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:
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected.
Claims 12-17 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) on pgs. 3-4 of Applicant’s arguments that:
Applicant hereby elects Group I, including claims 1-11 and 18-20, with traverse. Notably, the claims are believed to be related in that they include significant overlapping scope and are in fact capable of use together. It should be noted that the Restriction Requirement indicates what is required for inventions to be considered unrelated, but then fails to demonstrate that the claims fall under these requirements.
Notably, the Restriction Requirement states, "Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06." (Emphasis added.) However, then the Restriction Requirement only asserts, "In the instant case, the different inventions have different modes of operation."
Thus, the Restriction Requirement clearly fails to establish, or even assert, that the inventions of Group I and Group II are not disclosed as capable of use together. In fact, these inventions are capable us use together. The Application specifically describes a pipe
cleaning system 10 that may be used with a waste water treatment system 1, and is in fact specifically described for use with the waste water treatment system 1, based on the discussion of various overlapping components. As such, unless the Examiner can articulate some other rationale for the restriction requirement, Applicant respectfully requests that it be withdrawn and that claims 12-17 be reviewed along with claims 1-11 and 18-20.
This is not found persuasive because the invention of group I requires a piping and valve connections and method to clean said piping and valving connections; however group II requires more than just pipelines and valves, because claim 12 is a system that comprises tanks, piping, valve connections designed to treat waste water. Groups I and II are entirely two different inventions because one system is designed to clean piping and the other system is designed to treat waste water; therefore having different modes of operation. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
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. KR 10-2022-0170051, filed on 12/07/2022.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705).
Regarding claim 1, Sumo Corp teach a pipe cleaning system (CMP system 1, flushing using alkaline solution (KOH) or pure water) comprising: a…waste water supply line (second upstream line 432) for supplying…waste water; an alkali waste water supply line (first upstream line 431) for supplying alkali waste water (KOH and slurry) ; and a connecting line (corresponds to line connecting first upstream line 431 and second upstream 432) connecting the…waste water supply line and the alkali waste water supply line to each other (see Fig. 1), wherein the…waste water supply line comprises: a first pipe (slurry line 522) which is connected to a storage (second supply tank 42) for storing the…waste water and includes a first valve (slurry valve 525); and a second pipe (i.e. second upstream line 432) connected to the first pipe, wherein the alkali waste water supply line comprises: a third pipe (i.e. first upstream line 431) that is connected to a storage (first supply tank 41) for storing the alkali waste water (i.e. KOH and slurry) and includes a third valve (alkali valve 554); and a fourth pipe (alkali line 552) connected to the third pipe (see Fig. 1), and wherein the connecting line comprises: a connecting pipe (corresponds to line connecting first upstream line 431 and second upstream 432) connecting the second pipe and the third pipe to each other (see Fig. 1); and a connecting valve (first circulation valve 436) formed on the connecting pipe to open/close the connecting pipe.
Sumco Corp (JP5772243B2) does not teach that the waste water supply line is a copper waste water supply line.
In a related field of endeavor, James teaches a process for treating waste water contains copper (see ABS) comprising a copper waste water supply line (line 12 contains copper CMP waste water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the waste water supply line of Sumo Corp to be a copper waste water supply line as disclosed by James because it is known that copper metal facilitates polishing of wafers (James, see C2/L48-65); thereby also facilitating polishing and maintenance of the supply line with a reasonable of expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 1, wherein: the second pipe and the third pipe each includes an end portion, and the connecting pipe is coupled to each of the end portion of the second pipe and the end portion of the third pipe (Sumo Corp, the line connecting first upstream line 431 and second upstream line 432 in Fig. 1 is coupled at respective end portions thereof).
Regarding claim 3, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 1, wherein: the connecting valve includes: a main valve (Sumo Corp, i.e. first circulation valve 436) formed at a side of the third pipe; and an auxiliary valve (Sumo Corp, second circulation valve 437) formed at a side of the second pipe.
Regarding claim 4, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 3, wherein: the copper waste water supply line further comprises: a fifth pipe (Sumo Corp, DIW line 542) connected to the second pipe (Sumo Corp, i.e. second upstream line 432), and the alkali waste water supply line further comprises: a sixth pipe (Sumo Corp, slurry line 512) connected to the third pipe and including a fourth valve (Sumo Corp, slurry valve 515); and a seventh pipe (Sumo Corp, recovery line 63) connected to the sixth pipe and including a fifth valve (Sumo Corp, on-off valve 634).
Regarding claim 5, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 4, wherein each of the first valve, the main valve, the third valve, the fourth valve, and the fifth valve is an automatic valve (Sumo Corp, “a controller 7 that controls the entire CMP system 1 are provide”, see pg. 8 and “the controller 7 includes an input unit 71 configured by a touch panel, a keyboard, and the like, a warning unit 72 that notifies a warning by sound, light, or video, and a control device 73 that is a computer. The control device 73 includes a CMP control means 731, a flushing control means 732, and a heat exchange control means 733 configured by processing a program and data stored in a storage means (not shown) by a CPU (Central Processing Unit)”, see pg. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 5, further comprising: a controller (Sumo Corp, controller 7) configured to adjust opening/closing of the first valve, the main valve, the third valve, the fourth valve, and the fifth valve (Sumo Corp, “a controller 7 that controls the entire CMP system 1 are provide”, see pg. 8 and “the controller 7 includes an input unit 71 configured by a touch panel, a keyboard, and the like, a warning unit 72 that notifies a warning by sound, light, or video, and a control device 73 that is a computer. The control device 73 includes a CMP control means 731, a flushing control means 732, and a heat exchange control means 733 configured by processing a program and data stored in a storage means (not shown) by a CPU (Central Processing Unit)”, see pg. 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705) and further in view of Wang (CN 205475437).
Regarding claim 6, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 5.
The combination does not teach that the automatic valves are butterfly automatic valves.
In a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches a sanitary water device (see ABS) comprising butterfly automatic valves (automatic butterfly valve, see pg. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the automatic valve of Sumo Corp with the automatic butterfly valve of Wang because it is simple substitution of one known automatic valve means with another known automatic butterfly valve means obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of providing a suitable flow control means with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705) and further in view of Qin (CN 202022776).
Regarding claim 8, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 3.
The combination does not teach that the auxiliary valve is a manual valve.
In a related field endeavor, Qin teaches heavy metal recovery device for electroplating washing liquid (see ABS) comprising a manual valve (first manual ball valve, see ¶15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the auxiliary valve of Sumo Corp with the manual valve of Qin because it is applying a known manual valve to a known cleaning supply line obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of applying a reliable, non-electric control means in order to safety isolate the pipeline with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705) and further in view of Lee (USPN 7,048,854).
Regarding claim 9, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 1.
Sumo Corp does not teach that the connecting line further comprises a check valve that prevents the alkali waste water supplied from the alkali waste water supply line to the copper waste water supply line from flowing backward.
Lee further teaches a check valve (check valve 151) that prevents the alkali waste water supplied from the alkali waste water supply line (“Sodium hydroxide is transferred from chemical storage tank 138 through a check valve 151 to conditioning tank 150”, see C5/L35-40) from flowing backward (the check valve 151 inherently functions to prevent flow from flowing backward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the alkali waste water supply line of Sumo Corp by incorporating the check valve of Lee because said valve would prevent cross contamination of chemicals thereby improving the integrity of the piping.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705) and further in view of Lu (CN 204079646).
Regarding claim 10, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 1, wherein: the alkali waste water includes…potassium hydroxide (KOH) (Sumo Corp, i.e. KOH).
The combination does not teach that the alkali waste water includes hydrogen peroxide.
In a related field of endeavor, Lu teaches a PCB copper-containing waste water treatment system (see ABS) comprising hydrogen peroxide (hydrogen peroxide storage tank 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the potassium hydroxide supply line of Sumo Corp with the hydrogen potassium supply line of Lu because it is simple substitution of one known potassium hydroxide supply line means with another known hydrogen peroxide supply line means obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of providing a suitable treatment means to precipitate Cu ions with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumo Corp (JP 5772243) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705) and further in view of Maeda (JP H115090).
Regarding claim 11, Sumo Corp and James teach the pipe cleaning system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach that the connecting pipe includes at least one of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene (PE).
In a related field of endeavor, Maeda teaches a method for supplying washing water (see ABS) comprising piping made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (a common pipe such as polyvinyl chloride, see pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pipe material of Sumo Corp to be made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as disclosed by Maeda because it is very known in the art that this material is corrosion resistant thereby improving the reliability and integrity of the piping system.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita (JP 2008001639) in view of James (USPN 6,203,705).
Regarding claim 18, Arita teaches a pipe cleaning method (a system of detecting blockage of fluid transportation piping which inhibits occurrence of solid clogging such as complete blockage in piping for transporting a solid-liquid mixed fluid from a storage tank for storing the fluid while maintaining the liquid surface of the fluid at a predetermined level to a separator for the solid-liquid separation of the fluid and can operate the apparatus in a stabilized transporting state for a long period, see ABS) comprising: checking a blockage issue in a pipe due to copper sludge in a …waste water supply line (“the blockage detecting device 21 detects a sign of blockage of the pipe 41”, see pg. 9; blocking supply of the …waste water to the pipe (“the pump 16 is first stopped, the upstream valve 51a and the downstream valve 51d are closed”, see pg. 9); supplying alkali waste water to the pipe (“the valve 51b is opened, and the alkaline cleaning liquid is injected into the pipe 41 from the cleaning liquid tank 31a of the cleaning medium introducing device 31. Next, the valve 51c is closed and the pump 16 is started to inject further cleaning liquid into the pipe 41”, see pg. 9); and re-supplying …waste water to the pipe (“after closing the valve 51b and opening the valve 51d, the pump 16 is started…the operation is continued while being monitored by the blockage detection system”, see pg. ), wherein the supplying of the alkali waste water to the pipe comprises: supplying the alkali waste water to the pipe via a connecting line (pipe 41) connecting, to the …waste water supply line (corresponds to line from separation process 3 to drying process 11), an alkali waste water supply line (corresponds to line having valve 51b) for supplying the alkali waste water.
Arita does not teach that the waste water supply line is a copper waste water supply line.
In a related field of endeavor, James teaches a process for treating waste water contains copper (see ABS) comprising a copper waste water supply line (line 12 contains copper CMP waste water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Arita by combining said method with the system comprising the copper waste water supply line of James because copper waste water supply lines contain suspended particles (James, see C1/L30-40) and the process of Arita would aid in minimizing plugging of this solid build up in said supply lines.
Regarding claim 19, Arita and James teach the pipe cleaning method of claim 18.
Arita further teaches that the cleaning time has an upper limit or a lower limit, and it is desirable that the margin be within a range within a respect to said limits (Arita, see pg. 10) and also teaches that the cleaning range is not limited to only the blocked location and the downstream and upstream locations where there is a concern about the adhesion of solids thus it is desirable to inject cleaning liquid or the like from the upstream side of the pump (Arita, see pg. 9). Therefore, Arita establishes that the cleaning time is controllable and a result-effective variable.
Although, Arita does not explicitly teach that the supplying of the alkali waste water to the pipe is carried out for 20 seconds to 5 minutes; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaning time of Arita to select an optimal cleaning time, including a time in the claimed range of 20 seconds to 5 minutes, because it is desirable to optimize the removal of solid adhesion within the upstream and/or downstream piping for reliably cleaning a blockage and minimizing solid build up in order to efficiently operate a fluid transportation systems with a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, a time within the claimed range of 20 seconds to 5 minutes would have been obvious to optimize in order to achieve the desired cleaning performance.
Regarding claim 20, Arita and James teach the pipe cleaning method of claim 18, wherein: the blocking of the supply of the copper waste water to the pipe further comprises: switching a first valve (Arita, valve 51a) to a closed state (Arita, valve 51a is closed), the supplying of the alkali waste water to the pipe further comprises: switching a connecting valve (Arita, valve 51b) of the connecting line into an open state (Arita, valve 51 is opened), and switching a second valve (Arita, valve 51c) and the third valve (Arita, valve 51d) of the alkali waste water supply line into a closed state …the re-supplying of copper waste water to the pipe comprises switching the connecting valve into the closed state (Arita, i.e. valve 51b), switching the first valve into the open state (Arita, see pg. 9) and switching the second valve (Arita, i.e. valve 51c) and the third valve (Arita, i.e. valve 51d) into the open state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights