DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The updated abstract does not appear to be attached in the 01/28/2026 filings. As such the objection to abstract is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (“Remarks”) filed on 01/28/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
Applicant contends that the claims do not teach certain limitations—e.g., the gas sensor is “operably connected between the mixing tank and the sample chamber”—of the claims as amended (see Remarks at 2-3 & 5). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC § 103 rejections below.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of Claim 1, two separate and distinct grounds were presented: (1) INABA as modified in view of KASHKOUSH (see Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 7-12); (2) KASHKOUSH as modified in view of INABA (see Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 17-20).
Applicant does not articulate which argument is directed to which ground; instead, Applicant’s arguments address each reference individually (see Remarks at 3, attacking INABA individually; see Remarks at 4, attacking KASHKOUSH individually). This is not persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Against the INABA reference, Applicant contends that INABA fails to teach the recited “mixture reclaim line” because INABA’s recovery pipe 4 leads to recovery tank 3, instead of mixing tank 60 (see Remarks at 3). This is not persuasive because: (1) Applicant’s arguments appear to advocate for an unsupported definition of “mixture reclaim line”; and (2) the arguments ignore the actual teachings of the prior art reference.
First, the claims do not recite any specific structures for the “mixture reclaim line.” To the extent that Applicant is suggesting that “mixture reclaim line” requires specific structures—perhaps, for example, a single pipe having two ends, with one end connected to the sample tank and the other end connected to the mixing tank—such structures are not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, the specification does not disclose any single pipe as the “mixture reclaim line.” Indeed, none of Figs. 2-4 show any pipe labeled as “mixture reclaim line.” On the contrary, the specification discloses a collection of pipes and components connected together to form the so-called “mixture reclaim line” (see Figs. 2-4, ¶ 0056, “The return filter 156, return pump 158, and the connections between these components, the sample chamber 154, and the mixing tank 126 may be referred to in some embodiments as a mixture reclaim line”). Thus, to the extent that Applicant is suggesting that “mixture reclaim line” requires specific structures—perhaps, e.g., a single pipe having two ends, with one end connected to the sample tank and the other end connected to the mixing tank—such structures are not disclosed by the specification.
Third, Applicant’s arguments fail to address the actual citations provided in the § 103 rejections. The 10/30/2025 Non-Final Action (at pg. 4 line 1) provided two citations:
lines 4, 31, 32, see Figs. 1, 5, ¶¶ 0047, 0053, 0060;
lines 4 & 90 in Fig. 6, ¶ 0113.
By focusing only on INABA’s pipe 4, Applicant fails to address the remaining citations that show how INABA teaches a “mixture reclaim line” that’s formed between sample chamber 10 and mixing tank 60. For purposes of clarity, the Examiner provides annotated Figs. 1 & 6 of INABA below:
PNG
media_image1.png
532
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against KASHKOUSH (see Remarks at 4), it’s unclear whether Applicant is attacking KASHKOUSH used in the first ground (wherein KASHKOUSH is a secondary reference) or KASHKOUSH used in the second ground (wherein KASHKOUSH is a primary reference). Regardless of the ground, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because: (1) they are not responsive to the § 103 rejections; and (2) they do not accurately represent KASHKOUSH’s teachings.
Applicant’s assertion—that KASHKOUSH is silent on “single tank configuration” because KASHKOUSH teaches “six tanks” in some “preferred embodiment” (see Remarks at 4)—is not responsive to the § 103 rejection, because the claims do not recite “single tank configuration.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Applicant presents no binding authority that says a reference’s teachings must be limited exclusively to its preferred embodiment. Additionally, Fig. 2 of KASHKOUSH clearly shows a single tank configuration, and Applicant presents no persuasive reason to ignore Fig. 2 from KASHKOUSH’s disclosures.
Applicant’s assertion—that “KASHKOUSH is silent regarding a single tank configuration including a gas sensor much less a gas sensor positioned between a mixer tank and the single tank” (see Remarks at 4)—fails to accurately represent KASHKOUSH’s teachings. Paragraph 18 of the Non-Final (citing Fig. 2 of KASHKOUSH) explains how KASHKOUSH teaches claimed elements such as “sample chamber,” “mixing tank,” and “gas sensor.” Annotated Fig. 2, provided below, clearly shows “a single tank configuration including . . . a gas sensor positioned between a mixer tank and the single tank.”
