DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nunez, US Pat Pub. 2005/0056594.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Nunez discloses a vaporizer (Abstract; Figure 2; Paragraph [0022]; see evaporator 25) comprising:
a vaporization chamber for storing a liquid (Figure 2; Paragraph [0022]; Paragraph [0023]; shell side/inside 30 of evaporator 25);
a bottom heater provided in the vaporization chamber, the bottom heater including a winding portion acting as a heat source arranged so as to contact with the liquid stored in the vaporization chamber, and an upright portion erected from the winding porting and having an end portion with a heater terminal (Figure 2; Paragraphs [0022]-[0024]; bottom heater with winding portion in condensate pipe 50 with heat source in steam, upright portion in area of evaporator above pipe 50, such as evaporator tubes 31; heater terminal found in connected heat exchanger 39 at end of condensate pipe 50); and
a relief valve connected to the vaporization chamber (Figure 2; Paragraph [0024]; steam control valve 52).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez further discloses comprising a side heater for heating a side surface of the vaporization chamber from an outside of the vaporization chamber (Figure 2; Paragraph [0022]; tube bundle with preheated/heated water will heat sides of evaporator 25 based on proximity).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez further discloses comprising a pre-tank having a heater for preheating a liquid to be delivered to the vaporization chamber (Paragraph [0024]; heat exchanger 39 for preheating water).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez, US Pat Pub. 2005/0056594, in view of Lakatos et al. (herein referred to as “Lakatos”, US Pat Pub. 2009/0199972).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez discloses wherein the winding portion of the bottom heater is provided at a position lower than a liquid level lower limit position (Figure 2; Paragraphs [0023]; pipe is at bottom of evaporation chamber 25).
However, Nunez is silent on a float sensor.
Lakatos discloses a water evaporation system and method in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of fluid evaporation (Abstract). Lakatos further discloses a float sensor with a liquid level lower limit position for measuring a liquid level of a liquid at a bottom of an evaporation chamber in order to ensure a proper level of water within the evaporation chamber (Figure 5; Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vaporization chamber of Nunez to further comprise the float sensor of Lakatos, wherein the winding portion of the bottom heater is provided at a position lower than a liquid level lower limit position of the float sensor because Nunez discloses such a float sensor ensures a proper level of water within the evaporation chamber (Lakatos, Paragraph [0042]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez, US Pat Pub. 2005/0056594, in view of McIntyre et al. (herein referred to as “McIntyre”, US Pat Pub. 2009/0183679).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez is silent on a stirring device or a swinging device.
McIntyre discloses an ion source gas reactor in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing a vaporizer for liquid (Paragraph [0044]). McIntyre further disclose a stirring device used to stir the water within the vaporizer during operation to ensure convective mixing of the heat supplied to the water(Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vaporization chamber of Nunez to further comprise a stirring device as taught by McIntyre because McIntyre discloses such a stirring device stirs the liquid stored in the vaporizer to ensure convective mixing of the heat supplied to the liquid (McIntyre, Paragraph [0044]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez, US Pat Pub. 2005/0056594, in view of Morita, US Pat Pub. 2001/0003384.
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez discloses wherein the liquid is ultrapure water (Abstract; Paragraph [0001]; distillation process for production of pharmaceutical water).
However, Nunez is silent on said ultrapure water being supplied to an ashing device.
Morita discloses a method for manufacturing a molding tool used for substrate molding in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing ultrapure water for applications (Abstract; Paragraph [0041]). Morita further discloses wherein ultrapure water may be used in ashing processes to wash substrate surfaces (Paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ultrapure water of Nunez to be supplied to an ashing device as taught by Morita because Morita discloses such water may be used in ashing processes to wash substrate surfaces (Morita, Paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0047]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez, US Pat Pub. 2005/0056594, in view of Horsky, US Pat Pub. 2008/0073559.
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nunez discloses a vaporization supply device comprising the vaporizer according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection; Abstract; Figure 2).
However, Nunez is silent on a pressure type flow rate control device.
Horsky discloses controlling the flow of vapors sublimated from solids, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application for solving the mutual problem of controlling flow of gas from a vaporizer (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]). Horsky further discloses a pressure type flow rate control device provided downstream of a vaporizer, the pressure type flow control device including a restriction part (Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]; relatively flow-restricting vapor conduit 32), a control valve provided upstream of the restriction part (Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]; throttling valve 100); and an upstream pressure sensor for measuring a pressure between the restriction part and the control valve (Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]; pressure sensor 60), wherein the pressure type flow rate control device is configured to control a flow rate of a gas flowing downstream of the restriction part by adjusting an opening degree of the control valve based on an output of the upstream pressure sensor in order to ensure a proper flow of gas from the evaporation chamber (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]; see closed loop controller P using pressure sensor readings to control throttling valve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vaporizer and vaporization supply device of Nunez to further comprise the pressure type flow rate control device as described in Horsky because Horsky teaches that such a control device ensures a proper flow of vapors coming from the vaporizer (Horsky, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:30pm CT.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 09/22/2025