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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 remain pending in the application. The amended claims have overcome all prior 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-10 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurita (WO2015064628A1) in view of Nan (CN1885006A).
Regarding claim 1, Kurita teaches a particle measuring apparatus comprising:
first (A, Fig. 2) and second (B, Fig. 2) particle counters that obtain a number of particles that are contained in water (page 2, line 62; page 2, lines 70-71) that flows in a predetermined section of an ultrapure water production apparatus (Fig. 3); and
particle number calculator (particle meter, page 4, lines 140-143) that calculates the number of the particles that are contained in the water that flows in the predetermined section for each particle diameter range based on measurement results of the first and second particle counters (page 4, lines 140-143), wherein
the second particle counter has a higher counting efficiency than the first particle counter (page 5, line 174 teaches an embodiment where one particle counter is a UDI-50 and the other is a UDI-20. According to the manufacturer spec sheet, these have different efficiencies meaning one would have a higher efficiency than the other).
Kurita fails to teach the number of the particles in the particle diameter range less than a predetermined value is measured by the first particle counter, and the number of the particles in the particle diameter range equal to or more than the predetermined value is measured by the second particle counter.
However, in the same field of endeavor of particle detection, Nan teaches a device with multiple channels, where each channel is designated to detect particles within a range of predetermined diameters (paragraph [0011]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the two particle detectors with the diameter-based threshold detection taught in Nan as this method aids in the stable operation of the water treatment process while also meeting desired quality requirements (Nan: paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, and Kurita further teaches the section (water flows from pipe 20 to pipes 21 and 22 to the particle counters A and B in Fig. 2) is between a most downstream membrane filtering (16, Fig. 2) apparatus that constitutes the ultrapure water production apparatus and the point of use (4, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, and Kurita further teaches the first and second particle counters are provided at equivalent positions in the predetermined section (A and B, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, and Kurita further teaches a measurable particle diameter of the second particle counter is 100 nm or more (page 5, line 174 teaches an embodiment where one particle counter is a UDI-50 and the other is a UDI-20. According to the manufacturer spec sheet, these measure particle diameters of 50 nm or more and 20 nm or more, respectively).
Regarding claim 7, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, and Kurita further teaches an ultrapure water production apparatus (3, Fig. 2) comprising:
a most downstream membrane filtering apparatus (16, Fig. 2) that constitutes the ultrapure water production apparatus (3, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kurita teaches a particle measuring method comprising:
using first (A, Fig. 2) and second particle (B, Fig. 2) counters to measure a number of particles that are contained in water (page 2, line 62; page 2, lines 70-71) that flows in a predetermined section of an ultrapure water production apparatus (Fig. 3) ; and
based on measurement results of the first and second particle counters, using particle number calculator (particle meter, page 4, lines 140-143) to calculate the number of the particles for each particle diameter range that are contained in the water that flows in the predetermined section (page 4, lines 140-143), wherein
the second particle counter has a higher counting efficiency than the first particle counter (page 5, line 174 teaches an embodiment where one particle counter is a UDI-50 and the other is a UDI-20. According to the manufacturer spec sheet, these have different efficiencies meaning one would have a higher efficiency than the other).
Kurita fails to teach the number of the particles in the particle diameter range less than a predetermined value is measured by the first particle counter, and the number of the particles in the particle diameter range equal to or more than the predetermined value is measured by the second particle counter.
However, in the same field of endeavor of particle detection, Nan teaches a device with multiple channels, where each channel is designated to detect particles within a range of predetermined diameters (paragraph [0011]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the two particle detectors with the diameter-based threshold detection taught in Nan as this method aids in the stable operation of the water treatment process while also meeting desired quality requirements (Nan: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita in view of Nan as applied above in claim 1, in further view of Grant (US9086350B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, but Kurita fails to teach a measurable particle diameter of the first particle counter is 20 nm or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measuring particle numbers in a liquid, Grant teaches a device that measures particles less 50 nm (column 3, lines 8-9).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Kurita with the counting of particles less than 50 nm taught in Grant as particles less than 50 nm are significant problems in the semiconductor device manufacturing industry (Grant: column 1, lines 44-52).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita in view of Nan as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fuji (JP2017219217A).
Regarding claim 8, Kurita in view of Nan teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 7, and Kurita further teaches the number of particles is calculated by the particle number calculator of the particle measuring apparatus for each particle diameter range (page 5, line 175).
Kurita and Nan fail to teach a control unit, wherein when the number of particles of at least one of the particle diameter ranges exceeds a predetermined threshold, the control unit generates a signal that shows that the number of particles exceeds the predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measuring number of and filtering particles, Fuji teaches a device with a control unit (control device, paragraph [0004]) that generates a control signal (Sc, paragraph [0034]) which determines if the measured particles exceed a predetermined target number or not (paragraph [0034]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Kurita with the control and threshold value taught in Fuji as it allows to optimize the apparatus to use less power or to ensure greater cleanliness, depending on where the threshold value is set (Fuji: paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Kurita in view of Nan and Fuji teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, but fails to teach the control unit manages operation of the ultrapure water production apparatus based on the signal.
However, Fuji teaches the control unit controls the filtration unit (analogous to the ultrapure water production apparatus) (paragraphs [0004], [0006]-[0010]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Kurita with the control and threshold value taught in Fuji as it allows to optimize the apparatus to use less power or to ensure greater cleanliness (Fuji: paragraph [0041]).
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877