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 Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 14 recites “the filtration unit connecting the filtration unit and the permeation unit”. It appears that the limitation is intended to recite, “the transfer pipeline connecting the filtration unit and the permeation unit”. This is supported by claim 1 dated 07/19/2024. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation "the third particles" in line 15 on page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2002-011664, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Seaman (US 6929532), and Liu et al. (US 2020/0101582).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi teaches a slurry polishing process having
a filtration unit 5 and a permeation unit 7 and a transfer pipeline (refer connecting conduits),
the transfer pipeline connecting the filtration unit and the permeation unit (refer fig. 1),
the permeation unit having a permeator with a permeation membrane (unit 7 is membrane separation unit) disposed therein, the permeation unit having a first channel located on one side of the permeation membrane and a second channel located on an opposite side of the permeation membrane (this is an inherent structure of membrane separation unit wherein a membrane separatees permeate from feed), the first channel having one end connected to a first pipeline that is connected to the transfer pipeline (the first channel being feed/supply to the unit 7), another end of the first channel being connected to an external storage tank (refer return 12 supplied to tank 6), wherein the slurry polishing process comprises:
introducing the polishing slurry from a polishing slurry source into the filtration unit 5 (refer fig. 2 disclosing used slurry collected in tank 4 which supplies the used slurry to filtration unit 5);
screening and filtering the filtration unit so as to remove multiple first particles with a particle size greater than a first dimension from the polishing slurry (refer page 3 disclosing filer 5 removing coarse solids);
introducing the screened and filtered polishing slurry into the permeation unit 7 (refer fig. 1); and
removing at least a portion of second particles from the polishing slurry (refer page 4 disclosing permeation unit 7 having microfiltration membrane), the second particles having a particle size of a second dimension (refer page 4 disclosing “providing filters in two or more stages and providing a filter with a large pore size in the first stage and a filter with a small pore size in the second stage”). The limitation “such that the resulting polishing slurry contains the third particles with particle sizes between the first dimension and the second dimension such that the polishing slurry has a uniform particle size distribution” does not recite any active process step(s) other than filtering slurry through the filtration unit and permeation unit that results in the resulting polishing slurry having third particles with particle sizes between the first dimension and the second dimension such that the polishing slurry has a uniform particle size distribution. Hayashi teaches the steps of filtration unit and permeation unit and therefore resulting slurry from the steps of filtration unit and permeation unit would result in the claimed third particles. Hayashi also discloses (refer pages 5-6) adjusting concentration of the slurry.
Hayashi does not teach that the permeation unit further includes an end of the second channel being connected to a third pipeline, the third pipeline connected to an external base liquid supply source, another end of the second channel being connected to a fourth pipeline, the fourth pipeline being connected to an external container.
Seaman teaches a method and apparatus for filtering a polishing slurry (Refer abstract, fig. 1), wherein slurry is supplied to a permeation unit (10) having a permeator (12) with a permeation membrane disposed therein, the permeation unit having a first channel (within lumens of the hollow/tubular membranes) located on one side of the permeation membrane and a second channel (outside lumens of the hollow/tubular membranes) located on an opposite side of the permeation membrane, the first channel having one end connected to a first pipeline (refer annotated fig. 1 below) that is connected to the transfer pipeline, , an end of the second channel being connected to a third pipeline (refer annotated fig. 1 below), the third pipeline connected to an external base liquid supply source (DI water), another end of the second channel being connected to a fourth pipeline (refer annotated fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Hayashi to provide the permeation unit having 1st pipeline, 2nd pipelines, 3rd pipeline, and 4th pipeline, wherein 1st and 2nd pipelines are connected to the first channel and 3rd and 4th pipeline are connected to the 2nd channel to improve filtration performance and enable cleaning of permeation unit by providing purging liquid as taught by Seaman. Regarding the limitations “another end of the first channel being connected to an external storage tank” and “the fourth pipeline being connected to an external container”, providing additional containers/storage tanks would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because use of storage tanks to hold liquid/slurry is well known in the art.
Modified Hayashi does not teach that the apparatus comprises a control unit and that the control unit is coupled to the filtration unit and the permeation unit. However, use of a control unit to control process of polishing slurry and recycling of polishing slurry is known in the art and taught by Liu (refer fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a control unit connected to the filtration unit and the permeation unit in the system of modified Hayashi because Liu establishes that use of control unit to control process of polishing slurry is known in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), The court held that automating a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hiroshi teaches limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. The limitation “wherein during the permeation and removal step, the pressure of the polishing slurry passing through the first channel on one side of the permeation membrane is greater than the pressure in the second channel on the other side of the permeation membrane, causing the second particles to permeate through the permeation membrane into the second channel” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that if feed side pressure is not higher than permeate side pressure, crossflow filtration would be inhibited. Therefore, providing feed side pressure higher than permeate side would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Hiroshi teaches limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Seaman further indicates that DI water can be supplied to either 3rd or 4th pipeline (refer fig. 1) and it is evident from the piping arrangement and valves that the DI water is capable of being used as a sweeping liquid for carrying away permeate containing second particles. Selecting of whether to use the DI water as carrying water or backwash water would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 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.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
