DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/02/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 20-28 are currently pending. Claims 1, 4, and 11-12 are amended.
Claims 2-3, 13 and 15-19 are cancelled. Claims 21-28 are new.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 states that all the transfer tanks are disposed on a same fixing plate, which has already been established in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 4, 10-11, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda) in view of Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), and Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik).
As to claim 1, (Currently amended) Matsuda teaches an apparatus for supplying cleaning liquid, comprising:
a stock solution unit configured with a plurality of stock solution tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0020] stock tanks 60A, 60B, 60C, and 60D);
a cleaning unit configured with a plurality of cleaning tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0017] tank 14 and 16 read on the claimed cleaning tanks); and
a transfer unit disposed between the stock solution unit and the cleaning unit and configured with a plurality of transfer tanks independently arranged (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] mixing tanks 64 and 66 read on the claimed transfer tanks),
wherein each of the stock solution tanks communicates with at least one of the transfer tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] the stock tanks 60A to 60D communicate with at least one of the mixing tanks via pipes 62A, 62B, 62C, and 62D), each of the transfer tanks communicates with one of the cleaning tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0027] mixing tanks communicates with one of the tanks 14 and 16 via pipes 92 and 94 respectively), and each of the cleaning tanks communicates with at least one of the transfer tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0027] tanks 14 and 16 communicates with at least one of the mixing tanks via pipes 92 and 94).
Matsuda differs from the instant claim in failing to teach wherein all ones of the transfer tanks communicating with a same one of the cleaning tanks are disposed adjacently without a gap therebetween; wherein all the transfer tanks are disposed on a same fixing plate having a groove structure, and all the transfer tanks are disposed in the groove of the fixing plate.
While Matsuda does not teach that the transfer tanks (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] mixing tanks 64 and 66 read on the claimed transfer tanks) communicating with a cleaning tank are disposed adjacently without a gap therebetween, it is known in the art to have tanks be adjacent to each other without a gap therebetween as demonstrated by Matsuda (FIG. 2 tanks 60A to 60D). It would have been obvious to place the transfer tanks adjacent to each other in order to simplify the setup and save space.
However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Slobodnik teaches an apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid (column 3 line 4 and column 3 lines 41-43 a solution is mixed in tank 10 and after the mix is complete, it gets siphoned out for use). Slobodnik teaches that transfer tanks communicating with the same one of the cleaning tanks are disposed adjacently (FIG. 1 containers 12, 14, and 16, read on the claimed transfer tanks. Liquid from containers 12, 14, and 16 communicate with tank 10, which reads on the claimed cleaning tank. Containers 12, 14, and 16 are adjacent to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda with transfer tanks that communicate with the same one of the cleaning tank area adjacent to each other as taught by Slobodnik. It would have been obvious to place transfer tanks communicating with the same cleaning tank adjacent to each other as it would simplify the piping configuration.
Schwab teaches a similar fixing plate (FIG. 2 paragraph [0030] collection tray 64). Schwab teaches a fixing plate having a groove structure (FIG. 2 collection tray 64 has lifted edges to collect liquid following out of the containers. The bottom portion of collection tray 64 reads on the claimed groove structure), and all the transfer tanks are disposed in the groove of the fixing plate (FIG. 2 multiple liquid containers are disposed above a single collection tray 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda with a fixing plate as taught by Schwab as it can be used to catch liquid flowing out of the tanks (paragraph [0030]).
Kahler teaches a similar fixing plate (FIG. 10 paragraph [0036] containment pan 149). Kahler teaches that all the transfer tanks are disposed on a same fixing plate having a groove structure (paragraph [0036] containment pan can be a large single pan and can have plumbing welded directly to the floor of pan 149. Plumbing can include tanks.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda with tanks on a same fixing plate as taught by Kahler. It would have been obvious use one fixing plate as it would cost less to create one pan. Additionally, fixing multiple tanks onto one plate would simplify spacing configurations.
As to claim 4, (Currently amended) Schwab further teaches a lower end surface of each of the transfer tanks is spaced from an upper end surface of the fixing plate (FIG. 2 the lower end of the liquid containers are spaced from an upper end surface of the fixing plate).
As to claim 10, (Original) Matsuda further teaches the stock solution unit further comprises a water source tank (paragraph [0051] water supply tank 74) directly communicating with each of the cleaning tanks (paragraph [0051] water supply tank 74 supplies water to spray nozzles 110 via pipes 102, 104. Paragraph [0031] half of the water sprayed from the spray nozzle 110 is collected in tank 14 and the remaining half is collected in the tank 16).
As to claim 11, (Currently amended) Kahler further teaches all the transfer tanks are disposed on a same fixing plate (paragraph [0036] containment pan can be a large single pan and can have plumbing welded directly to the floor of pan 149. Plumbing can include tanks.).
As to claim 25, (New) Matsuda further teaches the plurality of transfer tanks comprise a first transfer tank, and an eighth transfer tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] mixing tanks 64 and 66 read on the claimed first and eighth transfer tanks);
the plurality of stock solution tanks comprise a first stock solution tank, a second stock solution tank, a third stock solution tank, and a fourth stock solution tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0020] stock tanks 60A, 60B, 60C, and 60D); and
the plurality of cleaning tanks comprise a first cleaning tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0017] tank 14 reads on the claimed first tank) and a fourth cleaning tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0017] tank 16 read on the claimed fourth tank).
Matsuda does not teach a second transfer tank, third transfer tank, a fourth transfer tank, a fifth transfer tank, a sixth transfer tank, and a seventh transfer tank; and a second cleaning tank and third cleaning tank. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
It would be obvious to have multiple transfer tanks and multiple cleaning tanks in order to increase the output of the treatment liquids.
As to claim 26, (New) Matsuda further teaches the first transfer tank are communicated with the first stock solution tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] stock tank 61A to 60C are in communication with tank 64 via pipes 62A to 62C); and
the eighth transfer tank is communicated with the fourth stock solution tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] one end of pipe 62D opens above mixing tank 66. Only stock tank 60D is communicated with tank 66).
Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik do not teach the fourth transfer tank, and the fifth transfer tank are communicated with the first stock solution tank; the second transfer tank, the third transfer tank, and the sixth transfer tank are communicated with the second stock solution tank; and the seventh transfer tank is communicated with the third stock solution tank.
However, if there were more than two transfer tanks, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to route the pipes or lines in such a way where the transfer tanks are communicated with the desired stock solution tanks. If the applicant can show unexpected results in their pipe configuration, then the examiner will withdraw this rejection.
As to claim 27, (New) Matsuda and Slobodnik further teach the first cleaning tank contain a mixed solution of a cleaning agent A solution, a cleaning agent B solution, and water (Matsuda FIG. 2 paragraphs [0021] and [0023] pipes 62A, 62B, 62C, and 72A opens above mixing tank 64); and
the fourth cleaning tank contains a mixed solution of a cleaning agent C solution, a cleaning agent D solution (Slobodnik column 3 lines 4-9 A chemical from container 12 and container 14 are added) and water (Slobodnik column 3 lines 37 water is added to tank 10).
Since the first, second, and third cleaning tanks contain the same solutions, it would be obvious to triplicate tank 14 as more tanks would increase the amount of solution that can be produced.
As to claim 28, (New) Matsuda further teaches the stock solution unit further comprises a water source tank (FIG. 2 paragraph [0023] supply tank 74 that stores water);
the first cleaning tank is communicated with the first transfer tank and the water source tank (FIG. 2 paragraphs [0027] and [0029] tank 14 communicates with transfer tank 64 and water source via pipe 92 and nozzle 110, respectively);
the fourth cleaning tank is communicated with the eighth transfer tank and the water source tank (FIG. 2 paragraphs [0027] and [0029] tank 16 communicates with transfer tank 66 and water source via pipe 94 and nozzle 110, respectively).
Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik do not teach the first cleaning tank is communicated with the second transfer tank; the second cleaning tank is communicated with the third transfer tank, and the fourth transfer tank and the water source tank; the third cleaning tank is communicated with the fifth transfer tank, the sixth transfer tank and the water source tank; and the fourth cleaning tank is communicated with the seventh transfer tank.
However, if there were more than two transfer tanks and more than two cleaning tanks, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to route the pipes or lines in such a way where the transfer tanks are communicated with the desired cleaning tanks. If the applicant can show unexpected results in their pipe configuration, then the examiner will withdraw this rejection.
Claims 5-7, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), and Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yun et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0197237 (henceforth referred to as Yun).
As to claim 5, (Original) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik differ from the instant claim in failing to teach an automatic control valve is disposed at each of a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet of each of the transfer tanks.
Yun teaches a similar apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid (FIG. 3 paragraph [0050] chemical supply unit 4100). Yun teaches an automatic control valve is disposed at each of a liquid inlet (FIG. 3 paragraph [0055] inlet valves 4121, 4122, 4139 and 4141) and a liquid outlet (FIG. 3 paragraph [0056] outlet valves 4126 and 4136) of each of the transfer tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik with valves as taught by Yun. It is known in the art to add valves in order to control the liquids being supplied or being dispersed from a tank.
As to claim 6, (Original) Matsuda further teaches the liquid inlet is disposed at an upper section of a side or a top surface of a corresponding one of the transfer tanks (FIG. 2 the liquid inlet pipes 62A to 62D is disposed on a top surface of the mixing tanks 64 and 66).
As to claim 7, (Original) Matsuda further teaches the liquid inlet (FIG. 2 paragraph [0021] pipes 62A, 62B, 62C, and 62D read on the liquid inlet) and the liquid outlet (FIG. 2 paragraph [0027] pipes 92 and 94 read on the liquid outlet).
Matsuda does not teach that the inlets and outlets of a same one of the transfer tanks are disposed on a same side or respectively on a side and a top surface that are adjacent. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
As to claim 12, (Currently amended) Yun teaches an automatic control valve is disposed at each of a liquid inlet (FIG. 3 paragraph [0055] inlet valves 4121, 4122, 4139 and 4141) and a liquid outlet (FIG. 3 paragraph [0056] outlet valves 4126 and 4136) of each of the transfer tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik with valves as taught by Yun. It is known in the art to add valves in order to control the liquids being supplied or being dispersed from a tank.
As to claim 20, Yun teaches a silicon wafer cleaning machine (FIG. 1 paragraph [0035] substrate processing equipment 1) including the apparatus for supplying cleaning liquid (see above claim 1 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik to have a silicon wafer cleaning machine as taught by Yun. It is known in the art to supply the cleaning liquid to a machine that is used to clean silicon wafers.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), Yun et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0197237 (henceforth referred to as Yun), and Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik) as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Tanaka et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0125171 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 8, (Original) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, Slobodnik, and Yun differ from the instant claim in failing to teach each transfer tank of the transfer tanks is further configured with a liquid level tube, and the liquid level tube is disposed on an outer wall of the transfer tank; a side on which the liquid level tube is located is opposite to a side on which the liquid inlet of the transfer tank is located; and the liquid level tube of each of the transfer tanks is disposed on a same side.
Tanaka teaches a similar apparatus for supplying a liquid (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] tank 5 supplies a process liquid). Tanaka teaches a liquid level tube (FIG. 2 paragraph [0031] liquid level detector 10, which includes liquid guiding pipe 14 and branching liquid guiding pipe 15), and the liquid level tube is disposed on an outer wall of the transfer tank (FIG. 2 liquid level detector 10 is outside of the tank 5);
a side on which the liquid level tube is located is opposite to a side on which the liquid inlet of the transfer tank is located (FIG. 2 paragraph [0020] liquid supply pipe 13 is on a side opposite to the liquid level tube).
The combination Matsuda and Tanaka would be able to teach that each of the transfer tanks can be modified with a liquid level tube on a same side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda with a liquid level tube as taught by Tanaka. It is known in the art to have liquid level tubes in order to monitor the amount of liquid remaining in a tank.
As to claim 9, (Original) Tanaka further teaches the liquid level tube is adapted to a height of the transfer tank on which the liquid level tube is located (paragraph [0031] the liquid level of the process liquid L inside the branching liquid guiding pipe 15 conforms to the liquid level of the process liquid L within the tank. Since the liquid within the guiding pipe conforms to the liquid within the tank, it would have been obvious to have the liquid level tube to be adapted to the height of the tank); and a liquid level sensor is disposed on the liquid level tube (FIG. 2 paragraph [0031] position sensors 16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), Yun et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0197237 (henceforth referred to as Yun), and Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Tanaka et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0125171 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 14, (Original) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, Slobodnik, and Yun differ from the instant claim in failing to teach each transfer tank of the transfer tanks is further configured with a liquid level tube; a side on which the liquid level tube is located is opposite to a side on which the liquid inlet of the transfer tank is located; and the liquid level tube of each of the transfer tanks is disposed on a same side.
Tanaka teaches a similar apparatus for supplying a liquid (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] tank 5 supplies a process liquid). Tanaka teaches a liquid level tube (FIG. 2 paragraph [0031] liquid level detector 10, which includes liquid guiding pipe 14 and branching liquid guiding pipe 15), and the liquid level tube is disposed on an outer wall of the transfer tank (FIG. 2 liquid level detector 10 is outside of the tank 5);
a side on which the liquid level tube is located is opposite to a side on which the liquid inlet of the transfer tank is located (FIG. 2 paragraph [0020] liquid supply pipe 13 is on a side opposite to the liquid level tube).
The combination Matsuda and Tanaka would be able to teach that each of the transfer tanks can be modified with a liquid level tube on a same side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda with a liquid level tube as taught by Tanaka. It is known in the art to have liquid level tubes in order to monitor the amount of liquid remaining in a tank.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), and Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tanaka et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0125171 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 21, (New) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Slobodnik differ from the instant claim in failing to teach each transfer tank of the transfer tanks is further configured with a liquid level tube, and the liquid level tube is disposed on an outer wall of the transfer tank.
Tanaka teaches a similar apparatus for supplying a liquid (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] tank 5 supplies a process liquid). Tanaka teaches a liquid level tube (FIG. 2 paragraph [0031] liquid level detector 10, which includes liquid guiding pipe 14 and branching liquid guiding pipe 15), and the liquid level tube is disposed on an outer wall of the transfer tank (FIG. 2 liquid level detector 10 is outside of the tank 5).
The combination Matsuda and Tanaka would be able to teach that each of the transfer tanks can be modified with a liquid level tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, and Kahler with a liquid level tube as taught by Tanaka. It is known in the art to have liquid level tubes in order to monitor the amount of liquid remaining in a tank.
As to claim 23, (New) Tanaka further teaches an upper port and a lower port of the liquid level tube are located at an upper end and a lower end of the outer wall of the transfer tank, respectively (FIG. 2 liquid guiding pipe 14 of liquid level detector 10 is connected to an upper end and a lower end of the outer wall of the transfer tank).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik), and Tanaka et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0125171 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka) as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Kamikawa et al. U.S. Publication 2001/0003067 (henceforth referred to as Kamikawa).
As to claim 22, (New) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, Slobodnik, and Tanaka differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the liquid level tube is a transparent glass tube or hose.
Kamikawa teaches a similar liquid level tube (FIG. 8 paragraph [0127] liquid-level detecting apparatus 70). Kamikawa teaches the liquid level tube is a transparent glass tube or hose (paragraph [0151] liquid level detecting apparatus 70 has a transparent hard pipe 71b, which can be formed of a hard material such as a glass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, Slobodnik, and Tanaka with a transparent tube as taught by Kamikawa. It would have been obvious to have a transparent pipe in order to see the liquid level that is indicated by the float 72 (paragraph [0151]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. JP H06194807 (henceforth referred to as Matsuda), Schwab et al. DE102008055889 (henceforth referred to as Schwab), Kahler et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0178177 (henceforth referred to as Kahler), Slobodnik U.S. Patent 4,561,566 (henceforth referred to as Slobodnik), and Yun et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0197237 (henceforth referred to as Yun) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0050794 (henceforth referred to as Ahmed).
As to claim 24, (New) Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, Slobodnik, and Yun differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the automatic control valve is automatically driven by an airflow.
Ahmed teaches a similar valve (paragraph [0194] automatic valve AV9). Ahmed teaches the automatic control valve is automatically driven by an airflow (paragraph [0194] automatic valve is actuated by air).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for supplying a cleaning liquid as taught by Matsuda, Schwab, Kahler, and Yun with a valve that is driven by an airflow as taught by Ahmed. Using air to actuate a valve is one of the embodiments used to operate a valve and is known in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711