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 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, 4–7, 9, 11–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaught, US 2006/0137663 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Vaught teaches an apparatus 10 for separating air from a liquid, which reads on the claimed “liquid trap tank.” See Vaught Fig. 1B, [0021].
The apparatus 10 comprises a chamber body 1a (the “tank body”) configured to have a chamber 5 (the “accommodation space”) therein that is configured to accommodate a liquid, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0021]. The chamber body 1a has an inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) in an upstream portion of the chamber body 1a (the “first portion thereof”) and an outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”) in a downstream portion of the chamber body 1a (the “second portion thereof”). Id.
The apparatus 10 also comprises an intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”) inside the chamber body 1a, which is configured to primarily and temporarily accommodate the liquid so that air bubbles are separated from the liquid introduced through the inlet 2a, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0003], [0021].
The apparatus 10 also comprises an exit cavity 5b (the “second accommodation portion”) inside the chamber body 1a and configured to secondarily and temporarily accommodate the liquid moved from the intake cavity 5a and to externally discharge the liquid moved from the intake cavity 5a through the outlet 2b, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0021].
The apparatus 10 further comprises a divider 250 (the “separating wall unit”) between the intake cavity 5a and the exit cavity 5b. See Vaught Figs. 1B, 5A, [0021], [0023].
The divider 250 has:
An upstream wall portion 255 (the “first surface”) corresponding to the intake cavity 5a;
An upstream transition portion 254 (the “base”) at a bottom of the divider 250 connected to the upstream wall portion 255;
A top edge 256 (the “top surface”) connected to the upstream wall portion 255;
A downstream transition portion 254 and wall portion 255 (collectively the “second surface”) connected to the top edge 256 and corresponding to the exit cavity 5b. See Vaught Figs. 1B, 5A, [0023].
An entirety of the upstream wall portion 255 (the “first surface”) extends from a connection to the upstream transition portion 254 (the “base”) to the top edge 256 (the “top surface”), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5A. The entirety of the upstream wall portion 255 extends vertically with an undefined slope, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5A.
The downstream transition portion 254 has a parabolic curve, with a slope that changes over the length of the transition portion 254, as seen in Fig. 5A. This reads on “a slope at a first location on the second surface is different from a slope at a second location on the second surface, the first location and the second location being different from each other,” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Vaught teaches that the divider 250 (the “separating wall unit”) is capable of performing the function of the liquid overflows and flows to the exit cavity 5b (the “second accommodation portion”) when the liquid is accommodated to a limit water level in the intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”) and then exceeds the limit water level because liquid overflows the divider 250 and moves to the exit cavity 5b when the liquid in the intake cavity 5a exceeds the height of the divider 250. See Vaught Fig. 1B, [0021], [0023]; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 4, Vaught teaches that the downstream transition portion 254 and wall portion 255 (collectively the “second surface”) comprises the transition portion 254, which reads on the “flow guide unit.” See Vaught Fig. 5A, [0023]. The downstream transition portion 254 is capable of performing the function of guiding a flow of the liquid to reduce generation of air bubbles due to a fall of the liquid overflowing from the top edge 256, as claimed, because the transition portion 254 is curved to redirect the flow of liquid in the exit cavity 5b, with the transition portion 254 having a similar structure as the parabolic inclined surface F14 of the inclined surface F1 illustrated in Fig. 4C of the Applicant’s disclosure. Id.; Spec. Fig. 4C, ps. 12–13 (bridging paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Vaught teaches that the downstream transition portion 254 (the “flow guide unit”) is an inclined surface, as seen in Fig. 5A. The downstream transition portion 254 is capable of performing the function of guiding a flow of the liquid to reduce generation of air bubbles due to a fall of the liquid overflowing from the top edge 256 (the “top surface”) because the transition portion 254 is curved to redirect the flow of liquid in the exit cavity 5b. See Vaught Fig. 5A, [0023].
Regarding claim 6, Vaught teaches that the downstream transition portion 254 (the “flow guide unit”) is a parabolic inclined surface in which an inclination angle changes continuously from a first inclination angle to a second inclination angle that is less than the first inclination angle, as seen in Fig. 5A.
Regarding claim 7, Vaught teaches that the surface of the transition portion 254 is capable of functioning as a “laminar flow guiding surface” because it redirects the flow of liquid to exit cavity 5b without cavitating the liquid. See Vaught [0023]. Note also that the surface of the transition portion 254 is presumed capable of functioning as a “laminar flow guiding surface” because it has the same structure as the claimed “flow guiding unit.” See MPEP 2112.01(I) (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding claim 9, Vaught teaches that the upstream wall portion 255 (part of the “first surface”) is a vertical surface. See Vaught Fig. 5A, [0023].
Regarding claim 11, Vaught teaches that the inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) is on a lower portion of the intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”), and the outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”) is on a lower portion of the exit cavity 5b (the “second accommodation portion’). See Vaught Fig. 1A, [0021].
Regarding claim 12, Vaught teaches that the inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) is on a lateral surface of the intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”), and the outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”) is on a lower portion of the exit cavity 5b (the “second accommodation portion’). See Vaught Fig. 1A, [0021].
Regarding claim 13, Vaught teaches that the inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) is capable of having “extension pipe therein and extending toward” the intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”) because an extension pipe could be inserted into the inlet 2a. Note that the “extension pipe” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed “liquid trap tank” because the claim says that the inflow unit is “configured to have an extension pipe” instead of saying that the liquid trap tank comprises an extension pipe. Therefore, the claim language describing the structure and orientation of the “extension pipe” fail to impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements).
Regarding claim 14, Vaught teaches that at least a portion of the divider 250 (the “separating wall unit”) is at a first height from the outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”), as seen in Fig. 1B, and is capable of performing the function of liquid being guided while falling in a direction of the outlet 2b by gravity, as liquid flows up and over the divider 250 on its way to the outlet 2b. See Vaught Fig. 1B, [0023].
Regarding claim 15, Vaught teaches that the inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) is connected to a “liquid storage bottle configured to store the liquid” which is the source of liquid that supplies liquid to the inlet 2a. See Vaught [0003]. Also, the outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”) is connected to a booster pump (the “pumping unit”). Id. at [0041]. The booster pump is capable of pumping the liquid into a substrate processing unit, because it is a pump for moving the liquid. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation requiring that the liquid comprises a “photoresist chemical” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because the claimed “liquid” is not a positively recited structural element of the claim. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, thus inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims).
Regarding claim 17, Vaught teaches that the apparatus 10 (the “liquid trap tank”) further comprises a bleed hole 2c in the chamber body 1a (the “tank body”) configure to exhaust entrained air. See Vaught Fig. 1A, [0021]. The bleed hole 2c reads on the “gas exhaust unit in the tank body and configured to externally exhaust gas generated from the air bubbles that are separated from the liquid.”
Regarding claim 18, Vaught teaches that the apparatus 10 (the “liquid trap tank”) further comprises a suction means 9 configured to externally discharge an internal gas from the apparatus 10 to adjust the pressure of the chamber 5 (the “accommodation space”). See Vaught Fig. 1B, [0031]. The suction means 9 reads on the “ventilation unit.”
Regarding claim 20, Vaught teaches an apparatus 10 for separating air from a liquid, which reads on the claimed “liquid trap tank.” See Vaught Fig. 1B, [0021].
The apparatus 10 comprises a chamber body 1a (the “tank body”) configured to have a chamber 5 (the “accommodation space”) therein that is configured to accommodate a liquid, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0021]. The chamber body 1a has an inlet 2a (the “inflow unit”) in an upstream portion of the chamber body 1a (the “first portion thereof”) and an outlet 2b (the “discharge unit”) in a downstream portion of the chamber body 1a (the “second portion thereof”). Id.
The apparatus 10 also comprises an intake cavity 5a (the “first accommodation portion”) inside the chamber body 1a, which is configured to primarily and temporarily accommodate the liquid so that air bubbles are separated from the liquid introduced through the inlet 2a, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0003], [0021].
The apparatus 10 also comprises an exit cavity 5b (the “second accommodation portion”) inside the chamber body 1a and configured to secondarily and temporarily accommodate the liquid moved from the intake cavity 5a and to externally discharge the liquid moved from the intake cavity 5a through the outlet 2b, as claimed. See Vaught Figs. 1A, 1B, [0021].
The apparatus 10 further comprises a divider 250 (the “separating wall unit”) between the intake cavity 5a and the exit cavity 5b so that the liquid overflows the divider 250 and moves to the exit cavity 5b when the liquid in the intake cavity 5a exceeds the height of the divider 250 (“so that the liquid overflows and moves to the second accommodation portion when the liquid is accommodated to a limit water level in the first accommodation portion and then exceeds the limit water level”). See Vaught Figs. 1B, 5A, [0021], [0023].
The divider 250 has:
An upstream wall portion 255 (the “first surface”) corresponding to the intake cavity 5a;
An upstream transition portion 254 (the “base”) at a bottom of the divider 250 connected to the upstream wall portion 255;
A top edge 256 (the “top surface”) connected to the upstream wall portion 255;
A downstream transition portion 254 and wall portion 255 (collectively the “second surface”) connected to the top edge 256 and corresponding to the exit cavity 5b. See Vaught Figs. 1B, 5A, [0023].