PNG
media_image3.png
621
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lastly, the remaining arguments—directed to the dependent claims—do not present any arguments specifically tailored for those dependent claims (see Remarks at 4-5).
Abstract
The abstract is objected to because it contains the character “[0001],” which should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INABA et al. (US PGPUB 20240162060), in view of KASHKOUSH et al. (US PGPUB 20070123052).
Regarding Claim 1, INABA teaches a system (see, e.g., abstract, claims 1-9, Figs. 1, 5-10, ¶¶ 0007-20, 0044-47, 0113).
INABA’s system comprises a gas generator (ozone generator 7) configured to generate a gas (see ¶ 0047).
INABA’s system comprises a mixing tank (mixer 60) configured to contain a gas-enriched chemical mixture (a mixture of treatment liquid and ozone gas, see ¶¶ 0072, 0081, Figs. 1, 5-6), wherein the mixing tank is connected to the gas generator via a gas supply line (via line 6, see Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶ 0047).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
INABA’s system comprises a sample chamber (chamber 10) configured to contain a substrate (see ¶ 0048, Figs. 1, 5-6, containing substrate W), wherein the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture reclaim line (see Figs. 1, 5, ¶¶ 0047, 0053, 0060, a collection of lines 4, 31, 32, and components in-between; see Fig. 6, ¶ 0113, a collection of lines 4, 90, and components in-between; see also annotated Figs. 1 & 6 above), wherein the mixture reclaim line is configured to return a spent volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with the substrate (see Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0047, 0053, 0060, 0113).
INABA’s system comprises a gas sensor (ozone concentration meter 25, see Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0054, 0058), wherein the gas sensor is operably connected between the mixing tank and the sample chamber (see annotated Figs. 1 & 6 above, ozone concentration meter 25 is positioned along the mixture reclaim line, which means ozone concentration meter 25 is operably connected between the mixing tank 60 and the sample chamber 10).
INABA’s system comprises a controller (controller 8, see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0047, 0074-77), operably connected to the gas sensor (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0076) and the sample chamber (see id.), wherein the controller is configured to carry out program instructions stored in a memory so as to perform operations (see ¶¶ 0074-75), the operations comprising:
receiving, from the gas sensor (concentration meter 25), information indicative of a concentration of the gas within the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see ¶ 0085, receiving information indicating an amount of ozone dissolved in the liquid); and
in response to receiving the information, controllably adjusting at least one operational aspect of the system (see ¶¶ 0085-86, 0136) so as to obtain a desired concentration of gas within the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see ¶¶ 0012, 0018, 0022, 0093-94, 0097, 0099, ozone concentration in the treatment liquid is precisely adjusted).
Although INABA does not explicitly teach that the controller 8 is operably connected to the gas generator 7, this connection is still reasonably expected because INABA teaches that: controller 8 controls the various components of the substrate treatment apparatus and the various operations of the apparatus (see ¶¶ 0047, 0074-76), wherein controller 8 controls several explicitly listed components “and the like” (see ¶ 0076).
Alternatively, if INABA’s teachings do not clearly envisage connecting the controller to the gas generator, it still would’ve been obvious to do so. INABA already teaches a gas generator for generating ozone gas (see ¶ 0047), and automation is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04.III. Moreover, INABA already teaches a controller connected to various components of the substrate treatment apparatus for controlling the various operations of the apparatus (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0047, 0074-76). Therefore, connecting the controller to the gas generator amounts to a simple and obvious modification that would’ve yielded the predictable result of automating the operation of generating ozone gas.
INABA also teaches a mixture dispense line (see Figs. 1, 5-6; see also annotated Fig. 6 below) connected to the mixing tank (mixer 60), wherein the mixture dispense line is configured to supply a dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture from the mixing tank to the substrate positioned inside the sample chamber (see Figs. 1, 5-6; see also annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
441
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
INABA does not explicitly teach that the mixing tank (mixer 60) is positioned outside the sample chamber (chamber 10) such that “the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture dispense line” and the mixture dispense line is configured to supply a dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture “to the sample chamber.” But this arrangement is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. For example, KASHKOUSH teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see Figs. 1-2) comprising: a mixing tank (mixer 50 or 51, see Figs. 1-2) configured to contain a gas-enriched chemical mixture (a mixture of treatment liquid and ozone gas, see ¶¶ 0061, 0071-72); a sample chamber (e.g., tank 60, tank 80, chamber 210) configured to contain a substrate (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052, 0085); wherein the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture dispense line (see Figs. 1-2); wherein the mixture dispense line is configured to supply a dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture to the sample chamber (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052-53, 0085-86).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify INABA to rearrange the mixing tank (INABA’s mixer 60) to a position outside the sample chamber (INABA’s chamber 10)— such that “the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture dispense line” and the mixture dispense line supplies the gas-enriched chemical mixture “to the sample chamber”—with reasonable expectation of supplying the mixture.
First, rearrangement of parts is considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.) and INABA already teaches the mixing tank, the sample chamber, and the mixture dispense line. The mixing tank (INABA’s mixer 60) as rearranged would still perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying mixture to substrate), thereby yielding predictable results.
Second, it’s already well known in the art to position the mixing tank outside the sample chamber such that the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture dispense line and the mixture dispense line supplies the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the sample chamber (see KASHKOUSH). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the sample chamber (INABA’s chamber 10) is configured to dispense the dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture onto the substrate (see INABA at Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0048, 0072, 0080-81).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the gas-enriched chemical mixture comprises an infused gas portion and a liquid portion, wherein the infused gas portion comprises ozone (see INABA at Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0072, 0080-81, 0088, 0134-35), and wherein the liquid portion comprises hydrofluoric acid (see INABA at ¶¶ 0124, 0129-31).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches the operations comprises: in response to receiving a dispense command (see INABA at ¶¶ 0074-75, controller 8 executes the control program to perform various control operations for the substrate treatment; see id. at Fig. 2, ¶ 0076, ozone gas valve 40 is under the control of controller 8), controllably adjusting at least one operational aspect of the gas generator (see id. at ¶ 0080, the substrate treatment includes opening ozone gas valve 40); and subsequently dispensing a dispensed volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the sample chamber (see id. at ¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the mixture reclaim line comprises a return pump (e.g., INABA’s pumps 34 & 36 in Figs. 1 & 5; INABA’s pump 91 in Fig. 6) configured to pump the spent volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with the substrate (see INABA at Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0062, 0113).
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KASHKOUSH et al. (US PGPUB 20070123052), in view of INABA et al. (US PGPUB 20240162060).
Regarding Claim 1, KASHKOUSH teaches a system (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052, 0085).
PNG
media_image3.png
621
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KASHKOUSH’s system (see Figs. 1-2) comprises:
a gas generator (ozone generator 11) configured to generate a gas (see ¶ 0061);
a mixing tank (e.g., mixer 50, mixer 51) configured to contain a gas-enriched chemical mixture (see ¶¶ 0061, 0071-72), wherein the mixing tank is connected to the gas generator via a gas supply line (see Figs. 1-2, a supply line between mixer 50 and ozone generator 11, a supply line between mixer 51 and ozone generator 11);
a sample chamber (e.g., tank 60, tank 80, chamber 210) configured to contain a substrate (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052-53, 0085-86), wherein the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture dispense line (see Fig. 1, a supply line between tank 60 and mixer 50, a supply line between tank 80 and mixer 51; see Fig. 2, a supply line between chamber 210 and mixer 50, a supply line between chamber 210 and mixer 51), wherein the mixture dispense line is configured to supply a dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture to the sample chamber (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052-53, 0085-86);
a gas sensor (concentration sensor 140, 141, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0058, 0063, 0072) operable connected between the mixing tank and the sample chamber (see Fig. 1, sensor 140 is between mixing tank 50 and sample chamber 60, sensor 141 is between mixing tank 51 and sample chamber 80; see Fig. 2, sensor 140 is between mixing tank 50 and sample chamber 210, sensor 141 is between mixing tank 51 and sample chamber 210); and
a controller (see ¶¶ 0060, 0085), operably connected to the gas generator, the gas sensor, and the sample chamber (see ¶ 0060, all components of system 100 are coupled to a controller; see ¶ 0085, system 200 has the same controller functionality as system 100), wherein the controller is configured to carry out program instructions stored in a memory so as to perform operations (see ¶ 0060), the operations comprising:
receiving, from the gas sensor, information indicative of a concentration of the gas within the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see ¶ 0063, receiving information indicating the concentration of ozone in the mixture; see ¶ 0072, similar teachings); and
in response to receiving the information, controllably adjusting at least one operational aspect of the system so as to obtain a desired concentration of gas within the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see ¶ 0063, adjusting one or more MFCs to achieve the desired ozone concentration; see ¶ 0072, similar teachings).
KASHKOUSH does not explicitly teach: “wherein the sample chamber is connected to the mixing tank via a mixture reclaim line, wherein the mixture reclaim line is configured to return a spent volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with the substrate.” But these features are already taught by INABA. For example, INABA teaches a sample chamber 10 connected to a mixing tank 60 via a mixture reclaim line (see Fig. 6, a collection of lines 4, 90, and components in-between), wherein the mixture reclaim line is configured to return a spent volume of a gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with a substrate (see Fig. 6, ¶ 0113). The mixture reclaim line provides the benefit of recovering the treatment liquid for reuse (see Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0010, 0016, 0090, 0093, 0131).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KASHKOUSH to incorporate a mixture reclaim line connected to the sample chamber and the mixing tank, with reasonable expectation of recovering the treatment liquid. First, the mixture reclaim line provides the benefit of recovering the treatment liquid for reuse; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such mixture reclaim line into KASHKOUSH’s system. Second, it's well known in the art for the sample chamber to be connected to the mixing tank via a mixture reclaim line, which is configured to return a spent volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with the substrate (see INABA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the sample chamber (e.g., tank 60, tank 80, chamber 210 of KASHKOUSH) is configured to dispense the dispensed volume of gas-enriched chemical mixture onto the substrate (see KASHKOUSH at Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0052, 0085-86).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of claim 1. The combination teaches that the gas-enriched chemical mixture comprises an infused gas portion and a liquid portion, wherein the infused gas portion comprises ozone (see KASHKOUSH at ¶ 0061) and the liquid portion comprises an acid (e.g., sulfuric acid, see KASHKOUSH at ¶ 0061). In other words, the combination teaches the gas-enriched chemical mixture may be an acid ozone mixture, such as a sulfuric acid ozone mixture (“SOM”).
KASHKOUSH does not explicitly teach that the acid in the acid ozone mixture is hydrofluoric acid (HF). But HF ozone mixture (“FOM”) and H2SO4 ozone mixture (“SOM”) are generally considered analogous mixtures for treating substrates. See INABA at ¶ 0124.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to substitute sulfuric acid with hydrofluoric acid in the acid ozone mixture, with reasonable expectation of cleaning/etching substrates. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. It’s well known in the art to use acids such as HF and H2SO4 to form acid ozone mixtures (see INABA at ¶ 0124) for the purposes of cleaning/etching substrates (see id.). Therefore, substituting H2SO4 with HF in the acid ozone mixture would yield the predictable result of cleaning/etching substrates.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of claim 1. The combination teaches the operations further comprise: in response to receiving a dispense command (see KASHKOUSH at ¶¶ 0060-61), controllably adjusting at least one operational aspect of the gas generator (see id. at ¶¶ 0061, 0071, activate ozone generator and set MFC 31; see also ¶ 0085, same controller functionality for system 200); and subsequently dispensing a dispensed volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the sample chamber (see id. at ¶¶ 0062, 0072; see also ¶ 0085, same controller functionality for system 200).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture reclaim line connected to the sample chamber and the mixing tank. The combination also teaches wherein the mixture reclaim line comprises a return pump (e.g., INABA’s pumps 34 & 36 in Figs. 1 & 5; INABA’s pump 91 in Fig. 6) configured to pump the spent volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank after interaction with the substrate (see INABA at Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶ 0062, 0113).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of KOMORI (US PGPUB 20230167551).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a gas generator and a controller.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the gas generator is connected to a mass flow controller (MFC) configured to supply gas from a gas source to the gas generator, and wherein the MFC is operably connected to the controller.”
But these features are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. For example, KOMORI teaches an ozone supply system comprising a gas generator 122 connected to a MFC 121 configured to supply gas from a gas source 120 to the gas generator 122 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0021), wherein the MFC is operably connected to a controller 160 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0031). The MFC provides the benefit of controlling the flow rate of oxygen gas supplied to the ozone generator, which in turn controls the generation of ozone gas (see ¶¶ 0023-24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH to incorporate a mass flow controller (MFC) connected to the gas generator (i.e., INABA’s ozone generator 7) and the controller (i.e., INABA’s controller 8), with reasonable expectation of controlling ozone generation. First, the MFC provides the benefit of controlling the flow rate of oxygen gas supplied to the ozone generator, which in turn controls the generation of ozone gas; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such MFC to control ozone generation in INABA’s ozone generator 7. Second, it’s well known in the art for an ozone supply system to comprise a MFC connected to a gas generator, wherein the MFC is configured to supply gas from a gas source to the gas generator, and wherein the MFC is operably connected to a controller (see KOMORI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the claimed elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of KOMORI (US PGPUB 20230167551).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a gas generator and a controller.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the gas generator is connected to a mass flow controller (MFC) configured to supply gas from a gas source to the gas generator, and wherein the MFC is operably connected to the controller.”
But these features are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. For example, KOMORI teaches an ozone supply system comprising a gas generator 122 connected to a MFC 121 configured to supply gas from a gas source 120 to the gas generator 122 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0021), wherein the MFC is operably connected to a controller 160 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0031). The MFC provides the benefit of controlling the flow rate of oxygen gas supplied to the ozone generator, which in turn controls the generation of ozone gas (see ¶¶ 0023-24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to incorporate a mass flow controller (MFC) connected to the gas generator (i.e., ozone generator 11 of KASHKOUSH) and the controller (i.e., controller of KASHKOUSH), with reasonable expectation of controlling ozone generation. First, the MFC provides the benefit of controlling the flow rate of oxygen gas supplied to the ozone generator, which in turn controls the generation of ozone gas; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such MFC to control ozone generation in KASHKOUSH’s ozone generator 11. Second, it’s well known in the art for an ozone supply system to comprise a MFC connected to a gas generator, wherein the MFC is configured to supply gas from a gas source to the gas generator, and wherein the MFC is operably connected to a controller (see KOMORI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the claimed elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of YAMAMOTO et al. (US PGPUB 20230236048).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line (line 363) is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve (valve 368, see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0118-19). The return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe 362) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter 367, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0117-19).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH to incorporate a return valve (along with a related recirculation pipe and filter) such that the mixture dispense line is connected to the mixing tank via the return valve, with reasonable expectation of recirculating the mixture. First, the return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe and filter) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by the filter, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe and filter) into the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH. Second, it’s well known in the art for a substrate processing apparatus to have a mixture dispense line connecting between a mixing tank and a sample chamber, wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve (along with a related recirculation pipe and filter). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is connected to the sample chamber via a dispense valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line is connected to the sample chamber via a dispense valve (valve 369, see Fig. 7, ¶ 0118). The dispense valve controls the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH to incorporate a dispense valve on the mixture dispense line, with reasonable expectation of controlling the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber. First, the dispense valve allows for controlling the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such dispense valve into the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH. Second, it’s well known in the art for a mixture dispense line to have a dispense valve. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve, and wherein the dispense valve is operably connected to the bypass valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line (line 363) is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve (valve 368, see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0118-19). The bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe 362) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter 367, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0117-19).
