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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicants allege that the applicants allege that there is no serious burden to examine Group I and Group II together. The applicants argue that different claims recite different structural elements and that thereby a search for Group I would encompass a search for Group II. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons provided in the restriction requirement. It is again pointed out that Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the Invention of Group I does not require a recycle line and a concentrated water collection line as recited by the Invention of Group II. The subcombination has separate utility such as a liquid filtering and supply apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement with respect to claims 15-20, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/10/2026.
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.
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) 1-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2004/0045592) in view of Predescu et al (US 2021/0261443) and IT MI20090545.
Yamamoto teaches an apparatus comprising:
A substrate processing apparatus 1 and a chemical supply apparatus comprising a main tank 6;
A supply line 40 connecting main tank and an inlet 22 of the substrate processing apparatus;
A recycle tank 10a-d connected to an outlet of the substrate processing apparatus 1;
A recycle filtering device 12a-d between the recycle tank 10a-d and the main tank 6;
See at least Figures 1, 4 and the related description.
Yamamoto does not disclose the specifics of the filtration device and thereby fails to specifically teach the specifics of the filtration device recited by the claims.
However, the filtration devices comprising a photocatalytic reactor and a nano filter were known in the art for filtration of industrial fluids, as evidenced by Predescu et al and IT MI20090545. See at least [0008] of Predescu et al and the description of the reactor 10 and the post treatment unit of IT MI20090545.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a photocatalytic reactor plus a nanofilter, as suggested by Predescu et al and IT MI20090545 in order to use a known device for its known purpose.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to connect a photocatalytic reactor with a nanofilter in a modified apparatus of Yamamoto by a connection line in order to enable functioning of the apparatus.
As to claim 2:
It has been held that multiplication of parts has no patentable significance. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results by providing a second (concentrated water) line in parallel with the connection line.
Thus, claim 2 is obvious over the applied art.
As to claim 3:
What is recited by claim 3 appears to be the recitation of the conventional filter device, since the conventional filter devices comprise, a space divided by a filtration membrane. See at least filters 12a-d of Yamamoto.
As to claim 4:
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to make the filtration membrane in the modified apparatus of Yamamoto from acid-resistant materials since Yamamoto teaches the use of acid fluids (at least [0043], [0045]).
As to claim 5:
Both Predescu et al and IT MI20090545 teach the photocatalytic reactors comprising UV lamps. See at least Figures 1 and 2 of Predescu et al and Figure 1 of IT MI20090545.
As to claim 7:
Yamamoto teaches a pump as claimed (pumps 11a-d).
As to claims 8-10:
Yamamoto teaches that the substrate processing apparatus 1 comprises:
A cleaning chamber S;
A cleaning chamber housing 19;
A cleaning chuck 3;
A cleaning nozzle 20, 24.
Yamamoto also teaches the inlet 22 in the nozzle.
Yamamoto also teaches the outlet 1bformed in the chamber.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2004/0045592) in view of Predescu et al (US 2021/0261443) and IT MI20090545, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of any one of Kenny et al (US 2002/0157686) and Shiobara et al (US 2007/0266936).
Modified Yamamoto teaches an apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation of a filter between the main tank and the substrate processing apparatus.
However, providing filters between tanks and the substrate processing apparatuses was know in the art as evidenced by Kenny et al and Shiobara et al.
See at least Figure 1 and the related description of Shiobara et al and Figures 1, 4-7 and the related description of Kenny et al.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide a filter between the main tank and the substrate processing apparatus in the modified apparatus of Yamamoto in order to filtrate processing fluids and in order to use a known device for its known purpose, since Kenny et al and Shiobara et al teach such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to fabrication systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights