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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-076246, filed on 05/02/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. One of ordinary skills in the arts would anticipate or find obvious the container limitations of the instant invention in view of Ohnuki et al. (US100012278A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohnuki et al. teaches a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and the vessel 1 in [0049]-[0073] in Fig. 1-4) the container comprising:
a supplying region in which a swirling flow of a gas is supplied to the solution in the container for concentration (See the supply region in upper portion of container 2 in [0065] in Fig. 1-3 and in Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9): and
an avoidance region that is situated below the supplying region and in which supplying of the swirling flow to the solution is avoided (See in Fig. 1-3 at the bottom of container 1 in [0003], [0050], [0065] in Fig. 1-3 and in Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-5, Ohnuki et al. teaches the container limitations of claim 1.
Ohnuki et al. further teaches a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and the vessel 1 in [0049]-[0073] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the supplying region is formed such that the swirling flow is supplied from an upper portion of the container for concentration, and the avoidance region includes a narrow tube that is continuous with a lower end portion of the supplying region and that has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the supplying region (See in Fig. 1-3 the container 1 in [0003], [0050], [0065] in Fig. 1-3 and in Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9; See the mainline 12, the branch lines 13 and the gas outlet port 3c through the groove 3d in [0068]-[0071] in Fig. 3);
wherein a position of an upper end opening of the narrow tube is offset from a central axis of the supplying region; wherein the narrow tube is formed such that a lower end portion of the narrow tube is disposed on the central axis of the supplying region and a direction in which the narrow tube extends is inclined with respect to an upward or downward direction; wherein the lower end portion of the supplying region is formed in an earthenware mortar- like shape, of which a lowest position in an upward or downward direction is a position at which an upper end opening of the narrow tube is located (See in [0065]-[0077] in Claim(s) 1-17 in Fig. 1-3; Also, see how the stopper 3 is formed with a through-pore 3a, i.e. an upper opening, at the center, through which a vaporized volatile substance is discharged with blowing gas. And, the stopper 2 is formed with a gas inlet port 3b at the upper edge and a gas outlet port 3c at the lower edge. A groove 3d connecting the gas inlet port 3b and the gas outlet port 3c is formed on the side surface of the stopper 3 in [0057] in Fig. 1-3)
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice); and note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 IV. A. concerning changes in the size or portions of a claimed invention. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The current claimed arrangement and size of the supply region, the avoidance region, and the narrow tube would render similar results as the concentration apparatus in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, Ohnuki et al. teaches concentration equipment configured to concentrate a solution (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and the apparatus 10 in [0049]-[0073] in Fig. 1-4), the concentration equipment comprising: a container in which the solution is contained, the container including a supplying region in which a swirling flow of a gas is supplied to the solution (See the supply region in upper portion of container 2 in [0065] in Fig. 1-3 and in Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9), and
an avoidance region that is situated below the supplying region when the container is installed on the concentration equipment and in which supplying of the swirling flow to the solution is avoided (See in Fig. 1-3 at the bottom of container 1 in [0003], [0050], [0065] in Fig. 1-3 and in Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9);
a cock configured to close an upper opening of the container (See the stopper 3 and opening portions 3a-d in [0055]-[0062] in Fig. 1-3);
a groove formed in a side surface of the cock in a spiral shape, and configured to introduce the gas into the container (See in Claim(s) 1-17 in Fig. 1-3); and
an ejection unit configured to eject a solvent, which is vaporized from the solution by effects of the swirling flow, from inside the container (See the trap 15, i.e. an ejection unit, that is equipped at the downstream of the pump 11 in [0069]-[0071][ in Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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(s) 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnuki et al. (US100012278A1) as applied to claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Roe et al. (US5176799A).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohnuki et al. teaches the container limitations of claim 1.
Ohnuki et al. further teaches a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and the vessel 1 in [0049]-[0073] in Fig. 1-4), further comprising: a sealing member configured to seal the opening portion (See the stopper 3 and opening portions 3a-d in [0055]-[0062] in Fig. 1-3),
wherein while the solution is being concentrated, the opening portion is sealed by the sealing member (See in [0062]-[0058] in Fig. 1-3), and
the sealing member is removed from the container for concentration after concentration of the solution, to enable the solution after being concentrated and accumulated in the avoidance region, to be poured out from the opening portion (See in [0067]-[0089]).
Ohnuki et al. fails to explicitly teach a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated comprising: an opening portion provided at a lower end portion of the avoidance region; and the sealing member is removed from the container for concentration after concentration of the solution, to enable the solution after being concentrated and accumulated in the avoidance region, to be poured out from the opening portion.
However, in the analogous art of evaporator with solvent recovery devices and methods, Roe et al. teaches a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and evaporation system 11 in [Col. 1 lines 14-67]-[Col. 4 liens 1-16] in Fig. 1-3), further comprising: an opening portion provided at a lower end portion of the avoidance region (See how the evaporation vessel 40, i.e. an avoidance portion is a downwardly, inwardly tapering, hollow central portion 44 straddled by a hollow, cylindrical upper portion 45 and a hollow, tip portion 46, i.e. opening portions, in [Col. 1 lines 14-67]-[Col. 4 liens 1-16] in Fig. 1-3); and
a sealing member configured to seal the opening portion, wherein while the solution is being concentrated, the opening portion is sealed by the sealing member (See how the lower nose portion 53 of the supply enclosure 43 is received by and closely fitted to the collar portion 51 so as to form therewith a hermetic seal. Together, the vessel 40 and the solvent supply enclosure 43 form an evaporation chamber 55 in [Col. 4 liens 1-16] in Fig. 1-3), and
the sealing member is removed from the container for concentration after concentration of the solution, to enable the solution after being concentrated and accumulated in the avoidance region, to be poured out from the opening portion (See in Claim(s) 1-2 and 14).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the container of Ohnuki et al. by incorporating an opening portion provided at a lower end portion of the avoidance region and a sealing member configured to seal the opening portion (as taught by Roe et al.), for the benefit of enabling a solution after being concentrated and accumulated in an avoidance region, to be poured out from an opening portion.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-11, Ohnuki et al. teaches the equipment limitations of claim 8.
Ohnuki et al. fails to explicitly teach concentration equipment comprising a control unit configured to control ejection of the solvent from the container by the ejection unit; and a detection unit configured to detect a liquid surface of the solution in the container, wherein the control unit controls the ejection unit to stop ejecting the solvent from the container, when the detection unit detects that the liquid surface has fallen to a predetermined height in the container.
However, in the analogous art of evaporator with solvent recovery devices and methods, Roe et al. teaches concentration equipment configured to concentrate a solution (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-17, and evaporation system 11 in [Col. 1 lines 14-67]-[Col. 4 liens 1-16] in Fig. 1-3), a control unit configured to control ejection of the solvent from the container by the ejection unit (See the control panel 41 mounted on the surface, and see the control system in [Col. 3 lines 25-44], [Col. 4 lines 61-61]-[Col. 4 lines 1-18] in Fig. 1 -2); and
a detection unit configured to detect a liquid surface of the solution in the container, wherein the control unit controls the ejection unit to stop ejecting the solvent from the container, when the detection unit detects that the liquid surface has fallen to a predetermined height in the container (See the selectors 121-122, i.e. a detection unit, in [Col. 4 lines 61-61]-[Col. 4 lines 1-18] in Fig. 1 -2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnuki et al. (US100012278A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20110220286A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Ohnuki et al. teaches the container limitations of claim 1.
Ohnuki et al. fails to explicitly teach a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated comprising: a blocking member configured to block entry of the swirling flow into the avoidance region.
However, in the analogous art of solution supplying units and substrate treating devices and methods, Park et al. teaches a container for concentration in which a solution is concentrated (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-11, and evaporation system 11 in [0041]-[0090] in Fig. 1-6), comprising: a blocking member configured to block entry of the swirling flow into the avoidance region (See the blocking part 140 in [0060]-[0068] in Fig. 1-6).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the container of Ohnuki et al. by incorporating a blocking member (as taught by Park et al.), for the benefit of blocking entry of the swirling flow into an avoidance region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Friswell (US4707452A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797