YAMAMOTO also teaches that the components of system 300 are controlled by a controller 200 (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0069-70), which means that bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369—both are components of system 300 (see Fig. 7)—are also controlled by controller 200, i.e., bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369 are operably connected to each other. Indeed, bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369 work together to control the flow destination of a mixture leaving mixing tank 350 (see Fig. 7, ¶ 0118).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH to incorporate a bypass valve operably connected to the dispense valve, with reasonable expectation of controlling the flow destination of the mixture. First, a bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe) into the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH. Second, by operably connecting the bypass valve and the dispense valve, it’s possible to control the flow destination of a mixture leaving the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to operably connect the bypass valve with the dispense valve. Third, it’s well known in the art for a substrate processing apparatus to have a mixture dispense line connecting between a mixing tank and a sample chamber, wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve (along with a related bypass pipe), wherein the dispense valve is operably connected to the bypass valve (see YAMAMOTO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of YAMAMOTO et al. (US PGPUB 20230236048).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line (line 363) is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve (valve 368, see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0118-19). The return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe 362) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter 367, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0117-19).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to incorporate a return valve (along with a related recirculation pipe and filter) such that the mixture dispense line is connected to the mixing tank via the return valve, with reasonable expectation of recirculating the mixture. First, the return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe and filter) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by the filter, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such return valve (along with the related recirculation pipe and filter) into the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA. Second, it’s well known in the art for a substrate processing apparatus to have a mixture dispense line connecting between a mixing tank and a sample chamber, wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a return valve (along with a related recirculation pipe and filter). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is connected to the sample chamber via a dispense valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line is connected to the sample chamber via a dispense valve (valve 369, see Fig. 7, ¶ 0118). The dispense valve controls the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to incorporate a dispense valve on the mixture dispense line, with reasonable expectation of controlling the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber. First, the dispense valve allows for controlling the flow of the mixture to the sample chamber; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such dispense valve into the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA. Second, it’s well known in the art for a mixture dispense line to have a dispense valve. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixture dispense line connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve, and wherein the dispense valve is operably connected to the bypass valve.”
But this feature is already well known in the art. For example, YAMAMOTO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 1 & 7, ¶¶ 0066, 0107) comprising: a sample chamber (substrate processor 100); a mixing tank (tank 350); a mixture dispense line (pipes 361 & 363) connecting between the sample chamber and the mixing tank (see Fig. 7); wherein the mixture dispense line (line 363) is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve (valve 368, see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0118-19). The bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe 362) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter 367, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0117-19).
YAMAMOTO also teaches that the components of system 300 are controlled by a controller 200 (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0069-70), which means that bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369—both are components of system 300 (see Fig. 7)—are also controlled by controller 200, i.e., bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369 are operably connected to each other. Indeed, bypass valve 368 and dispense valve 369 work together to control the flow destination of a mixture leaving mixing tank 350 (see Fig. 7, ¶ 0118).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to incorporate a bypass valve operably connected to the dispense valve, with reasonable expectation of controlling the flow destination of the mixture. First, a bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe) allows the mixture to leave the mixing tank, get filtered by a filter, and then recirculate back to the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such bypass valve (along with the related bypass pipe) into the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA. Second, by operably connecting the bypass valve and the dispense valve, it’s possible to control the flow destination of a mixture leaving the mixing tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to operably connect the bypass valve with the dispense valve. Third, it’s well known in the art for a substrate processing apparatus to have a mixture dispense line connecting between a mixing tank and a sample chamber, wherein the mixture dispense line is further connected to the mixing tank via a bypass valve (along with a related bypass pipe), wherein the dispense valve is operably connected to the bypass valve (see YAMAMOTO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of FUKUIZUMI et al. (US Patent 7144552).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixing tank configured to contain a gas-enriched chemical mixture.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the gas is injected into the gas-enriched chemical mixture via a gas injector connected to the mixing tank.”
But this feature is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. For example, FUKUIZUMI teaches a gas injector (cooling device 82) connected to a mixing tank (mixing tank 87), wherein a gas is injected into a gas-enriched chemical mixture via the gas injector (see Fig. 12, col. 8 lines 50-55). The gas injector serves as a preparation tank (see col. 8 lines 56-57) that carries out pretreatments of the mixture, such as refining the mixture (see col. 3 lines 51-55) and regulating the mixture’s temperature (see col. 8 lines 60-62, col. 4 lines 4-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH to incorporate a gas injector connected to the mixing tank, with reasonable expectation of pretreating the mixture. First, the gas injector allows the mixture to be pretreated (e.g., refined, temperature regulated) before flowing to the mixing tank; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such gas injector into the combination of INABA and KASHKOUSH. Second, it’s well known in the art for a gas injector to be connected to a mixing tank, wherein a gas is injected into a gas-enriched chemical mixture via the gas injector (see FUKUIZUMI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of INABA, KASHKOUSH, and FUKUIZUMI teaches the system of Claim 10. As explained above, the combination teaches a gas injector connected to the mixing tank. The combination also teaches that the mixing tank is connected to the gas injector via an injection line (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 1-4, col. 10 lines 11-30, gas injector 82 and mixing tank 87 are connected via lines L26, L28, L29, and L30), and wherein the injection line is configured to supply the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank (see id.).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of INABA, KASHKOUSH, and FUKUIZUMI teaches the system of Claim 11. As explained above, the combination teaches that the gas injector and the mixing tank are connected via an injection line. The combination also teaches wherein the injection line comprises:
a recirculating pump (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 19-30, recirculating pump 104) configured to pump a volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture from the mixing tank to the gas injector (see id.); and
a debubbler (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 1-10, debubbler 85) configured to remove gas bubbles from the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see id.).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of FUKUIZUMI et al. (US Patent 7144552).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA teaches the system of Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a mixing tank configured to contain a gas-enriched chemical mixture.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the gas is injected into the gas-enriched chemical mixture via a gas injector connected to the mixing tank.”
But this feature is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. For example, FUKUIZUMI teaches a gas injector (cooling device 82) connected to a mixing tank (mixing tank 87), wherein a gas is injected into a gas-enriched chemical mixture via the gas injector (see Fig. 12, col. 8 lines 50-55). The gas injector serves as a preparation tank (see col. 8 lines 56-57) that carries out pretreatments of the mixture, such as refining the mixture (see col. 3 lines 51-55) and regulating the mixture’s temperature (see col. 8 lines 60-62, col. 4 lines 4-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA to incorporate a gas injector connected to the mixing tank, with reasonable expectation of pretreating the mixture. First, the gas injector allows the mixture to be pretreated (e.g., refined, temperature regulated) before flowing to the mixing tank; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such gas injector into the combination of KASHKOUSH and INABA. Second, it’s well known in the art for a gas injector to be connected to a mixing tank, wherein a gas is injected into a gas-enriched chemical mixture via the gas injector (see FUKUIZUMI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of KASHKOUSH, INABA, and FUKUIZUMI teaches the system of Claim 10. As explained above, the combination teaches a gas injector connected to the mixing tank. The combination also teaches that the mixing tank is connected to the gas injector via an injection line (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 1-4, col. 10 lines 11-30, gas injector 82 and mixing tank 87 are connected via lines L26, L28, L29, and L30), and wherein the injection line is configured to supply the gas-enriched chemical mixture to the mixing tank (see id.).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of KASHKOUSH, INABA, and FUKUIZUMI teaches the system of Claim 11. As explained above, the combination teaches that the gas injector and the mixing tank are connected via an injection line. The combination also teaches wherein the injection line comprises:
a recirculating pump (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 19-30, recirculating pump 104) configured to pump a volume of the gas-enriched chemical mixture from the mixing tank to the gas injector (see id.); and
a debubbler (see FUKUIZUMI at Fig. 12, col. 10 lines 1-10, debubbler 85) configured to remove gas bubbles from the gas-enriched chemical mixture (see id.).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art reference(s)—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MORGAN et al. (US Patent 6017827) teaches using a debubbler to remove bubbles from a mixture of ozone gas and a liquid (see Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 9-33).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714