DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
acquisition unit (claim 1)
identification unit (claims 1 and 2)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “acquisition unit that reads from a database and acquires a concentration period” (claim 1, ¶ 3) and “identification unit that calculates a cleaning period…and searches the database for the object identification information…and then identifies object to which the retrieved object identification information is assigned” (claim 1, ¶ 4) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims (¶¶ [0022, 0025]) and Figure 1 merely illustrates the acquisition unit (100) and identification unit as black boxes connected to a database (200). For example, one skilled in the art would be unable to ascertain whether the acquisition unit and the identification unit refer to instructions, such as a computer program, to interact with a database, or whether the acquisition unit and identification unit are each a controller or computer with a processor and memory.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “acquisition unit that reads from a database and acquires a concentration period” (claim 1, ¶ 3) and “identification unit that calculates a cleaning period…and searches the database for the object identification information…and then identifies object to which the retrieved object identification information is assigned” (claim 1, ¶ 4) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims (¶¶ [0022, 0025]) and Figure 1 merely illustrates the acquisition unit (100) and identification unit as black boxes connected to a database (200). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3-5 are indefinite because of their dependence from claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2003/0159713 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Park et al. discloses an object management method that controls supply of a cleaning liquid to a cleaning tank (11; fig. 1) for cleaning objects (wafers) using a regulating valve (various valves including valves 28 and 29) installed in a flow path (58) that supplies the cleaning liquid to the cleaning tank (11) based on liquid quality of the cleaning liquid for cleaning the objects (wafers) before the cleaning liquid is supplied to the cleaning tank (cleaning solution is supplied to treating bath 11 based on liquid quality of the cleaning solution determined by liquid particle counter 42; ¶ [0076]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohira (JP 05-144787 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0159713 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ohira discloses an object management system (fig. 1), comprising: a liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) that measures liquid quality of cleaning liquid used to clean objects (water quality detectors 11a-11d measure water quality of cleaning water; Abstract, Purpose, and Constitution); a regulating valve (12a-12d) that is installed in a flow path that supplies the cleaning liquid to a cleaning tank (shut-off valves 12a-12d are installed in flow paths that supply cleaning liquid to cleaning vessels 1a-1d; fig. 1); and an open/close control unit (10) that controls opening and closing of the regulating valve (12a-12d) based on the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (valve adjusting meter 10 controls opening and closing of valves 12a-12d based on the water quality signal from water quality detectors 11a-11d; Abstract, Constitution).
Regarding claim 8, Ohira discloses wherein the opening/closing control unit (10) opens the regulating valve (12a-12d) when the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) meets a reference value and closes the regulating valve (12a-12d) when the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) does not meet the reference value (when water quality measured by water quality detectors 11a-11d is below a specified value, valves 12a-12d are closed; Abstract, Constitution).
Ohira is silent on measuring liquid quality of cleaning liquid before the cleaning liquid is supplied to the cleaning tank.
Park et al. teaches a liquid quality measurement unit (42) that measures liquid quality of cleaning liquid used to clean objects before the cleaning liquid is supplied to a cleaning tank (liquid particle counter 42 measures quality of cleaning solution used to clean wafers before cleaning solution is supplied to treating bath 11; ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Ohira with the liquid quality measurement before supply as taught in Park et al. to prevent contamination by detecting quality of cleaning solution before supply to a treating bath (¶ [0042]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohira (JP 05-144787 A) in view of Yamashita et al. (WO 2020/080461 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ohira discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 6.
Although Ohira is silent on the system including an ion exchange device, Ohira teaches the liquid quality measurement is used in cleaning water for a semiconductor manufacturing process.
Yamashita et al. teaches a liquid quality measurement unit (20) measures the liquid quality of the cleaning liquid that has passed through a non-regenerative ion exchange device (37; fig. 4) provided on a flow path of the cleaning liquid (¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Ohira to be used with a non-regenerative ion exchange device as taught in Yamashita et al. to provide ultrapure water for a semiconductor cleaning system (Yamashita et al., ¶ [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b), Applicant traverses the rejection, arguing that “the function of the acquisition unit and the identification unit are clear.” Response, page 6. However, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) states that means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The claim limitations of “an acquisition unit that reads from the database and acquires concentration period information” and “an identification unit that calculates cleaning period…and then identifies object to which the retrieved object identification information is assigned” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because, although they do not use the term “means” or “step,” the claims recite functions without sufficient structure for performing those functions. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function because it is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims (¶¶ [0022, 0025]) and Figure 1 merely illustrates the acquisition unit (100) and identification unit as black boxes connected to a database (200). Similarly, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights