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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 2, 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561), hereinafter “Jablonsky”.
With respect to claim 1, Jablonsky teaches a developer treatment apparatus (“system”) (Fig. 2; Column 2, lines 11-13), comprising: a first pipe segment (see Fig. 2: pipe segments adjacent on either side of UV contactor 56) configured to transport concentrate comprising photoresist, obtained from filtration of a chemical solvent having a developer solution comprising photoresist dissolved therein (“a composition”); UV contactor 56 (“a first ultraviolet light”) disposed adjacent the first pipe segment and configured to irradiate the chemical solvent and the composition inside the first pipe segment (see Column 3, line 46 through Column 4, line 47), wherein the solvent having a developer solution comprising photoresist (“composition”) hardens (“precipitates”) from the chemical solvent forming a plurality of photoresist skins (“particles”) in response to the first ultraviolet light (Column 5, lines 40-45); a first filter 60 (see Column 4, lines 53-67; Fig. 2) having a first inlet and a first outlet and configured to remove a first portion of the plurality of particles from the chemical solvent obtained from tank 38, pump 50, and heat exchanger 52 (see Fig. 2; Column 4, lines 46-67), wherein the first inlet is coupled to the first pipe segment (through intervening tank 38, pump 50, and heat exchanger 52) (Column 4, lines 46-57; and a second pipe segment coupled to the first outlet (permeate leaving filter 60 and heading up to filter 62 in Fig. 2; “and configured to transport the chemical solvent”) (see Column 4, lines 35-47).
With respect to claim 2, Jablonsky teaches that the second pipe segment has a first end which is coupled to the first outlet of filter 60 (see Fig. 2; Column 4, lines 35-57), wherein the second pipe segment is configured to transport the solvent permeated through filter 60 (see Column 4, lines 35-47), second filter 62 having a second inlet and a second outlet and configured to remove a second plurality of photoresist particles from the solvent, wherein the second inlet is coupled to the first end of the second pipe segment (see Fig. 2; wherein the second pipe segment connects the first outlet of filter 60 to the second inlet of filter 62), and wherein the system further comprises a third pipe segment having a first end and a second end and the first end of the third pipe segment is connected to the second outlet of filter 62/the second filter (see Fig. 2; Column 4, line 51-65).
With respect to claim 10, Jablonsky teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as well as teachings that the filters 60 and 62 filter out precipitated composition from the photoresist solvent (see Column 5, lines 46-55; Column 6, lines 16-22).
With respect to claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, Jablonsky teaches that the composition comprises negative-working polymeric photoresists that harden/polymerize/cross-link upon exposure to UV light (see Column 1, lines 14-28, 45-56; Column 2, lines 29-38), which are removed by the first filter 60; thereby, the solvent has a first saturation of the composition before the first filter that is larger than the composition at a second saturation following the first filter.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561), hereinafter “Jablonsky”.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Jablonsky teaches that the filters 60-66 can comprise ultrafiltration and microfiltration modules (Column 4, lines 51-67), but does not specifically teach that the first and second filter (60 and 62 as discussed above) are configured to remove solids having a first and second size, the first particle size being larger than the second particle size. However, if the ordinary artisan were to select a microfiltration unit for filter 60 and an ultrafiltration unit for filter 62 (or 64, 66), then the limitations would be met as microfiltration membranes have larger pore sizes (and therefore remove larger particles) than ultrafiltration membranes, as is conventionally known. Arranging the microfilter in ahead of the ultrafiltration unit would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan in view of the discussion in Column 5, lines 40-50 of Jablonsky, which details concerns regarding solids buildup, and in view Column 4, lines 36-43 which discusses a prefilter for removing larger solids (first).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of CN 116444058 A (machine translation provided and relied upon), hereinafter “Jablonsky” and “CN (‘058)”.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Jablonsky does not specifically teach a second UV light as claimed.
CN (‘058) teaches a second UV unit 435 disposed in a conduit upstream from an ultrafiltration unit, which is configured to irradiate the fluid within a conduit (see Fig. 4A; Page 11, 5th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wad effectively filed to add the second UV unit of CN (‘058) to the system of Jablonsky because CN (‘058) teaches that ultrapure water is obtained via the UV/filtration system which treats photoresist materials (see Page 12, first full paragraph, and see paragraph spanning Pages 14-15). This modification places the second UV unit in the second pipe segment if microfiltration 60 precedes ultrafiltration 62 (see rejections of claims 3 and 12 above for further details).
Claims 7, 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of McNulty et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0217791), hereinafter “Jablonsky” and “McNulty”.
With respect to claims 7, 9, 13, and 17, Jablonsky does not specifically teach that the ultraviolet contactor 56 circumferentially surrounds the first pipe segment, or that the first pipe segment is translucent/has a first opacity.
McNulty teaches a transparent pipe through which fluid to be treated is flowed, wherein UV LEDs are radially arranged around the outside circumference of the transparent pipe (Paragraph [0061, 0068, 0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the first pipe segment with UV contactor of Jablonsky with the transparent pipe section with circumferentially arranged UV LEDs of McNulty because McNulty teaches that the radially/circumferentially arranged UV LEDs allows for even exposure to UV of all the fluid passing through the pipe (Paragraph [0068]), which would be advantageous to optimize the hardening of the photoresist composition in the solvent of Jablonsky. This modification results in the first pipe segment having a first opacity and the second pipe segment having a second opacity (which is not transparent at all as far as Jablonsky teaches).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of Livne et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0303555), hereinafter “Jablonsky” and “Livne”.
With respect to claims 8 and 14, Jablonsky teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, but does not specifically teach that the first pipe segment is coiled around the ultraviolet light.
Livne teaches a coiled pipe 381 coiled around ultraviolet lights 391 (see (Paragraphs [0297, 0307]; Figs. 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the first pipe segment with UV contactor of Jablonsky with the coiled pipe section coiled around UV lights 391 as taught by Livne because Livne teaches that the coiled pipe allows for optimized UV exposure of the fluid flowing in the pipe, and because the number of coiled pipe turns influences the time of exposure of the fluid to UV and the efficiency of the treatment process (see Paragraphs [0308, 0313]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of CN 116444058 A (machine translation provided and relied upon), hereinafter “Jablonsky” and “CN (‘058)”.
With respect to claim 18, Jablonksy teaches a developer treatment apparatus (“system”) (Fig. 2; Column 2, lines 11-13), comprising: a first pipe segment (see Fig. 2: pipe segments adjacent on either side of UV contactor 56) configured to transport concentrate comprising photoresist, obtained from filtration of a chemical solvent having a developer solution comprising photoresist dissolved therein; UV contactor 56 (“a first ultraviolet light”) disposed adjacent the first pipe segment and configured to irradiate the chemical solvent and the composition inside the first pipe segment (see Column 3, line 46 through Column 4, line 47), wherein the solvent having a developer solution comprising photoresist (“composition”) hardens (“precipitates”) from the chemical solvent forming a plurality of photoresist skins (“particles”) in response to the first ultraviolet light (Column 5, lines 40-45); a first filter 60 (see Column 4, lines 53-67; Fig. 2) having a first inlet and a first outlet and configured to remove a first portion of the plurality of particles from the chemical solvent obtained from tank 38, pump 50, and heat exchanger 52 (see Fig. 2; Column 4, lines 46-67), wherein the first inlet is coupled to the first pipe segment (through intervening tank 38, pump 50, and heat exchanger 52) (Column 4, lines 46-57; and a second pipe segment coupled to the first outlet (permeate leaving filter 60 and heading up to filter 62 in Fig. 2; “and configured to transport the chemical solvent”) (see Column 4, lines 35-47).
Jablonsky teaches that the second pipe segment has a first end which is coupled to the first outlet of filter 60 (see Fig. 2; Column 4, lines 35-57), wherein the second pipe segment is configured to transport the solvent permeated through filter 60 (see Column 4, lines 35-47), second filter 62 having a second inlet and a second outlet and configured to remove a second plurality of photoresist particles from the solvent, wherein the second inlet is coupled to the first end of the second pipe segment (see Fig. 2; wherein the second pipe segment connects the first outlet of filter 60 to the second inlet of filter 62), and wherein the system further comprises a third pipe segment having a first end and a second end and the first end of the third pipe segment is connected to the second outlet of filter 62/the second filter (see Fig. 2; Column 4, line 51-65).
Jablonsky teaches that the composition comprises negative-working polymeric photoresists that harden/polymerize/cross-link upon exposure to UV light (see Column 1, lines 14-28, 45-56; Column 2, lines 29-38), which are removed by the first filter 60.
Jablonsky does not specifically teach a second UV light as claimed.
CN (‘058) teaches a second UV unit 435 disposed in a conduit upstream from an ultrafiltration unit, which is configured to irradiate a fluid flowing within the conduit (see Fig. 4A; Page 11, 5th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wad effectively filed to add the second UV unit of CN (‘058) to the system of Jablonsky because CN (‘058) teaches that ultrapure water is obtained via the UV/filtration system which treats photoresist materials (see Page 12, first full paragraph, and see paragraph spanning Pages 14-15). This modification places the second UV unit in the second pipe segment if microfiltration 60 precedes ultrafiltration 62 (see rejections of claims 3 and 12 above for further details).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of CN 116444058 A (machine translation provided and relied upon) as applied to claim 18, and further in view of McNulty et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0217791), hereinafter “Jablonsky”, “CN (‘058)”, and “McNulty”.
With respect to claim 19, Jablonsky/CN (‘058) does not specifically teach that the ultraviolet contactor 56 circumferentially surrounds the first pipe segment, or that the first pipe segment is translucent/has a first opacity.
McNulty teaches a transparent pipe through which fluid to be treated is flowed, wherein UV LEDs are radially arranged around the outside circumference of the transparent pipe (Paragraph [0061, 0068, 0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the first pipe segment with UV contactor of Jablonsky with the transparent pipe section with circumferentially arranged UV LEDs of McNulty because McNulty teaches that the radially/circumferentially arranged UV LEDs allows for even exposure to UV of all the fluid passing through the pipe (Paragraph [0068]), which would be advantageous to optimize the hardening of the photoresist composition in the solvent of Jablonsky.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablonsky et al. (U.S. Patent # 6074561) in view of CN 116444058 A (machine translation provided and relied upon) as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Livne et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0303555), hereinafter “Jablonsky”, “CN (‘058)”, and “Livne”.
With respect to claim 20, Jablonsky/CN (‘058) renders obvious the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above, but does not specifically teach that the first pipe segment is coiled around the ultraviolet light.
Livne teaches a coiled pipe 381 coiled around ultraviolet lights 391 (see (Paragraphs [0297, 0307]; Figs. 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the first pipe segment with UV contactor of Jablonsky with the coiled pipe section coiled around UV lights 391 as taught by Livne because Livne teaches that the coiled pipe allows for optimized UV exposure of the fluid flowing in the pipe, and because the number of coiled pipe turns influences the time of exposure of the fluid to UV and the efficiency of the treatment process (see Paragraphs [0308, 0313]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 28 May 2026
Prosecution Insights