heating member is upstream from the branching point”. However, such a limitation is directed toward a matter of choice among limited options, i.e., whether the heating member is upstream or downstream from the branching point. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp; if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP §2143.01 E). If the heating member were located downstream, then only one of the tanks will receive preheated ozone water and the other tank would not; thus, it would be obvious to include the heating member upstream of the branching point such that the ozone water distributed by the branching point would have been equally treated by the heating member. Such a limitation is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and would lead to a more even and efficient treatment of ozone water.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 04 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1); Claim(s) 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of SUNDSTROM (US 2021/0403358 A1); Claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of MONIWA et al. (US 5,492,633); and Claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1), Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-14, 21, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1); Claim(s) 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) and SUNDSTROM (US 2021/0403358 A1); Claim(s) 10 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) and KIM (KR 2008/0014248 A); and Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 2018/0111860 A1) in view of YOON et al. (KR 102185110 B1) and SHIMOMURA et al. (US 2007/0000827 A1).
Applicant’s arguments filed 04 December 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
XU et al. (US 2018/0100261 A1): XU discloses an ozone sterilization washing machine (abstract). The machine includes an ozone generation device 2 to generate ozone to introduce into water contained in barrel 1; undissolved ozone is discharged via an exhaust hole and heated via heating device 3 in exhaust pipeline 10 to decompose into oxygen (p0038). Advantageously, such an in-line heater rapidly decomposes ozone (p0038).
CHO (US 2021/0205486 A1): CHO discloses an apparatus for sterilizing treatment tools utilizing ozone water (abstract). The treatment tool sterilizer 10 includes a sterilization tub 20, a micro bubble type ozone water supply 50, and a heater 33 fixed to the lower portion/bottom portion of the sterilization tub 20 (p0030; FIG. 1). After a sterilizing process is completed, the heater 33 heats the ozone water to advantageously remove/decompose the ozone from the ozone water (i.e., a heating member for heating the liquid resulting in ozone-free water that is readily drained and oxygen exhausted through an outlet (p0044). Advantageously, this heating of the sterilization tub 20 converts toxic ozone into harmless oxygen (p0077).
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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777