DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 11/14/2024.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are pending and have been examined.
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
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180028383A (“KR’383”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) in view of Takayanagi et al. (US 2015/0090340 A1).
Re claim 1, KR’383 discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a chamber (see fig. 4, ref. 120) having a processing space;
a support unit (ref. 130) for supporting a substrate in the processing space;
a liquid discharge unit (ref. 141) for discharging a treatment solution in a liquid form onto the substrate supported on the support unit; and
a liquid supply unit (ref. 200, 201) including a tank storing the treatment solution, a supply line connecting the tank and the liquid discharge unit, and
a filter (see fig. 6 ref. 212) installed between the tank and the supply line, wherein the filter includes:
an inlet port (see fig. 6 left of ref. 212) through which the treatment solution flows into the filter from the tank;
an outlet port (see fig. 6 right of ref. 212) through which the treatment solution flows out from the filter to the liquid discharge unit; and
a vent port (ref. 213) for discharging a liquid containing bubbles to the outside of the filter.
KR’383 does not explicitly discloses the liquid supply unit further includes a circulation line which is connected to the vent port of the filter and circulates the treatment solution discharged from the vent port of the filter to a line connected to the inlet port of the filter.
However, Takayanagi teaches a circulation line (see figs. 31 ref. 112 to ref. 111, via ref. 118) which is connected to the vent port of the filter and circulates the treatment solution discharged from the vent port of the filter (at ref. V33b) to a line connected to the inlet port of the filter (ref. 118 via ref. 111).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vent port of KR’383 to further include a circulation line, as suggested by Takayanagi, in order to remov contaminants and bubbles.
Re claims 11-12, Takayanagi further discloses wherein the liquid supply unit further includes: a measurement line having one end connected to the outlet port of the filter (line to ref. 122); and a densitometer (ref. 122) installed on the measurement line, and the measurement line has the other end connected to the circulation line (ref. 118). Regarding “wherein the filter is a membrane filter”, the use of membrane filters is conventionally known in the art. Regarding
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 13 and 20 are 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: The prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the liquid supply unit includes: a drain line branched from the circulation line and draining the treatment solution discharged from the vent port; and a valve unit for controlling a flow path of the treatment solution so that the treatment solution discharged from the vent port selectively flows to the drain line or the line connected to the inlet port, in the context of claim 1 and 20.
The prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the filter further includes a drain port for discharging the internal residual treatment solution therefrom; and the liquid supply unit further includes a drain valve installed in the drain line and opening and closing a passage of the drain line, and the drain port is located at a bottom end of the filter, and when the drain valve is open, the treatment solution is drained by falling, and the vent port is located at a top end of the filter, and when the treatment solution is fully filled in the filter, the treatment solution is discharged upward, in the context of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0232460 A1 note collection of air bubbles from pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights