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 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.
(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(s) 1, 3-5, 9-10, 13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara et al. (JP 2021-68661 A, with a machine translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses (Figure 1-6) a heat exchanger for a cleaning system, the heat exchanger comprising: a housing (11); a manifold coupled to and at least partially extending into the housing ( the structure within the housing 11 for directing airflow to and from the lamp 51, specifically at exhaust chamber 32, conduit at exhaust path 31 and shields 52, which direct airflow from the inlet at intake holes 21 to the exhaust path 31 per paragraph 0019 of the machine translation provided by the examiner), the manifold further comprising: a manifold body extending between a first manifold end and a second manifold end (the end adjacent sidewall 11d and the end adjacent lamp 51 respectively); and a manifold channel formed within the manifold body (for airflow from exhaust chamber 32 and to flow out exhaust path 31); a light source operatively coupled to the second manifold end of the manifold (at lamp 51); a fluid inlet fluidly coupled to the manifold channel (at intake holes 21) ; and a fluid outlet fluidly coupled to the manifold channel (at the outlet from exhaust path 31); wherein the fluid inlet is positioned to direct a fluid onto the second manifold end of the manifold to cool the light source (the lamp 51 is cooled by air from intake holes 21 passing down to the second end of the manifold at the shields 52 adjacent the lamp 51 as seen by the flow arrows in figure 5 and 6 and described in paragraphs 0031-0036).
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Ishihara further discloses a plurality of flanges extend radially outward from the first manifold end of the manifold (at the portion of the manifold formed by sidewall 11b on which the intake holes 21 are disposed as seen in figure 1-3) .
Regarding claim 4, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 3 above and Ishihara further discloses a rim is formed on the housing (as the rim is broadly defined this can be interpreted as the rim of sidewalls 11c on which sidewall 11b is disposed or the rim of sidewall 11a which is connected to sidewall 11b by hinges 11d as seen in figure 1-3 and per paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 4 above and Ishihara further discloses a plurality of fasteners extend through the plurality of flanges of the manifold and the rim of the housing to form a seal between the housing and the manifold (at hinges 11d which allow the housing to be closed or opened per paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Ishihara further discloses the fluid directed onto the second manifold end of the manifold further traverses the manifold channel to generate an annular convection zone to cool the light source (as this annular convection zone is broadly defined this could simply be the air flowing up the exhaust chamber 32 and conduit to conduct the heated air way from the heat source at the lamp 51).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Ishihara further discloses the fluid inlet further includes a nozzle that directs fluid onto the second manifold end of the manifold (At the opening for the inlet 21).
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara discloses (Figure 1-6) a cleaning system (where the disclosed light source can be used in a cleaning system per paragraph 0002) comprising: a chamber including a plurality of optical components (the space into which the light from the ultraviolet irradiation device 10 is projected) ; a heat exchanger coupled to the chamber, the heat exchanger comprising: a housing (11); a manifold coupled to and at least partially extending into the housing ( the structure within the housing 11 for directing airflow to and from the lamp 51, specifically at exhaust chamber 32, conduit at exhaust path 31 and shields 52, which direct airflow from the inlet at intake holes 21 to the exhaust path 31 per paragraph 0019 of the machine translation provided by the examiner), the manifold further comprising: a manifold body extending between a first manifold end and a second manifold end (the end adjacent sidewall 11d and the end adjacent lamp 51 respectively); and a manifold channel formed within the manifold body (for airflow from exhaust chamber 32 and to flow out exhaust path 31); a light source fixedly coupled to the second manifold end of the manifold (at lamp 51); such that the light source directs a light onto at least one of the plurality of optical components of the chamber (as optical components are only very broadly claimed this can be components that possesses optical properties in some way such as the semiconductor components that are being cleaned or any other object that possesses es some optical property that the light from the lamp 51 shines onto); a fluid inlet fluidly coupled to the manifold channel (at intake holes 21) ; and a fluid outlet fluidly coupled to the manifold channel (at the outlet from exhaust path 31); wherein the fluid inlet is positioned to direct a fluid onto the second manifold end of the manifold to cool the light source (the lamp 51 is cooled by air from intake holes 21 passing down to the second end of the manifold at the shields 52 adjacent the lamp 51 as seen by the flow arrows in figure 5 and 6 and described in paragraphs 0031-0036).
Regarding claim 16, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 13 above and Ishihara further discloses the fluid directed onto the second manifold end of the manifold further traverses the manifold channel to generate an annular convection zone to cool the light source (as this annular convection zone is broadly defined this could simply be the air flowing up the exhaust chamber 32 and conduit to conduct the heated air way from the heat source at the lamp 51).
Regarding claim 20, Ishihara discloses (Figure 1-6) a method of cooling a light source of a heat exchanger for a cleaning system, the method comprising: directing a fluid through a fluid inlet (at intake holes) fluidly coupled to a manifold of the heat exchanger ( the structure within the housing 11 for directing airflow to and from the lamp 51, specifically at exhaust chamber 32, conduit at exhaust path 31 and shields 52, which direct airflow from the inlet at intake holes 21 to the exhaust path 31 per paragraph 0019 of the machine translation provided by the examiner), expelling the fluid from the fluid inlet and onto a second manifold end of the manifold on which the light source is coupled (the end adjacent lamp 51); generating an impingement cooling zone on the second manifold end of the manifold to cool the light source (the lamp 51 is cooled by air from intake holes 21 passing down to the second end of the manifold at the shields 52 adjacent the lamp 51 as seen by the flow arrows in figure 5 and 6 and described in paragraphs 0031-0036, where the space directly around the lamp 51 over which air flows would be the impingement zone); directing the fluid through a manifold channel formed in the manifold (for airflow from between the heat shields 52 to through exhaust chamber 32 and to flow out exhaust path 31); generating an annular convection zone within the manifold channel to cool the light source (as this annular convection zone is broadly defined this could simply be the air flowing up the exhaust chamber 32 and conduit to conduct the heated air way from the heat source at the lamp 51); and flushing the fluid from the heat exchanger via a fluid outlet fluidly coupled to the manifold (at the outlet from exhaust path 31).
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) 2, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (JP 2021-68661 A, with a machine translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above however Ishihara does not explicitly disclose further discloses the light source is a light emitting diode.
Using a light emitting diode as a light source is notoriously well known in the art. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the notoriously well-known nature of light emitting diodes as a light source that is capable of being a ultraviolet, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was made to employ a light emitting diode as an alternative light source.
Regarding claim 11, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above, however Ishihara does not disclose the fluid inlet includes a fluid inlet diameter and the manifold channel includes a manifold channel diameter, and a ratio of the manifold channel diameter to the fluid inlet diameter is between 1.0-2.5, as Ishihara is silent as to any specific dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ishihara to have a ratio of the manifold channel diameter to the fluid inlet diameter is between 1.0-2.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ishihara. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since the both diameters represent an opening from which fluid could flow the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (per paragraph 0043 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 12, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above, however Ishihara does not disclose a fluid inlet diameter and the fluid inlet is positioned a distance from the second manifold end, and a ratio of the distance to the fluid inlet diameter is between 0.1-1.0, as Ishihara is silent as to any specific dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ishihara to have a ratio of the distance to the fluid inlet diameter is between 0.1-1.0 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ishihara. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameter to distance from the second end and since diameter of the inlet appears to be smaller than the distance between tin inlet and the second end the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter and distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (per paragraph 0042 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 14, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 13 above, however Ishihara does not disclose the fluid inlet includes a fluid inlet diameter and the manifold channel includes a manifold channel diameter, and a ratio of the manifold channel diameter to the fluid inlet diameter is between 1.0-2.5, as Ishihara is silent as to any specific dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ishihara to have a ratio of the manifold channel diameter to the fluid inlet diameter is between 1.0-2.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ishihara. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since the both diameters represent an opening from which fluid could flow the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (per paragraph 0043 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 15, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 13 above, however Ishihara does not disclose a fluid inlet diameter and the fluid inlet is positioned a distance from the second manifold end, and a ratio of the distance to the fluid inlet diameter is between 0.1-1.0, as Ishihara is silent as to any specific dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ishihara to have a ratio of the distance to the fluid inlet diameter is between 0.1-1.0 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ishihara. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameter to distance from the second end and since diameter of the inlet appears to be smaller than the distance between tin inlet and the second end the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter and distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (per paragraph 0042 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 17, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 13 above however Ishihara does not explicitly disclose further discloses the light source is a light emitting diode.
Using a light emitting diode as a light source is notoriously well known in the art. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the notoriously well-known nature of light emitting diodes as a light source that is capable of being a ultraviolet, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was made to employ a light emitting diode as an alternative light source.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (JP 2021-68661 A, with a machine translation provided by the examiner) in view of Morimoto et al. (JP 2004-265770 A, with a machine translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 1 above, however Ishihara does not disclose a gas inlet fluidly coupled to the housing and a gas outlet fluidly coupled to the housing, such that a gas may be passed through a cavity formed between the housing and the manifold. As the inlets and outlets disclosed in claim 1 above are for a fluid and the gas inlet and outlet imply a different fluid.
Morimoto discloses (Figure 1 and 9) an cooled excimer lamp (1) similar to the cooled excimer lamp Ishihara (51) where the lamp of Morimoto has a separate inlet and outlet from the cooling fluid that comprises a gas inlet (inlet port 31) fluidly coupled to a housing and a gas outlet (outlet port 32) fluidly coupled to the housing, such that a gas may be passed through a cavity formed between the housing and the manifold (a cavity within the lamp casing 3 between the lamp casing and the cooling structure at the cooling block 4, which is filled with an inert gas per paragraphs 0006 and 0021 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the lamp of Ishihara to include the gas inlet and outlet as taught by Morimoto. Doing so would provide a structure so that ultraviolet rays are not absorbed by the casing as recognized by Morimoto (per paragraph 0006 and 0021).
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 6 above, and Morimoto further discloses the gas inlet is a vacuum fitting (per paragraph 0006 and 0021).
Regarding claim 18, Ishihara disclose the claim limitations of claim 13 above, however Ishihara does not disclose a gas inlet fluidly coupled to the housing and a gas outlet fluidly coupled to the housing, such that a gas may be passed through a cavity formed between the housing and the manifold. As the inlets and outlets disclosed in claim 1 above are for a fluid and the gas inlet and outlet imply a different fluid.
Morimoto discloses (Figure 1 and 9) an cooled excimer lamp (1) similar to the cooled excimer lamp Ishihara (51) where the lamp of Morimoto has a separate inlet and outlet from the cooling fluid that comprises a gas inlet (inlet port 31) fluidly coupled to a housing and a gas outlet (outlet port 32) fluidly coupled to the housing, such that a gas may be passed through a cavity formed between the housing and the manifold (a cavity within the lamp casing 3 between the lamp casing and the cooling structure at the cooling block 4, which is filled with an inert gas per paragraphs 0006 and 0021 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the lamp of Ishihara to include the gas inlet and outlet as taught by Morimoto. Doing so would provide a structure so that ultraviolet rays are not absorbed by the casing as recognized by Morimoto (per paragraph 0006 and 0021).
Regarding claim 19, Ishihara as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 18 above, and Morimoto further discloses the gas inlet is a vacuum fitting (per paragraph 0006 and 0021).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ishihara et al. (JP 2021-68661 A) in view of Morimoto et al. (JP 2004-265770 A disclose the bulk of the claim limitations, however Morimoto is silent as to the gas outlet including a sinter filter, and it would not be obvious to modify Morimoto even if an additional reference was found as Morimoto is already modifying the base reference of Ishihara. No additional prior art discloses the gas inlet and outlet as claimed combined with a sinter filter at the gas outlet that appears combinable with the heat exchanger for a light source of a cleaning system. Therefore for at least these reasons claim 8 does not appear to be clearly taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasges et al. (US 20240308880 A1), Fujioka et al. (US 20210322593 A1), Ikuta (US 20070295355 A1), Jinbo et al. (US 6507031 B1), disclose relevant fluid flow/cooling systems for ultraviolet cleaning structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763