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 § 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (herein Tanabe) (US 5,833,846) in view of Lim (KR 10- 2006-006649, English Translation appended). Regarding Claims 1-2:In Figure 2, Tanabe discloses an ultrapure water production system comprising: a primary pure water tank (107) which stores primary pure water (stores deionized water that has been purified by 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106, see column 7, lines 28-55); and a subsystem (2, 108, 109, 110, henceforth referred to as SS) which is connected to the primary pure water tank to produce ultrapure water (as seen in Figure 2 and mentioned in column 8, lines 10-35), wherein unused ultrapure water of ultrapure water that has been produced in the subsystem is circulated to the primary pure water tank (as seen in Figure 2 and mentioned in column 3, lines 26-31, unused ultrapure water produced by the subsystem can be recirculated to the primary pure water tank 107), and the subsystem (SS) comprises: a boron removal device (2) filled with a boron-selective resin (as mentioned in column 8, lines 12-16 and column 7, lines 21-27, the boron removal device 2 is filled with boron-selective resin AMBERLITE IRA-743T); and a non-regenerative ion exchange device (109 filled with a ion-exchange resin corresponding to a non-regenerative ion exchange device, see column 9, lines 38-41) arranged downstream of the boron removal device (as seen in Figure 2).Tanabe is silent regarding whether the primary pure water tank (107) communicates with outside air via an air vent filter (per claims 1 and 2).However, in Figures 1-2, Lim discloses a similar ultrapure water production system wherein a pure water tank (13) comprises an air vent filter (12, any commercially available air vent filter) arranged at the top to supply outside air that has been filtered of contaminants to the inside of the tank as needed (see page 4, last paragraph). Hence, based on Lim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanabe’s primary pure water tank (107) to include an air vent filter at the top (as taught by Lim) that would allow for purified contaminant free air to be introduced into the tank as desired.Regarding Claim 3:In Figure 2, Tanabe discloses the ultrapure water production system but is silent regarding whether the air vent filter allows boron component in the outside air to pass through. However, since Lim states that any suitable commercially available air vent filter may be used (see page 4, last paragraph of Lim’s appended translation), it is a matter of choice to pick a suitable air vent filter that would filter out contaminants from outside air while allow boron component to pass through. Doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as providing a suitable air vent filter for filtering solid contaminants while allowing air to pass through (wherein air is known to contain trace amounts of boron). Regarding Claims 4 and 7:In Figure 2, Tanabe discloses the ultrapure water production system, wherein an ultraviolet oxidation device (108) is provided in the subsystem at a position downstream of the boron removal device (2) and upstream of the non-regenerative ion exchange device (as seen in Tanabe’s Figure 2, 108 is downstream of 2 and upstream of 109).Regarding Claims 5 and 8:In Figure 2, Tanabe discloses the ultrapure water production system, further comprising a primary pure water system which produces primary pure water from supplied water (water that has been purified by 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106, see column 7, lines 28-55), wherein primary pure water produced by the primary pure water system is supplied to the primary pure water tank (as seen in Figure 2).Regarding Claims 6 and 9:In the specification and Figure 2 ,Tanabe discloses a method for producing ultrapure water, comprising: installing the ultrapure water production system according to claim 1; and operating the ultrapure water production system to produce ultrapure water.Tanabe as modified by Lim is silent regarding installing the ultrapure water production system in a clean room and operating it in a clean room.However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have installed Tanabe’s modified ultrapure water production system of claim 1 in a clean room and operated it within a clean room, since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as producing ultrapure water for a clean room without requiring lengthy conduits to transfer the ultrapure water and allowing for easier access to the ultrapure water production system for maintenance. It is further noted that the environment the ultrapure water production system is operated in has no bearing directly on the ultrapure water production system and claims to these systems rely solely on the structural components and operation methods of this system for patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2018183761 – Ultrapure water production system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights