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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Hal et al. (US 2018/0059088).
Regarding claim 1, the reference van Hal et al. discloses a chemical test apparatus for testing a chemical, the chemical test apparatus comprising:
a first line (110) providing an inlet through which the chemical is introduced, and a passage through which the chemical moves (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B);
a second line having an end and another end connected to two separate points of the first line, and providing a passage in which the chemical introduced into the first line is filled (see para. [0069]; Fig. 1B);
a discharge line (170) connected to a lower end of the first line (110) (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B); and
a valve (114) disposed between the first line (110) and the discharge line (170) at least below portions of the first line (110) connected to the second line, to open or close a passage through which the chemical moves from the first line to the discharge line (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein the end of the second line is connected to a lower one of the two separate points of the first line, and the other end of the second line is connected to an upper one of the two separate points of the first line (see para. [0069]; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 3, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein a photometer irradiates light to the chemical to perform a test, and the second line is provided as a target to which the light is irradiated (see para. [0075]; Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 4, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed apparatus and the apparatus of van Hal et al., the apparatus of van Hal et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed apparatus and the apparatus of van Hal et al., the apparatus of van Hal et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein the first line extends in a Z-axis direction (see para. [0069]; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein the first line extends in a direction tilted at a certain angle with respect to a Z-axis direction (see para. [0073]; Figs. 1B and 1C).
Regarding claim 8, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein a passage diameter of the second line is less than or equal to a passage diameter of the first line (see para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, the reference van Hal et al. discloses the chemical test apparatus, wherein a direction parallel to a cross-section of the second line, which has a length greater than a passage diameter of the second line, is provided as a direction in which a light is irradiated (see para. [0079]; Fig. 2C).
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.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Hal et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 11,658,048).
Regarding claim 14, the reference van Hal et al. does not specifically specify that a sensor for detecting whether the chemical is filled is provided on the second line and/or on a point of the first line above the other end of the second line. However, as evidence by the reference Lee et al. (see col. 8, lines 33-36; Fig. 5), it is known in the art to provide a sensor on a fluid flow line for detecting whether a chemical is filled in the fluid flow line. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sensor for detecting whether the chemical is filled is provided on the second line and/or on a point of the first line above the other end of the second line as claimed by applicant as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0194422) in view of van Hal et al. (US 2018/0059088).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Yang et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus (70) comprising: a substrate supporter provided to support a substrate (see para. [0045]; Fig. 3); a liquid ejector (130) for ejecting a chemical used to process the substrate (see para. [0053]; Fig. 3); and a chemical tester (150) for testing the chemical used to process the substrate (see para. [056]; Fig. 3). The reference Yang et al. however does not disclose a chemical tester in configuration as recited in claim 15. The reference van Hal et al. discloses a chemical test apparatus for testing a chemical, the chemical test apparatus comprising: a first line (110) providing an inlet through which the chemical is introduced, and a passage through which the chemical moves (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B); a second line having an end and another end connected to two separate points of the first line, and providing a passage in which the chemical introduced into the first line is filled (see para. [0069]; Fig. 1B); a discharge line (170) connected to a lower end of the first line (110) (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B); and a valve (114) disposed between the first line (110) and the discharge line (170) at least below portions of the first line (110) connected to the second line, to open or close a passage through which the chemical moves from the first line to the discharge line (see para. [0065]; Fig. 1B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an alternative to the chemical tester taught by Yang et al., to utilize the chemical test apparatus in configuration as taught by van Hal et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a mere substitution of one known chemical tester for another for the intended purpose of testing for the presence of undesired impurities in a fluid supply line.
Regarding claim 17, the references Yang et al. and van Hal et al. disclose that the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a photometer for irradiating light to the second line of the chemical tester to test the chemical filled in the second line (see van Hal. et al.: para. [0075]; Fig. 1C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of van Hal et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 11,658,048).
Regarding claim 16, the references Yang et al. and Hal et al. are silent with respect to the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a driver for moving the liquid ejector toward the chemical tester or the substrate supporter. However, as evidenced by the reference Lee et al. (see col. 7, lines 23-56; Fig. 3), it is conventional in the art to utilized a driver for moving a liquid ejector or nozzle (410) toward or away from a substrate supporter (340) arranged within a substrate processing apparatus (300). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Yang et al. and Hal. et al. to include driver for moving the liquid ejector toward the chemical tester or the substrate supporter as claimed by applicant, as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known apparatus for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the features: a third line having an end and another end connected to two separate points respectively included in the first line and the discharge line, and providing a passage through which the chemical moves; and a valve disposed between the first line and the discharge line at least below portions of the first line connected to the second line, to open or close a passage through which the chemical moves from the first line to the discharge line, wherein the end of the second line is connected to a lower one of the two separate points of the first line, and the other end of the second line is connected to an upper one of the two separate points of the first line, wherein the end of the third line is connected to a point of the discharge line below the valve, and the other end of the third line is connected to a point of the first line above the other end of the second line, wherein a drain cup is connected to the inlet of the first line and provides a receiver comprising an axis direction parallel to and spaced apart from at least an axis direction along which the first line extends, wherein the receiver comprises a plane inclined or curved at a certain angle, wherein the chemical is supplied onto the plane of the receiver to flow along the plane of the receiver toward the inlet of the first line, wherein, when the valve is closed, the chemical introduced into the first line is filled from the lower end of the first line and filled in at least a partial passage of the second line, and wherein a photometer irradiates light to the chemical to perform a test, and the second line is provided as a target to which the light is irradiated, as recited in claim 20.
Claims 10-13 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein a drain cup is connected to the inlet of the first line and provides a receiver comprising an axis direction parallel to and spaced apart from at least an axis direction along which the first line extends, as recited in claim 10.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: a third line having an end and another end connected to two separate points respectively included in the first line and the discharge line, and providing a passage through which the chemical moves, wherein the end of the third line is connected to a point of the discharge line below the valve, and the other end of the third line is connected to a point of the first line above the other end of the second line, as recited in claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein a drain cup is connected to the inlet of the first line and provides a receiver comprising an axis direction parallel to and spaced apart from at least an axis direction along which the first line extends, wherein the receiver comprises a plane inclined or curved at a certain angle, and wherein the driver moves the liquid ejector to a position vertically spaced apart from the receiver, to supply the chemical onto the plane of the receiver, as recited in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: a third line having an end and another end connected to two separate points respectively included in the first line and the discharge line, and providing a passage through which the chemical moves, wherein the end of the third line is connected to a point of the discharge line below the valve, and the other end of the third line is connected to a point of the first line above the other end of the second line, and wherein, when the chemical is fully filled in the second line, the chemical moves along the passage of the third line and is discharged through the discharge line, as recited in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights