DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 9/30/2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending, Claims 11-13 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-10 have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "normal pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear as recited what constitutes “normal pressure” relative to either a supercritical state, high or low pressure.
Claim 10 further recites “in the pressure-raising step…the controller adjusts…to execute each of the pressure-lowering step…and the pressure-raising step”. The inclusion of the pressure-raising step, within the pressure-raising step, is circular logic as the pressure-raising step cannot be defined by performing itself (and the other pressure-lowering step). For purposes of examination, Examiner assumes the first “in the pressure-raising step” is simply raising the pressure to a setpoint pressure.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrinivasan et al. (US 6,848,458 B1).
Re claim 1, Shrinivasan discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, title) to process a substrate by using a processing fluid in a supercritical state (abstract), the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing container (ref. 106, see figs. 2-3, 5 and 11) in which the substrate is accommodated;
a supply line (see fig. 3 line from ref. 132 to 106; see also fig. 5 line from ref. 148 to 106) connecting the processing container to a fluid source configured to send out the processing fluid in the supercritical state (col. 9 lines 42-67 supercritical solution; see also col. 15 lines 25-31 and 45-60);
a discharge line (see fig. 11, line from ref. 106 to ref. 174; see also fig. 5 line from ref. 106 to 134) configured to discharge the processing fluid from the processing container (col. 13 lines 34-65, col. 14 lines 14-29, col. 15 lines 11-60);
a control valve (refs. 174, 180) interposed in the discharge line; and
a controller (ref. 124) configured to control a pressure in the processing container by adjusting an opening degree of the control valve (col. 8 lines 52-64, col. 9 lines 42-58, col. 14 lines 14-29),
wherein, the controller is configured to perform a circulation process in which the processing fluid is supplied to the processing container from the supply line while the pressure in the processing container is maintained within a pressure range in which the supercritical state of the processing liquid is maintained (col. 13 lines 31-33, col. 14 lines 14-39, col. 14 lines 11-31 and 45-60 maintain a substantially constant supercritical pressure inside the process vessel…Alternatively, the pressure…can be pulsed), and the processing fluid is discharged from the processing container (col. 13 lines 34-65, col. 14 lines 14-29, col. 15 lines 11-60 withdrawing spent chemical),
wherein, in the circulation process, the controller is configured to adjust the opening degree of the control valve such that each of a pressure-lowering step of lowering the pressure in the processing container and a pressure-raising step of raising the pressure in the processing container is executed at least once within the pressure range (see fig. 31 pulsed pressure, P1 and P2 respectively, col. 26 lines 38-63; see also col. 14 lines 19-26 flow control valve 174 is opened to a desired position; see also col. 5 lines 11-44 valve 174 is controlled in a feedback manner (Examiner notes feedback, necessarily means a fluctuation from overcorrection to undercorrection, thus also includes pressure-lowering and pressure-raising, as the system adjusts to maintain a steady state).
Re claim 2, wherein the controller executes the pressure-lowering step and the pressure-raising step alternately a plurality of times (see fig. 31; also inherent in a feedback control that overcorrection and undercorrection occurs as the system approaches steady state).
Re claim 9, wherein, in addition to the pressure- lowering step and the pressure-raising step, in the circulation process, the controller executes a constant-pressure step of keeping the pressure in the processing container constant within the pressure range at least once (see fig. 31 constant pressure at t1 and t2 to t3).
Re claim 10, wherein, in the pressure-raising step of raising the pressure in the processing container from normal pressure to a pressure at which the supercritical state of the processing fluid is maintained, the controller adjusts the opening degree of the control valve to execute each of the pressure-lowering step of lowering the pressure in the processing container and the pressure-raising step of raising the pressure in the processing container at least once (see fig. 31, if the pressure-raising step is considered up to t2, then the pressure-lowering and pressure-raising is considered to have occurred once. Alternatively, where considering the feedback control is inherently includes overcorrection and undercorrection of the valve 174, then it is inherent that prior to reaching a steady state P1, the valve necessarily overcorrects and undercorrects).
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrinivasan, as applied above.
Re claim 3, Shrinivasan discloses as shown above including control of the discharge valve during an injection/dilution process (col. 15 lines 11-44) and to introduce supercritical fluid simultaneously through the supply line valve (col. 15 lines 45-60), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller performs control of increase and decrease of the pressure in the processing container in the pressure-lowering step and the pressure-raising step only by adjusting the opening degree of the control valve. However, it appears suggested (col. 15 lines 45-60 “fresh (pure) carbon dioxide is introduced through valve 132…while valve 174 is controlled so as to maintain…supercritical pressure”), or it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, the pressure control be “only by adjusting the opening degree of the control valve”, for the purpose of eliminating multiple feedback control factors for maintaining pressure.
Re claim 4, Regarding “wherein the control valve includes a valve body, a valve actuator configured to move the valve body, and a valve position sensor configured to detect a position of the valve body corresponding to the opening degree of the control valve or a valve opening degree corresponding to the position of the valve body, wherein the controller is configured to perform a feedback control of the opening degree of the control valve in the pressure-lowering step and the pressure-raising step, wherein one of a predetermined first position of the valve body at which a minimum pressure in the processing container to be finally achieved in the pressure-lowering step is capable of being achieved and a valve opening degree corresponding to the first position, and one of a predetermined second position of the valve body at which a maximum pressure in the processing container to be finally achieved in the pressure-raising step is capable of being achieved and a valve opening degree corresponding to the second position are used as target values in the feedback control, wherein an actual position of the valve body detected by the valve position sensor or a valve opening degree corresponding to the actual position is used as an output value in the feedback control, wherein the position of the valve body moved by the valve actuator or a change in the valve opening degree corresponding to the position of the valve body moved by the valve actuator is used as a manipulated amount in the feedback control, and wherein the feedback control is performed by using a predetermined feedback gain depending on a deviation of the output value from the target value”, Shrinivasan further discloses feedback control (col. 3 lines 12-16, col. 15 lines 21-28 and 36-40) and control of the valve opening degree (col. 13 lines 40-43 permits flow control over a small flow rates with large pressure, col. 14 lines 19-26 valve 174 is opened to a desired position…to set the desired rate). Here, the setting of target values, minimum value, maximum values and feedback gain are known feedback control parameters to one of ordinary skill in the art of feedback control. See also MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions.
Re claim 5, wherein, in a case where the pressure- lowering step and the pressure-raising step are alternately executed a plurality of times, the minimum pressures in respective pressure-lowering steps are equal to each other, and the maximum pressures in respective pressure-raising steps are equal to each other (see fig. 31, P1 and P2 respectively).
Re claims 6-7, further comprising: a pressure sensor (ref. 122 pressure sensor; see also col. 3 line 13, col. 9 lines 42-44 feedback to controller), configured to detect the pressure itself in the processing container or a pressure in the discharge line in a vicinity of the processing container, wherein the pressure in the discharge line changes depending on a change in the pressure in the processing container, wherein, when the pressure sensor detects that the pressure in the processing container has reached the minimum pressure in the pressure-lowering step during the execution of the pressure-lowering step, the controller switches the target value in the feedback control into the maximum value in the pressure-raising step to perform transition to the pressure-raising step (see fig. 31 alternate from P1 to P2). Re claim 7, wherein, when the pressure sensor detects that the pressure in the processing container has reached the maximum pressure in the pressure-raising step during the execution of the pressure-raising step, the controller switches the target value in the feedback control into the minimum value in the next pressure-lowering step to perform transition to the pressure-lowering step. (see fig. 31 alternate from P2 back to P1).
Re claim 8, Regarding “a pressure sensor configured to detect the pressure itself in the processing container or a pressure in the discharge line in a vicinity of the processing container, wherein the pressure in the discharge line changes depending on a change in the pressure in the processing container, wherein the controller includes: a storage configured to store a change over time in the pressure detected by the pressure sensor and a target form of the change over time in the pressure; and a calculator configured to correct, based on a result of comparison between the change over time in the pressure detected during the execution of the pressure-lowering step or the pressure-raising step and the target form of the change over time in the pressure, at least one of: the target value in the feedback control selected from the group of the first position of the valve body, the valve opening degree corresponding to the first position, the second position of the valve body and the valve opening degree corresponding to the second position; and at least one feedback gain of the feedback control.” Shrinivasan further discloses feedback control (col. 3 lines 12-16, col. 15 lines 21-28 and 36-40) and the use of the pressure sensor in feedback control (col. 9 lines 42-45). The use of computer storage and calculators for feedback control is also prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller and feedback controls.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711