The downstream transition portion 254 reads on the “flow guide unit.” See Vaught Figs. 1A, 5A, [0023]. The downstream transition portion 254 is capable of performing the function of guiding a flow of the liquid to reduce generation of the air bubbles caused by a fall of the liquid overflowing from the top edge 256, as claimed, because the transition portion 254 is curved to redirect the flow of liquid in the exit cavity 5b. Id.
The downstream transition portion 254 is an inclined surface capable of performing the function of limiting a vertical fall of the liquid, because it is curved to redirect the flow of the liquid in exit cavity 5b, with the transition portion 254 having a similar structure as the parabolic inclined surface F14 of the inclined surface F1 illustrated in Fig. 4C of the Applicant’s disclosure. Id.; Spec. Fig. 4C, ps. 12–13 (bridging paragraph).
The inlet 2a is on a lower portion of the intake cavity 5a, as claimed. See Vaught Fig. 1A, [0021].
The outlet 2b is on a lower portion of the exit cavity 2b, as claimed. See Vaught Fig. 1A, [0021].
The downstream transition portion 254 and wall portion 255 is at a first height from the outlet 2b so that the liquid is capable of being guided while falling in a direction of the outlet 2b by gravity, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1B.
The structure formed by the downstream transition portion 254 has the shape of a parabolic curve, with a slope that changes over the length of the transition portion 254, as seen in Fig. 5A. This reads on “a slope at a first location on the inclined surface is different from a slope at a second location on the inclined surface, the first location and the second location being different from each other,” as claimed.
An entirety of the upstream wall portion 255 (the “first surface”) extends from a connection to the upstream transition portion 254 (the “base”) to the top edge 256 (the “top surface”), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5A. The entirety of the upstream wall portion 255 extends vertically with an undefined slope, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5A.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught, US 2006/0137663 A1 in view of Juodkazis et al., US 2016/0212989 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Vaught teaches the limitations of claim 7, as explained above.
Vaught differs from claim because it is silent as to the surface of the downstream transition portion 254 (the “laminar flow guiding surface”) including the structures described in the claim.
But the surface of the ramp 12 is configured so that liquid, such as water, passes over it. See Vaught [0002].
With this in mind, Juodkazis teaches a biocidal surface that can be applied to various applications, including sewage pipes, tanks, drains, and aquatic pipes. See Juodkazis [0007]. The biocidal surface comprises an array of nanospikes, which forms horizontal rows of polygonal grooves. Id. at Fig. 1, [0009]. The biocidal surface is beneficial because it reduces the growth or propagation of microbes on the material that it is applied to.
It would have been obvious to coat the surface of the downstream transition portion 254 of Vaught with the biocidal surface of Juodkazis to reduces the growth or propagation of microbes. With this modification, the array of nanospikes would read on the “polygonal row grooves…in a horizontal direction.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught, US 2006/0137663 A1 in view of Bloch et al., US 3,977,972.
Regarding claim 10, Vaught teaches that the top edge 256 (the “top surface”) includes a convex shape, as seen in Fig. 1E.
Vaught differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to the top edge 256 including concave features, and therefore fails to provide enough information to teach the top edge 256 including a “concave-convex portion.”
But the top edge 256 of the divider 250 is provided so that liquid flows over the top edge 256 as it moves from the intake cavity 5a to the exit cavity 5b. See Vaught Figs. 1B, 5A, [0023], [0027].
With this in mind, Bloch teaches a device for removing gas from a liquid comprising a baffle 60 that the liquid flows over (similar to the divider 250 of Vaught) where the baffle 60 comprises notches 68 (i.e., concave portions) along the top edge 66 of the baffle 60. See Bloch Fig. 3, col. 4, ll. 14–30. The notches 68 provide a space for the liquid to overflow the baffle 60. Id. It would have been obvious to modify the top edge 256 of the divider 250 of Vaught to include the notches 68 of Bloch to provide a space for liquid to overflow the divider 250. With this modification, the top edge 256 of Vaught would be a “filter-type top surface including a concave-convex portion for filtering air bubbles.” Note that the top edge 256, as modified, is presumed capable of performing the function of “filtering air bubbles” because it has the same structure as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10, in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that, in the interview conducted on February 10, 2026, the Examiner and Applicant agreed that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection of claim 1. See Applicant Rem. filed February 11, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the interview conducted February 10, 2026, the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments would not likely overcome Vaught, with no agreement being reached. See Examiner Interview Summary Record dated February 12, 2026.
The Examiner proposed amendments to claim 1 that would likely overcome Vaught. See Email Correspondence dated March 12, 2026 (the 1-page document). The Applicant is encouraged to consider these amendments for the next response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights