DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note on Citation
In this office action, when the examiner cites applicant’s specification, the examiner is citing paragraph numbers from applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2023/0234106).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
In the IDS dated 4/21/2026, the Weaver document has been marked as not considered by the examiner merely because that document was already listed on the “Notice of References Cited” dated 6/6/2024.
On the IDS dated 4/21/2026, the RU2714976 document has also been marked as not considered by the examiner merely because that document was already listed on the “Notice of References Cited” dated 2/10/2025.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: in lines 13-14 of claim 10, applicant recites “heating the coating removal fluid which in the pressurizable pressure vessel”, and this language is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites steps including the following: “providing a containment vessel”, “locating the coating removal vessel in the containment vessel”, “providing a pressurizable pressure vessel”, “pressurizing a coating removal fluid in the pressurizable pressure vessel”, “flowing the pressurized coating removal fluid into the coating removal vessel”, and “heating the coating removal fluid which in the pressurizable pressure vessel”. This large collection of steps clearly indicates that applicant is attempting to recite the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5 and discussed, for example, in Par. [0048]-[0056] of applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification recites many different embodiments. In the embodiment of Figure 5, coating removal fluid is pressurized and heated in a pressurizable “pressure vessel” 400 before being flowed into “containment vessel” 302, wherein the “coating removal vessel” 300 in located inside “containment vessel” 302 such that a to-be-treated component 200 inside the “coating removal vessel” 300 can be treated with the previously-heated-and-pressurized coating removal fluid. As discussed in Par. [0053] and [0056] of applicant’s specification, the “coating removal vessel” 300 is open (via one or more openings 294) to the atmosphere inside the “containment vessel” 400. So far, this discussion has just been a quick description of applicant’s Figure 5 embodiment. The 112(a) problem is that claim 10 also recites (in lines 3-4 of claim 10) “providing a coating removal vessel having a body and a sealable processing volume therein”. The specification does not teach that the “coating removal vessel” 300 of the embodiment of Figure 5 has a “sealable” processing volume. In applicant’s specification, applicant also uses the term “coating removal vessel” to describe a different type of vessel in a different embodiment – namely, the phrase “coating removal vessel” is sealable vessel 100 in the embodiment of Figure 1. When applicant was preparing the newest claim amendments, applicant perhaps accidentally mixed the different embodiments of Figures 1 and 5 by having claim 10 still recite that the “coating removal vessel” has a “sealable” processing volume. For purposes of examination, the examiner presumes that applicant intended to be reciting the embodiment of Figure 5, not the embodiment of Figure 1. Thus, for purposes of examination, the examiner presumes that applicant intended lines 3-4 of claim 10 to recite the following:
providing a coating removal vessel having a body and a
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 10-13 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 10 recites the limitation "the coating removal vessel in the pressurizable pressure vessel" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write “the coating removal vessel in the containment vessel” because earlier (in line 8 of claim 10) applicant does recite a step of “locating the coating removal vessel in the containment vessel”. As illustrated in applicant’s Figure 5, the coating removal vessel 300 is inside containment vessel 302, no the pressurizable pressure vessel 400.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20020013351 by Yang in view of U.S. 5,288,333 to Tanaka.
With regard to claim 10, Weaver teaches a method of removing a coating from a turbine component, wherein the method comprises contacting the coated turbine component with potassium hydroxide (KOH) liquid solution at “at least about 120 degrees Celsius and an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, wherein this high-temperature, high-pressure treatment is “performed simultaneously with providing ultrasonic energy to said liquid” (Abstract; Par. 0009-0014 and 0048-0052, all quoted language from Par. 0052).
Weaver doesn’t teach that this treatment with high-temperature, high-pressure, and ultrasonic radiation is achieved using a containment vessel and a pressurizable pressure vessel.
Katsuba provides detail about a vessel that can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine blade using a combination of heated and pressurized potassium hydroxide solution agitated with ultrasonic radiation (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches that the treated blade(s) can be loaded into a blade-containing basket that is then inserted into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body with a sealable processing volume therein (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches providing the KOH cleaning solution as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure, and Katsuba then teaches heating the KOH solution such that a desired high-temperature and high-pressure environment is achieved inside said vessel (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the KOH cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel (pages 8-9 of translation). Katsuba teaches that coating-removal can be enhanced by using an ultrasonic transducer to apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH solution liquid (Par. 9 pf translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver such that Weaver’s coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation) is achieved using a coating-removal vessel of the type taught by Katsuba. In this method of Weaver in view of Katsuba, Weaver’s coated blade is loaded into a blade-containing basket, said basket is then loaded into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body and a sealable processing volume therein, Weaver’s KOH solution is provided as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure, Weaver’s KOH solution is heated (using Katsuba’s above-discussed temperature maintenance system) such that Weaver’s high-temperature (“at least about 120 degrees Celsius”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) and Weaver’s high-pressure (“an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) are achieved, and wherein the KOH solution is in liquid phase during the high-temperature, high-pressure treatment such that Katsuba’s ultrasonic transducer can simultaneously apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH liquid solution during the high-pressure, high-temperature removal of the coating. Weaver doesn’t provide much detail about any apparatus for performing his coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation, as discussed in Par. 0052 of Weaver), and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Katsuba, who provides a detailed description of a coating-removal vessel and a technique for operating said vessel, and wherein Katsuba teaches that such a vessel and operation technique can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine blade using a combination of KOH at high-temperature and high-pressure and ultrasonic radiation. In this combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba, the sealable coating-removal vessel corresponds to applicant’s containment vessel, and the basket loaded in to the sealable coating-removal vessel corresponds to applicant’s coating removal vessel.
In the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba, a temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1 of Katsuba) outside exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel (pages 8-9 of Katsuba translation), and the heaters heat the KOH solution supplied into the coating-removal vessel. The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba does not explicitly recite that the high-temperature (“at least about 120 degrees Celsius”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) KOH solution is above the boiling point of the KOH solution at surrounding ambient pressure (that is, atmospheric pressure). However, the temperature to which the KOH cleaning solution is raised during the cleaning (at high temperature and high pressure) is considered to be a result-effective variable because Weaver teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process (Par. 0047 of Weaver). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba such that the temperature to which the KOH cleaning solution is raised during the high-temperature, high-pressure cleaning is optimized, as Weaver teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba does not teach that the method comprises steps of providing a pressurizable pressure vessel, heating the KOH solution in the pressurizable pressure vessel, and flowing the pressurized KOH cleaning solution into the sealable coating-removal vessel of Weaver in view of Katsuba. In order words, the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba doesn’t teach preheating the KOH solution in a pressurizable pressure vessel before the KOH is supplied into the sealable coating-removal vessel of Weaver in view of Katsuba.
Yang teaches that before moving cleaning liquid from a supply vessel 14 into a cleaning vessel wherein the cleaning liquid is heated by a heater 22a for the vessel, some heating of the cleaning liquid can successfully be achieved before moving the cleaning liquid into cleaning vessel by having the cleaning liquid preheated in the supply vessel 14 (pages 5-7 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba by having the KOH liquid supplied to the coating-removal vessel via a supply vessel in which the KOH liquid is preheated. In this method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang, the KOH is eventually heated up to an optimized high temperature by the heaters of the coating-removal vessel, and the preheating of the KOH solution merely allows some of the heating of the KOH solution to be successfully performed before the KOH solution is supplied into the coating-removal vessel. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yang, who teaches that before moving cleaning liquid from a supply vessel 14 into a cleaning vessel wherein the cleaning liquid is heated by a heater 22a for the vessel, some heating of the cleaning liquid can successfully be achieved before moving the cleaning liquid into cleaning vessel by having the cleaning liquid preheated in the supply vessel 14.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang doesn’t teach pressurizing the KOH liquid in the supply vessel.
Tanaka teaches that when attempting to move a cleaning liquid out of a supply vessel, movement can be successfully created by pressurizing the supply vessel (item 101 in Figure 10) via a supply of N2 gas into the supply vessel (Col. 20, lines 1-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang by having the supply tank pressurized with N2 gas in order to discharge the preheated KOH liquid from the supply vessel. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when attempting to move a cleaning liquid out of a supply vessel, movement can be successfully created by pressurizing the supply vessel (item 101 in Figure 10) via a supply of N2 gas into the supply vessel. In this combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka, the pressure to which the N2 gas pressurizes the supply vessel is considered to be greater than the pressure in the sealable coating-removal vessel because Katsuba teaches that the coating-removal vessel is depressurized to some extent before the cleaning liquid is ejected therein (page 8 of Katsuba translation).
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach a step of removing a turbine component from the processing volume of the coating removal vessel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka by removing a treated turbine component from the processing volume after the coating is removed from the turbine component, as this removal would allow the treated turbine component to be available for use in a turbine system sometime in the future.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka teaches removing the coating “without damaging or affecting” (Par. 0038 of Weaver) the material of the component, and thus the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka is considered to teach removing the coating while removing less than 0.05% of the material of the component.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20020013351 by Yang in view of U.S. 5,288,333 to Tanaka as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 3,563,711 to Hammond.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach removing the KOH cleaning solution that has contacted the coating from the vessel and providing fresh removal fluid to the processing volume.
Hammond teaches a method of cleaning turbine components with heated caustic solution in a sealed vessel (Abstract; column 2, line 44 to column 4, line 35). Hammond teaches that used caustic fluid can be drained from the sealed vessel once treatment of a turbine component has been successfully completed (column 3, line 27 to line 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka by draining the used KOH cleaning solution from the vessel such that fresh, unused KOH cleaning solution is later supplied into the vessel for removing coating from a new set of turbine component(s). Hammond teaches that used caustic fluid can be drained from a vessel once treatment of a turbine component has been successfully completed, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to drain away the used KOH fluid and any entrained contaminants. The motivation for later adding the fresh, unused KOH cleaning solution would be to advantageously allow another set of turbine component(s) to be treated in order to remove undesired coating therefrom.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20020013351 by Yang in view of U.S. 5,288,333 to Tanaka as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. 2006/0029733 by Bhatia.
With regard to claim 13, in the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka, the turbine component is made of silicon carbide (Par. 0045 of Weaver).
Weaver teaches that the reasons for removing coatings from turbine components include the desire to remove damaged coatings and to perform repairs on components (Par. 0006 and 0031 of Weaver).
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka teaches that the removed coating of the turbine blade is an environmental barrier coating made from oxide material (Par. 0029, 0036-0038, and 0045 of Weaver), but the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka does not recite that the environmental barrier coating is made from hafnium oxide or aluminum oxide.
Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide (Par. 0014-0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka such that the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka is used to treat a silicon carbide component that has a hafnium oxide environmental barrier. Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the coating-removal method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka to advantageously remove a to-be-removed coating from such a component. Weaver teaches that the reasons for removing coatings from turbine components include the desire to remove damaged coatings and to perform repairs on components (Par. 0006 and 0031 of Weaver). In the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka in view of Bhatia, the coating-removing method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Yang in view of Tanaka is used to successfully remove the hafnium oxide environmental barrier from the component.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca in view of U.S. 3,563,711 to Hammond in view of KR20020013351 by Yang in view of U.S. 5,288,333 to Tanaka.
With regard to claim 24, Katsuba teaches a method of removing a ceramic coating from a metallic blade of a gas turbine engine, wherein the method comprises inserting the metallic blade into a basket (reads on coating removal vessel), inserting the blade-containing basket into a treatment chamber (reads on containment vessel), sealing said chamber with a lid (item 4 in Figure 1), injecting cleaning solution into the sealed chamber, and maintaining the cleaning solution at high temperature and high pressure such that the coating is removed (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba’s coating treatment chamber has a body (see Figure 1) and a sealable processing volume therein (page 8 of translation). Katsuba teaches heating the cleaning solution to within the range of 180 to 320 °C while the pressure in the treatment chamber is 1 to 4 MPa such that the heated and pressurized cleaning solution removes the coating from the metallic blade (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the treatment chamber (pages 8-9 of translation).
Katsuba does not teach that the temperature maintenance system also performs cooling of the cleaning solution.
Froud teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects (Abstract; pages 3-4).
When discussing the background of his invention, Katsuba teaches that cleaning solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel (page 2 of Katsuba translation).
Luca teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel (Abstract; pages 6-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba such that the treatment chamber comprises a cooling channel inside the chamber such that the cooling channel contacts cleaning liquid inside the chamber, and wherein the cooling channel is used to cool the cleaning liquid down to a safe temperature after the treating of the blade with hot cleaning solution is complete and prior to opening the chamber such that the blade can be separated from the used cleaning solution and removed coating material therein. Motivation for cooling the cleaning solution after heat treatment is complete was provided by Froud, who teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects. Katsuba teaches that cleaning solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel, and cooling the cleaning solution to a safe temperature prior to opening the vessel would advantageously prevent harm to personnel. The motivation for using a cooling channel to perform the cooling was provided by Luca, who teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel. In this combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, the cooling channel is considered to be part of the temperature maintenance system.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca recites using a lid (item 4 in Katsuba’s Figure 1) to seal close the treatment chamber. The combination does not recite using a door.
Hammond teaches that when attempting to seal closed a chamber in which cleaning fluid is heated, a door (item 12 in Hammond’s Figure 1) can successfully be used to seal closed such a chamber (Col. 2, line 44 to Col. 4, line 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca such that the lid is replaced with a door, and wherein the door is able to successfully perform the role of sealing closed the treatment chamber. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hammond, who teaches that when attempting to seal closed a chamber in which cleaning fluid is heated, a door can successfully be used to seal closed such a chamber.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond teaches inserting the metallic blade into a basket (reads on coating removal vessel) before inserting the blade-containing basket into a treatment chamber (reads on containment vessel; pages 4-5 of Katsuba translation). The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond does not explicitly teaches that the insertion of the blade into the basket occurs at atmospheric pressure. However, it is well-known that an object can be successfully placed into a container while at ambient atmospheric pressure, and in the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond, there is no need to perform the insertion of the blade into the basket at anything other than ambient atmosphere pressure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond such that the loading of the to-be-treated blade into the basket occurs at ambient atmospheric pressure, as it is well-known that an object can be successfully placed into a container while at ambient atmospheric pressure.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond does not teach that the method comprises steps of providing a pressure vessel, heating the cleaning solution in the pressure vessel, and flowing the pressurized cleaning solution liquid into the sealable basket of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond. In order words, the combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond doesn’t teach preheating the KOH solution in a pressurizable pressure vessel before the KOH is supplied into the treatment chamber and basket of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond.
Yang teaches that before moving cleaning liquid from a supply vessel 14 into a cleaning vessel wherein the cleaning liquid is heated by a heater 22a for the vessel, some heating of the cleaning liquid can successfully be achieved before moving the cleaning liquid into cleaning vessel by having the cleaning liquid preheated in the supply vessel 14 (pages 5-7 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond by having the KOH supplied as a liquid to the treatment chamber and basket via a supply vessel in which the KOH liquid is preheated. In this method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond in view of Yang, the KOH is eventually heated up to an optimized high temperature by the heaters of the treatment chamber, and the preheating of the KOH solution merely allows some of the heating of the KOH solution to be successfully performed before the KOH solution is supplied into the treatment chamber. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yang, who teaches that before moving cleaning liquid from a supply vessel 14 into a cleaning vessel wherein the cleaning liquid is heated by a heater 22a for the vessel, some heating of the cleaning liquid can successfully be achieved before moving the cleaning liquid into cleaning vessel by having the cleaning liquid preheated in the supply vessel 14.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond in view of Yang doesn’t teach pressurizing the KOH liquid in the supply vessel.
Tanaka teaches that when attempting to move a cleaning liquid out of a supply vessel, movement can be successfully created by pressurizing the supply vessel (item 101 in Figure 10) via a supply of N2 gas into the supply vessel (Col. 20, lines 1-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond of Yang by having the supply tank pressurized with N2 gas in order to discharge the preheated KOH liquid from the supply vessel. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when attempting to move a cleaning liquid out of a supply vessel, movement can be successfully created by pressurizing the supply vessel (item 101 in Figure 10) via a supply of N2 gas into the supply vessel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In applicant’s arguments filed 2/19/2026, applicant argues that “none of Weaver, Katsuba, Froud, Luca, or Hammond disclose a coating removal process involving both heating and cooling the removal liquid during a removal process”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the obviousness rejection of claim 24 presented above, the examiner carefully articulates how the claim limitations of claim 24 are met by the examiner’s combination of references.
Conclusion
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 L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights