DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending.
This is in response to the amendments filed 12/30/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC§ 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oklejas, Jr, that is found to provide a flow meter on a drain pipe.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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.
Since applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds for rejections, this action has been made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the prior action. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a preparation unit”, “a concentration control unit”, and “a flow regulating mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Brammer (US 20180133665) in view of Oklejas, Jr. (US 8691086).
Regarding claim 1, Brammer disclose a device (200, see Fig. 2) for supplying liquid for semiconductor manufacturing (para.0041), comprising: a supply pipe (the pipe labeled as “DI water IN” at the top of the figure), supplying a solvent (“DI water”); a preparation unit (V6,B1), preparing liquid for semiconductor manufacturing with predetermined concentration by adding a predetermined amount of a chemical solution to the solvent (NH3 mixing into B1 with DI water, para.0059); a concentration control unit (LAH,LAL, para.0069), managing the preparation unit so that the liquid for semiconductor manufacturing has predetermined concentration of the chemical solution, wherein the supply pipe branches into a drain pipe ( the pipe from the bottom of B1 towards V11 and “drain”) connected to the supply pipe at a stage subsequent to the concentration control unit and a main pipe (the pipe from the bottom of B1 towards FR21) communicating from the drain pipe to a point of use (the outlets connected to V8), and the main pipe is provided with a first flow meter (FR21, para.0072), and the drain pipe is provided with a flow-regulating mechanism (V11) capable of responding to a measured value of the first flow meter (in that V11 is configured in a similar manner to V31/V6).
Brammer is silent to having the drain pipe being provided with a second flow meter.
Oklejas, Jr. teach the use of a drain pipe (16) provided with a flow meter (148, see Fig. 3, col. 4, lns. 30-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ a flow meter as taught by Oklejas, Jr. into the device of Brammer to have the drain pipe being provided with a second flow meter, in order measure the flow rate out of the drain pipe, and if necessary operate a pump (Oklejas, Jr. col. 7, lns. 36-43).
Regarding claim 2, Brammer disclose a flow rate of the main pipe is capable of being controlled by setting a total flow rate of the main pipe and the drain pipe to approximately a maximum usage amount at the point of use and varying a flow rate of the drain pipe by the flow-regulating mechanism (the flow rate of the main pipe is capable as such since there exists a flow path within the main pipe to permit the limitations for controlling the flow).
Regarding claim 3, Brammer disclose the flow-regulating mechanism is a valve (V11 is a “2-way valve”, para.0071), and a flow rate is regulated by regulating an opening degree of the valve (as is old and well known in the art).
Regarding claim 4, Brammer disclose the flow-regulating mechanism is a flow- regulating valve or a constant pressure valve (V11 is a “drain valve” or “2-way valve”, para.0071, where either of these valves can be considered as a regulating valve or a constant pressure valve as they may regulate flow and/or be set to maintain a constant pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Brammer disclose as a means for injecting the chemical solution, a pump (at P2) or a transportation means that pressurizes a closed tank (B1 tank) filled with a chemical solution with an inert gas (from the “gas In” conduit) and pushes out the chemical solution is used (para. 0063, P2 is a booster pump).
Regarding claim 6, Brammer disclose the chemical solution is a conductive solute (para.0070), the concentration control unit comprises a conductivity meter (at Q1,para.0072) or an absorption photometer, and an amount of the chemical solution added is capable of being controlled based on a measured value of the conductivity meter (para.0073) or the absorption photometer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brammer ‘665 and Oklejas, Jr. (US 8691086) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 5896874).
Regarding claim 7, Brammer and Oklejas, Jr. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although are silent to having that the chemical solution is a non-conductive solute, the concentration control unit comprises a TOC meter or an absorption photometer, and an amount of the chemical solution added is capable of being controlled based on a measured value of the TOC meter or the absorption photometer. Nakagawa et al. teach the use of a system having the chemical solution is a non-conductive solute (pure water), the concentration control unit comprises a TOC meter or an absorption photometer (15), and an amount of the chemical solution added is capable of being controlled based on a measured value of the TOC meter or the absorption photometer (“continuously measured by the absorption photometer 15,Col. 8,lns. 53-col.9,lns.41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ a system as taught by Nakagawa et al. into the combined device of Brammer and Oklejas, Jr. to have the chemical solution is a non-conductive solute, the concentration control unit comprises a TOC meter or an absorption photometer, and an amount of the chemical solution added is capable of being controlled based on a measured value of the TOC meter or the absorption photometer, in order to have a system that provides a solution that is continuously monitored in real time that reduces downtime and increases yield productivity (Nakagawa et al., col. 11, lns. 10-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753