DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/4/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending, Claims 1-7 are withdrawn, and Claims 8-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 8-20, in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 lines 7-8 recites “pressured gas is supplied to the sealed pressure tank and is pressurized” should read “pressured gas is supplied to the sealed pressure tank and the sealed pressure tank is pressurized”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2017/0312794 A1).
Re claim 8, Park discloses a method of processing a substrate using a pressure tank (ref. 520, abstract) disposed on a liquid supply line (ref. 510) configured to supply liquid and connected to a circulation line (ref. 524) in which liquid stored therein circulates while being heated (ref. 530) and an exhaust line (ref. 550), the method comprising: a liquid supply standby operation in which, by closing the exhaust line (inherent in regulates the pressure inner space ¶ [0061]), pressured gas is supplied to the sealed pressure tank and is pressurized (¶ [0061], [0064]; see also ¶ [0068] S200)), and liquid in the pressure tank circulates in the pressure tank while being heated through the circulation line (¶ [0060], [00064]; see also ¶ [0069] S300); and a liquid supply operation in which liquid is supplied to a substrate in a process chamber through the pressure tank (¶ [0063]; see also ¶ [0070] S400).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2017/0312794 A1).
Re claim 9, Regarding “wherein the method further includes a liquid supply preparation operation in which the exhaust line is gradually opened after the liquid supply standby operation and before the liquid supply operation”, the term “gradually opened” is a relative term and it is generally understood to those of ordinary skill in the art that no valve operation is instantaneous, thus operation of a valve satisfies “gradually opened” during the discharging step. Further, it simply being generally known to those of ordinary skill in the art to prevent splatter or knocking by gradually/slowly regulating the rate of pressure changes.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2017/0312794 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2022/0208568 A1).
Re claims 10-11, Park disclose as shown above but does not disclose wherein an exhaust open/close valve and a relief valve disposed on the exhaust line are opened in the liquid supply preparation operation, the exhaust open/close valve and the relief valve are maintained in an open state in the liquid supply operation, and the exhaust open/close valve and the relief valve are closed in the liquid supply standby operation. However, Ha teaches it is well-known in the substrate processing art (abstract) provide an exhaust open/close valve (ref. 4113 and 4116) on an exhaust line closed during liquid supply standby operation/circulation (¶ [0066], [0082] closed while supplying the gas to the inner space), and open after pressure is reached for purposes of maintaining a pressure (¶ [0066], [0083] opening the exhaust valve 4113….the pressure….is maintained at a predetermined pressure). Regarding “a relief valve” the substitution of a pressure regulated exhaust valve with a on-off valve and relief valve, combination, is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the same purpose of regulated pressure. Re claim 11, wherein, in the liquid supply standby operation, an output of a heating unit configured to heat liquid circulating in the pressure tank is controlled such that pressure in the pressure tank is maintained at a predetermined pressure (¶ [0084] temperature of the heater 4174 is controlled…pressure measured by the first pressure sensor 41651).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure tank of Park to further include an exhaust valve, as suggested by Ha, in order to regulate pressure during heating/pressurizing and to then maintain the desired pressure, and to further modify the regulated valve with a relief valve, in order to provide the same pressure regulation.
Re claims 12-20, Independent claim 12 defines over claim 8 only in the recitation of a second pressure tank in parallel to the first pressure tank, a second liquid supply line, a second circulation line and a second exhaust line, and wherein the first liquid supply operation and the second liquid supply standby operation are performed simultaneously, and wherein the second liquid supply operation and the first liquid supply standby operation are performed simultaneously. Ha discloses the first and second pressure tank (see fig. 3 refs. 4120 and 4130), the first and second liquid supply line (refs. 4135 and 4136), the first and second circulation line (ref. 4164, 4163), and the first and second exhaust line (refs. 4112 and 4114), and wherein the first liquid supply operation and the second liquid supply standby operation are performed simultaneously, and wherein the second liquid supply operation and the first liquid supply standby operation are performed simultaneously (¶ [0021] simultaneously with reversed operation of other tank, to provide continuous supply). Re claims 13-18, claims 13-18 recites limitations rejected above. Re claims 19-20, Ha further discloses wherein a portion of the first circulation line and a portion of the second circulation line are configured as a shared line, and in the first liquid supply standby operation or the second liquid supply standby operation, liquid circulating the first circulation line or the second circulation line is heated by a heating unit disposed in the shared line (see fig. 3, ref. 4174 is on a shared line). Re claim 20, Claim 20 reads as a combination claim of recitation rejected above and it therefore being prima facie obvious to operate valves on a gradual opening and alternating between the operation of the two tanks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170028450A1 note slowly/gradually opening regulation exhaust valve 151.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711