CTNF 18/745,271 CTNF 92284 DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-11 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-11, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,013,362 (herein ‘362). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 1 of ‘362. Claim 2 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 2 of ‘362. Claim 3 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 5 of ‘362. Claim 4 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 6 of ‘362. Claim 5 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 7 of ‘362. Claim 6 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 8 of ‘362. Claim 7 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 9 of ‘362. Claim 8 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 10 of ‘362. Claim 9 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 11 of ‘362. Claim 10 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 1 of ‘362. Claim 11 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 10 of ‘362. Claim 17 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 17 of ‘362. Claim 18 of the Instant Application is rejected over Claim 19 of ‘362. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa et al. (US 2022/0341805 A1, Foreign Filed Sep 30, 2019, herein Ashikawa) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2005/0140946 A1, Pub. Date June 30, 2005, herein Tsuji) . Regarding Claim 1, Ashikawa teaches : An apparatus to detect a liquid (Liquid detection leakage line 1 [0043].; see Fig 6) , comprising: a first conductor ("first conductor" 10a [0054]; see Fig 6) ; a second conductor spaced apart from the first conductor in a first direction ("second conductor" 10b is spaced from "first conductor" 10a and the "first direction" is any direction in the x-y plane in Figure 6 [0054].; see Fig 6) ; and a liquid absorption material surrounding the first conductor and the second conductor (Braid 50 - "liquid absorption material" - is made of basalt fibers that absorb liquid L and surrounds "first conductor" 10a and "second conductor 10b [0041,0056].; see Fig 6) , wherein: a void is defined by the liquid absorption material between the first conductor and the second conductor (First and second conductors 10a & 10b are separated from each other by the space within liquid leakage detection line 1 and the fibers of resin yarn 40/404 [0043].; see Fig 3,6) , an axial direction of the void extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (In Figure 6, the "axial direction" is the "second direction" going into and out of the page, which is perpendicular to the "first direction".; see Fig 6) , and the liquid absorption material establishes a conductive pathway between the first conductor and the second conductor when the liquid absorption material absorbs the liquid ("Liquid" L is absorbed in braid 50, which touches "first conductor" 10a. Liquid L is also absorbed in braid 50 and passes through the openings 402 of resin yarn 40 surrounding "second conductor" 10b. When "first conductor 10a" and "second conductor" 10b are electrically connected to each other through the liquid L, then there is the measurement of a voltage indicating the electrical connection [0050].; see Fig 3 & 6) . Ashikawa does not teach : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device, However, Tsuji teaches : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device (Sensor 200 detects a surface of the cooling agent in liquid tank 81. All of this is part of the exposure system - "wafer processing device" - shown in Figure 5. The cooling agent is circulated through the reticle stage 2 and wafer stage 5 [0073].; see Fig 5) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having an apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device because it stabilizes the performance of the exposure system for manufacturing the device by maintaining the cooling capacity as taught by Tsuji ([0014]). Regarding Claim 3, Ashikawa teaches : the liquid absorption material comprises an inner surface, and the inner surface defines an elliptical area (The inner surface of braid 50 is circular - "elliptical".; see Fig 6) . Regarding Claim 8, Ashikawa teaches : a controller, wherein the controller provides a signal indicative of the liquid in the wafer processing device establishing the conductive pathway (Liquid leakage detection line 1 shows it performance in Figures 7-9 [0079]. The multimeter of [0074] measures the voltage across the conductors of detection line 1 to determine whether there is liquid connecting the two conductors [0050].) . Regarding Claim 12, Ashikawa teaches : the void is further defined by a sidewall of the first conductor (The void is defined by a sidewall of "first conductor" 10a.; see Fig 6) . Regarding Claim 13, Ashikawa teaches : the void is further defined by a sidewall of the first conductor and a sidewall of the second conductor (The void is defined by the sidewall of "first conductor" 10 and "second conductor" 10b, particularly the portions of 10b that are exposed to the void through openings 402 of yarn 40.; see Fig 6) . Regarding Claim 14, Ashikawa teaches : An apparatus to detect a liquid (Liquid detection leakage line 1 [0043].; see Fig 6) , comprising: a first conductor ("first conductor" 10a [0054]; see Fig 6) ; a second conductor spaced apart from the first conductor in a first direction ("second conductor" 10b is spaced from "first conductor" 10a and the "first direction" is any direction in the x-y plane in Figure 6 [0054].; see Fig 6) ; and a liquid absorption material surrounding the first conductor and the second conductor (Braid 50 - "liquid absorption material" - is made of basalt fibers that absorb liquid L and surrounds "first conductor" 10a and "second conductor 10b [0041,0056].; see Fig 6) , wherein: a second material, different than the liquid absorption material disposed in a space defined by the liquid absorption material between the first conductor and the second conductor (Covering material 40 - "second material" is formed of resin yarn, and is different than braid 50 - "liquid absorption material" - made of basalt fibers. Covering material 40 is within braid 50 and is between "first conductor 10a" and "second conductor 10b" [0041,0043].; see Fig 6) , wherein: an axial direction of the space extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (In Figure 6, the "axial direction" is the "second direction" going into and out of the page, which is perpendicular to the "first direction".; see Fig 6) , and the liquid absorption material establishes a conductive pathway between the first conductor and the second conductor when the liquid absorption material absorbs the liquid ("Liquid" L is absorbed in braid 50, which touches "first conductor" 10a. Liquid L is also absorbed in braid 50 and passes through the openings 402 of resin yarn 40 surrounding "second conductor" 10b. When "first conductor 10a" and "second conductor" 10b are electrically connected to each other through the liquid L, then there is the measurement of a voltage indicating the electrical connection [0050].; see Fig 3 & 6) . Ashikawa does not teach : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device However, Tsuji teaches : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device (Sensor 200 detects a surface of the cooling agent in liquid tank 81. All of this is part of the exposure system - "wafer processing device" - shown in Figure 5. The cooling agent is circulated through the reticle stage 2 and wafer stage 5 [0073].; see Fig 5), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having an apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device because it stabilizes the performance of the exposure system for manufacturing the device by maintaining the cooling capacity as taught by Tsuji ([0014]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Sakunenko et al. (US 2018/0246048 A1, Pub Aug 30, 2018, herein Sakunenko) . Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach the limitations . However, Sakunenko teaches : the liquid absorption material comprises cotton (Permeable shell 108 is made of polymer that can be braided together such as basalt or cotton [0032].) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Sakunenko by having the liquid absorption material comprises cotton because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of utilizing a braided and liquid absorbent material . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Chapman et al. (US 6,639,517 B1, Pub Oct 28, 2003, herein Chapman) . Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach the limitations . However, Chapman teaches : the liquid absorption material comprises an inner surface, and the inner surface defines a polygonal area (The inner surface of absorbent layer 105 - "liquid absorption material" - has an inner surface that defines a rectangular area [3:44]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Chapman by having the liquid absorption material comprises an inner surface, and the inner surface defines a polygonal area because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of providing a flat surface instead of a rounded surface that allows something to stably rest upon it . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Mertens et al. (US Patent 7,779,781 B2, Pub. Date August 24, 2010, herein Mertens) . Ashikawa teaches : the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface (The liquid leakage detection line 1 is provided across a pipe [0042].; see Fig 6) Ashikawa does not teach : the wafer processing device comprises an exposure lens component, However, Tsuji teaches : the wafer processing device comprises an exposure lens component (The exposure system of Figure 5 - "wafer processing device" - comprises optical projection system PL - "exposure lens".; see Fig 5 & [0080]) , It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having the wafer processing device comprises an exposure lens component because it is a known technique to use exposure lenses in wafer processing devices to yield the predictable result of forming circuit patterns on a wafer. Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach: the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the exposure lens component. However, Mertens teaches : The Examiner is combining Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Mertens by placing sensors of Figure 6 of Ashikawa in the positions of sensors 121 of Figure 5 of Mertens. the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the exposure lens component (Detector 121 senses whether the immersion liquid has risen above a certain level that is partially defined by the projection system PL.; see Fig 5 & [8:17-51]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Mertens by having the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the exposure lens component because it allows for the detection of a leakage of immersion liquid if the immersion liquid exceeds a certain level with respect to the immersion head and projection system as taught by Mertens ([8:17-51]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Ootani et al. (WO 2020/022069 A1, Pub. Date January 30, 2020, herein Ootani) . Ashikawa teaches : the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface (The liquid leakage detection line 1 is provided across a pipe [0042].; see Fig 6) Ashikawa does not teach : the wafer processing device comprises a cool plate However, Tsuji teaches : the wafer processing device comprises a cool plate (In the exposure system of Figure 5, the cooling agent is circulated through reticle stage 2 and the wafer stage 5, which are "cool plates".; see [0069]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having the wafer processing device comprises a cool plate because by maintaining a temperature of the reticle and wafer stages at particular levels the resolution of the optical characteristics of the optical projection system can be maintained as taught by Tsuji ([0008-0009]). Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach: the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the cool plate However, Ootani teaches : The Examiner is combining Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Ootani by placing the sensor of Figure 6 of Ashikawa in the positions of sensors 25 of Figure 3 of Ootani. the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the cool plate (Leak sensor 25 detects water leakage on the upper surface of water cooling plate 2.; see Fig 1-3 & [p.2]; see explanation below) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Ootani by having the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the cool plate because it is a known technique to have a leak sensor on a cooling plate to yield the predictable result of determining whether water is leaking from the cooling channel . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Kanaya (US 2009/0284716 A1, Pub. Date November 19, 2009) . Ashikawa teaches : the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface (The liquid leakage detection line 1 is provided across a pipe [0042].; see Fig 6) Ashikawa does not teach : the wafer processing device comprises a wafer stage However, Tsuji teaches : the wafer processing device comprises a wafer stage (Wafer holder 41; see Fig 5 & [0055]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having the wafer processing device comprises a wafer stage because it is a known technique is wafer processing devices that yields the predictable result of holding the wafer still while circuit patterns are formed on the wafer. Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach : the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the wafer stage However, Kanaya teaches : The Examiner is combining Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Kanaya by placing the sensor of Figure 6 of Ashikawa in the positions of sensors 80a-80d of Figure 3 of Kanaya. the wafer processing device comprises a wafer stage, and the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the wafer stage (A set of liquid detecting sensors 80a-80d surround each of encoder heads 60A-60D at the corners of wafer stage WST and outside of the portion of wafer WST where the wafer W is.; see Fig 1-3 & [0047-0049]; see explanation below) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Kanaya by having the first conductor and the second conductor extend across an outer surface of the wafer stage because liquid on top of an encoder head may cause measurement errors or makes measurement by the encoder head impossible and detection of the liquid may allow a user to know that measurements may be faulty as taught by Kanaya ([0007]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Lowitz et al. (US 11,105,705 B1, Pub Aug 31, 2021, herein Lowitz) . Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach the limitations of the Claim . However Lowitz teaches : the controller provides the signal to a client device (The controller on PCB 140 of leak detector assembly 100 provides a signal to the network that forward that signal to a use with a mobile device [13:6-28], [19:42-62].; see Fig 1 & 20) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Lowitz by having the controller provides the signal to a client device because liquid on top of an encoder head may cause measurement errors or makes measurement by the encoder head impossible and detection of the liquid may allow a user to know that measurements may be faulty as taught by Raymond [0007] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 4,918,977, Apr 24, 1990, herein Takahashi) . Regarding Claim 10, Ashakawi and Tsuji do not teach the limitations of the Claim . However, Takahashi teaches : a current detector coupled to at least one of the first conductor or the second conductor, wherein the current detector is configured to detect a current flowing through the conductive pathway (Ammeter 32 - "current detector" - is coupled to "first conductor" X and "second conductor Y" and detects the current flowing through the conductive pathway between conductor X and conductor Y [13:28-36].; see Fig 17 & 18) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Takahashi by having a current detector coupled to at least one of the first conductor or the second conductor, wherein the current detector is configured to detect a current flowing through the conductive pathway because it allows for the detection of a leakage as taught by Takahashi [13:28-36]. Regarding Claim 11, Ashakawi and Tsuji do not teach the limitations of the Claim . However, Takahashi teaches : a controller coupled to the current detector, wherein the controller provides a signal indicative of the liquid in the wafer processing device (The display or dial - "controller" - of the ammeter 32 changes the number or dial position - “signal” - based on the level of current detected, which is dependent on whether liquid electrically connects the electrodes [13:28-36]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Takahashi by having a controller coupled to the current detector, wherein the controller provides a signal indicative of the liquid in the wafer processing device because it allows for the detection of a leakage as taught by Takahashi [13:28-36]. Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 10 . Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11 . Regarding Claim 17, Ashikawa teaches : A method for detecting a liquid (Liquid detection leakage line 1 detects "liquid" L [0043,0050].; see Fig 6) , comprising: surrounding a first conductor ("first conductor" 10a [0054]; see Fig 6) and a second conductor ("second conductor" 10a [0054]; see Fig 6) , spaced apart from the first conductor (10a) in a first direction (The "first direction" is any direction in the x-y plane in Figure 6 [0054].; see Fig 6) , with a liquid absorption material (Braid 50 - "liquid absorption material" - is made of basalt fibers that absorb liquid L and surrounds "first conductor" 10a and "second conductor 10b [0041,0056].; see Fig 6) , wherein: a void is defined by the liquid absorption material between the first conductor and the second conductor (First and second conductors 10a & 10b are separated from each other by the space within liquid leakage detection line 1 and the fibers of resin yarn 40/404 [0043].; see Fig 3,6) , and an axial direction of the void extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (In Figure 6, the "axial direction" is the "second direction" going into and out of the page, which is perpendicular to the "first direction".; see Fig 6) ; Ashikawa does not teach : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device However, Tsuji teaches : An apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device (Sensor 200 detects a surface of the cooling agent in liquid tank 81. All of this is part of the exposure system - "wafer processing device" - shown in Figure 5. The cooling agent is circulated through the reticle stage 2 and wafer stage 5 [0073].; see Fig 5), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashikawa in view of Tsuji by having an apparatus to detect a liquid in a wafer processing device because it stabilizes the performance of the exposure system for manufacturing the device by maintaining the cooling capacity as taught by Tsuji ([0014]). Ashikawa and Tsuji do not teach : detecting the liquid by detecting a current flowing through the first conductor and the second conductor. However, Takahashi teaches : detecting the liquid by detecting a current flowing through the first conductor and the second conductor (Ammeter 32 - "current detector" - is coupled to "first conductor" X and "second conductor Y" and detects the current flowing through the conductive pathway between conductor X and conductor Y [13:28-36].; see Fig 17 & 18) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa and Tsuji in view of Takahashi by having detecting the liquid by detecting a current flowing through the first conductor and the second conductor because it allows for the detection of a leakage as taught by Takahashi [13:28-36] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Takahashi and further in view of Gao (US 2022/0408606 A1, Filing Date June 16, 2021) . Ashikawa does not teach the limitations of the Claim . However, Tsuji teaches : the wafer processing device (Exposure system; see Fig 5 & [0073]) a liquid cooling system, configured to remove heat from the wafer processing device (Liquid cooling agent is circulated in the reticle stage 2 and the wafer stage 5 to remove heat from those areas of the device.; see Fig 5 & [0069]) Ashikawa, Tsuji and Takahashi do not teach : in response to detecting the liquid in the device, disconnecting a liquid cooling system from a liquid supply. However, Gao teaches : in response to detecting the liquid in the device, disconnecting a liquid cooling system from a liquid supply (When leak-detection sensors S detect fluid leaks in the fluid module 200, then the inlet 208 of module 200 is cut off from fluid flow through supply line 218.; see Fig 2 & [0041]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa, Tsuji and Takahashi in view of Gao by having in response to detecting the liquid in the device, disconnecting a liquid cooling system, configured to remove heat from the device, from a liquid supply because it reduces or eliminates the impact of the leaking module on the overall system as taught by Gao ([0025]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashikawa in view of Tsuji and further in view of Takahashi and further in view of Yates et al. (US 5,708,363, Pub Jan 13, 1998, herein Yates) . Regarding Claim 19, Ashakawi, Tsuji and Takahashi do not teach the limitations . However, Yates teaches : determining a composition of the liquid based upon the current (Determining the current and conductivity of the liquid allows one to know how many dissolved ions are present in the liquid [1:10-26].) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa, Tsuji and Takahashi in view of Yates by having determining a composition of the liquid based upon the current because it determining a liquids conductivity allows for one to infer the quality of the liquid as taught by Yates [1:23-26]. Regarding Claim 20, Ashakawi, Tsuji and Takahashi do not teach the limitations . However, Yates teaches : determining a conductivity of the liquid based upon the current (A liquid's conductivity can be monitored by placing a sensor having two electrodes within the liquid, applying a known dc voltage across the electrodes, and measuring the resulting dc current [1:23-26].) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ashikawa, Tsuji and Takahashi in view of Yates by having determining a conductivity of the liquid based upon the current because it determining a liquids conductivity allows for one to infer the quality of the liquid as taught by Yates [1:23-26]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, EST. 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 03/17/2026 /A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/745,271 Page 19 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights