DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/30/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a vessel providing a sealable treatment space (FIG. 3 paragraph [0045] process chamber 410 closes the processing space 412 while a substrate is processed); and
a substrate supporting member positioned in the treatment space of the vessel and supporting a substrate (FIGS. 2 and 3 paragraph [0050] substrate support unit 440 supports the substrate W in the processing space 412), wherein the vessel comprises:
a through-hole formed through from an outer surface to an inner surface such that a process fluid is supplied to the treatment space (paragraph [0047] upper supply port 432 functions as a flow channel for allowing fluid to be supplied to the processing space 412); and
a pipe connection assembly provided on an outer surface on which the through-hole is formed, and provided for connection with a process fluid supply pipe (paragraph [0059] upper supply line 492).
As to claim 10, Lee teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a vessel providing a sealable treatment space through a combination of an upper body and a lower body (FIG. 3 paragraph [0045]-[0047] the process chamber 410 includes a second body 420 and a first body 430. The first body 430 and the second body 420 are coupled to each other to form the processing space 412 therein); and
a substrate supporting member positioned in the treatment space of the vessel and supporting a substrate (FIGS. 2 and 3 paragraph [0050] substrate support unit 440 supports the substrate W in the processing space 412),
wherein the upper body comprises a first through-hole formed through from an inner lower surface in contact with the treatment space to an outer upper surface (paragraph [0047] upper supply port 432 functions as a flow channel for allowing fluid to be supplied to the processing space 412), and
a first pipe connection assembly provided on the outer upper surface for connection of the first through-hole and a first process fluid supply pipe (paragraph [0059] upper supply line 492); and
the lower body comprises a second through-hole formed through from an inner top surface being in contact with the treatment space to an outer lower surface (paragraph [0057] lower supply port 422), and
a second pipe connection assembly provided on the outer lower surface for connection of the second through- hole and a second process fluid supply pipe (paragraph [0059] lower supply line 494).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki) and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis).
As to claim 2, Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the pipe connection assembly comprises: a protruding port through which the through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer surface; and a connection pipe connected to the protruding port by welding and having a joint for fitting with the process fluid supply pipe.
Ozaki teaches pipe connections with a pressure vessel (Figure 2 shows a pressure vessel 1 is connected to pipe 4). Ozaki teaches a protruding port through which the through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer surface (FIG. 2 the combination of pressure vessel 1 and nozzle 3 would read on the protruding port through which the through-hole extends); and a connection pipe connected to the protruding port by welding (FIG. 2 paragraph [0003] safe end 8 would read on the connection pipe, as one end of the safe end 8 is welded to nozzle 3 and the other end of the safe end 8 and the pipe 4 are welded together).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Ozaki. It is known to those skilled in the art to have a protruding port that extends from the outer surface in order to weld a pipe to the vessel.
Francis teaches pipe connections (column 8 line 52 pipeline system 10). Francis teaches a joint for fitting pipes together (column 8 lines 50-62 a pipeline system may include one or more pipe fittings (e.g., connectors) 18. The pipe fittings will connect two pipe segments together.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Francis. Using a pipe fitting is one of the various ways to connect to pipes together.
As to claim 9, Lee further teaches the process fluid is a supercritical fluid (paragraph [0059] the processing fluid is in a supercritical state).
Claims 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer) and Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar).
As to claim 3, Lee, Ozaki, and Francis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the pipe connection assembly further comprises: an expansion pipe provided between the protruding port and the connection pipe when diameters of the through-hole and the process fluid supply pipe are different; and
a protective cap provided to surround a weld between the protruding port and the expansion pipe and a weld between the expansion pipe and the connection pipe, and
the expansion pipe is connected to the protruding port and the connection pipe by welding.
Wimmer teaches a pipe connection fitting (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100). Wimmer teaches an expansion pipe (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100).
The combination of Lee, Ozaki, Francis and Wimmer would result in an expansion pipe provided between the protruding port and the connection pipe when diameters of the through-hole and the process fluid supply pipe are different and the expansion pipe is connected to the protruding port and the connection pipe by welding (it would have been obvious to connect pipes by welding as it is one of the many ways to connect pipes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis with an expansion pipe as taught by Wimmer. It is known in the art to use a reduction piece to connect pipes or pressure vessels of different nominal diameters or pipe inner diameters (paragraph [0050]).
Pischlar teaches a pipe connections (paragraph [0021] a welding system 10 that may be used to join polymeric components, such as a tubular member 18 and a second tubular member 20). Pischlar teaches a protective cap provided to surround a weld (paragraph [0028] compression sleeve 22 reads on the claimed protective cap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis with a protective cap as taught by Pischlar. It would have been obvious to have a sleeve to aid in the bonding of the two tubular members (paragraph [0029]) or to aid in the protection of the tubular members from heat distortion (paragraph [0028]).
As to claim 5, Ozaki and Wimmer further teach the expansion pipe has a first end portion having a first inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] second nominal diameter n2), a second end portion having a second inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] first nominal diameter n1), and a connecting portion connecting the first end portion and the second end portion (Wimmer FIG. 1 wall 101 connects the first end portion having an inner diameter and the second end portion having a second inner diameter);
the inner diameter of the protruding port is the same as an inner diameter of the through- hole (Ozaki FIG. 2 the protruding port (mainly indicated by nozzle 3) has the same inner diameter as the diameter of the through-hole); and
the inner diameter of the connecting pipe is the same as an inner diameter of the process fluid supply pipe (Ozaki FIG. 2 the inner diameter of safe end 8, which reads on the connecting pipe, has the same inner diameter as the pipe 4, which is the process fluid supply pipe).
Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer and Pischlar do not teach an inner diameter of the protruding port, and an inner diameter of the connection pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion. Wimmer’s reduction piece can accommodate the variable diameters between the inner diameter of the protruding port and the inner diameter of the connection pipe.
As to claim 8, Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer and Pischlar do not teach the through-hole has an inner diameter larger than the inner diameter of the process fluid supply pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion. It is known in the art to increase the size of a through-hole/pipe in order to change the pressure of a fluid. Wimmer’s reduction piece can accommodate the variable diameters between the through-hole and the process fluid supply pipe.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis), Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer), and Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar) as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Mori et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0205568 (henceforth referred to as Mori).
As to claim 4, Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the protective cap is provided to surround the joint.
Mori teaches a pipe connection (paragraph [0062] pipe connecting portion). Mori teaches the protective cap is provided to surround the joint (FIG. 3 paragraph [0062] a collar 30 surrounding the fitting connection part 20 is mounted over both fluid pipes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar with a protective cap surrounding the joint as taught by Mori as the protective cap is used to provide a disengagement prevention structure between two pipes (paragraph [0010]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Cipolla et al. U.S. Patent 5,165,246 (henceforth referred to as Cipolla).
As to claim 6, Lee, Ozaki, and Francis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach wherein the through-hole has roughness the same as surface roughness of an inner surface of the process fluid supply pipe.
Cipolla teaches a vessel with pipe connections (FIG. 3 shows a vessel with pipe connections). Cipolla teaches the through-hole has roughness the same as surface roughness of an inner surface of the process fluid supply pipe (column 8 lines 35-38 the inner container 4 and its associated piping has an average surface roughness of less than 20 microinches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis to have a vessel and its pipe connections with the same surface roughness as taught by Cipolla. It is known in the art to have the same surface roughness in order to prevent issues with turbulence, to reduce contamination of the fluid, and to prevent corrosion issues with the pipes.
As to claim 7, Cipolla further teaches the through-hole is electro-polished (column 8 lines 35-38 the inner container 4 and its associated piping is electropolished).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki) and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis).
As to claim 11, Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the first pipe connection assembly comprises: a first protruding port through which the first through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer upper surface; and
a first connection pipe connected to the first protruding port by welding and having a joint for fitting with the first process fluid supply pipe, and
the second pipe connection assembly comprises:
a second protruding port through which the second through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer lower surface; and
a second connection pipe connected to the second protruding port by welding and having a joint for fitting with the second process fluid supply pipe.
Ozaki teaches pipe connections with a pressure vessel (Figure 2 shows a pressure vessel 1 is connected to pipe 4). Ozaki teaches a protruding port through which the through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer surface (FIG. 2 the combination of pressure vessel 1 and nozzle 3 would read on the protruding port through which the through-hole extends); and a connection pipe connected to the protruding port by welding (FIG. 2 paragraph [0003] safe end 8 would read on the connection pipe, as one end of the safe end 8 is welded to nozzle 3 and the other end of the safe end 8 and the pipe 4 are welded together).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Ozaki. It is known to those skilled in the art to have a protruding port that extends from the outer surface in order to weld a pipe to the vessel to prevent leaking.
Francis teaches pipe connections (column 8 line 52 pipeline system 10). Francis teaches a joint for fitting pipes together (column 8 lines 50-62 a pipeline system may include one or more pipe fittings (e.g., connectors) 18. The pipe fittings will connect two pipe segments together.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Francis. Using a pipe fitting is one of the various ways to connect to pipes together.
Lee, Ozaki, and Francis do not teach the second pipe connection assembly comprises: a second protruding port through which the second through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer lower surface; and a second connection pipe connected to the second protruding port by welding and having a joint for fitting with the second process fluid supply pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
As to claim 17, Lee further teaches the process fluid is a supercritical fluid (paragraph [0059] the processing fluid is in a supercritical state).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis) as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer) and Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar).
As to claim 12, Lee, Ozaki and Francis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the first pipe connection assembly further comprises:
a first expansion pipe provided between the first protruding port and the first connection pipe when diameters of the first through-hole and the first process fluid supply pipe are different, and connected to the first protruding port and the first connection pipe by welding; and
a first protective cap provided to surround a weld between the first protruding port and the first expansion pipe and a weld between the first expansion pipe and the first connection pipe, and the second pipe connection assembly further comprises:
a second expansion pipe provided between the second protruding port and the second connection pipe when diameters of the second through-hole and the second process fluid supply pipe are different, and connected to the second protruding port and the second connection pipe by welding; and
a second protective cap provided to surround a weld between the second protruding port and the second expansion pipe and a weld between the second expansion pipe and the second connection pipe.
Wimmer teaches a pipe connection fitting (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100). Wimmer teaches a first expansion pipe (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100).
The combination of Lee, Ozaki, Francis and Wimmer would result in an expansion pipe provided between the protruding port and the connection pipe when diameters of the through-hole and the process fluid supply pipe are different and the expansion pipe is connected to the protruding port and the connection pipe by welding (it would have been obvious to connect pipes by welding as it is one of the many ways to connect pipes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis with an expansion pipe as taught by Wimmer. It is known in the art to use a reduction piece to connect pipes or pressure vessels of different nominal diameters or pipe inner diameters (paragraph [0050]).
Pischlar teaches a pipe connections (paragraph [0021] a welding system 10 that may be used to join polymeric components, such as a tubular member 18 and a second tubular member 20). Pischlar teaches a first protective cap provided to surround a weld (paragraph [0028] compression sleeve 22 reads on the claimed protective cap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis with a protective cap as taught by Pischlar. It would have been obvious to have a sleeve to aid in the bonding of the two tubular members (paragraph [0029]) or to aid in the protection of the tubular members from heat distortion (paragraph [0028]).
Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar do not teach a second expansion pipe provided between the second protruding port and the second connection pipe when diameters of the second through-hole and the second process fluid supply pipe are different, and connected to the second protruding port and the second connection pipe by welding; and a second protective cap provided to surround a weld between the second protruding port and the second expansion pipe and a weld between the second expansion pipe and the second connection pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
As to claim 14, Ozaki and Wimmer further teach the first expansion pipe has a first end portion having a first inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] second nominal diameter n2), a second end portion having a second inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] first nominal diameter n1), and a connecting portion connecting the first end portion and the second end portion (Wimmer FIG. 1 wall 101 connects the first end portion having an inner diameter and the second end portion having a second inner diameter);
the inner diameter of the first protruding port are the same as inner diameter of the first through-hole (Ozaki FIG. 2 the protruding port (mainly indicated by nozzle 3) has the same inner diameter as the diameter of the through-hole);
the inner diameter of the first connection pipe are the same as inner diameter of the first process fluid supply pipe (Ozaki FIG. 2 the inner diameter of safe end 8, which reads on the connecting pipe, has the same inner diameter as the pipe 4, which is the process fluid supply pipe); and
the first and second through-holes have an inner diameter larger than the inner diameters of the first and second process fluid supply pipes.
Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar do not teach an inner diameter of the protruding port, and an inner diameter of the connection pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion. It is known in the art to increase the size of a through-hole/pipe in order to change the pressure of a fluid. Wimmer’s reduction piece can accommodate the variable diameters between the through-hole and the process fluid supply pipe.
Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar do not teach a second expansion pipe, a second protruding port, a second connection pipe, and a second process fluid supply pipe. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis), Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer), and Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Mori et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0205568 (henceforth referred to as Mori).
As to claim 13, Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the first and second protective caps are provided to surround the joint.
Mori teaches a pipe connection (paragraph [0062] pipe connecting portion). Mori teaches the first protective cap is provided to surround the joint (FIG. 3 paragraph [0062] a collar 30 surrounding the fitting connection part 20 is mounted over both fluid pipes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer, and Pischlar with a protective cap surrounding the joint as taught by Mori as the protective cap is used to provide a disengagement prevention structure between two pipes (paragraph [0010]).
Mori does not teach the second protective cap surrounds the joint. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis) as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Cipolla et al. U.S. Patent 5,165,246 (henceforth referred to as Cipolla).
As to claim 15, Lee, Ozaki, and Francis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the first and second through-holes have roughness the same as surface roughness of inner surfaces of the first and second process fluid supply pipes.
Cipolla teaches a vessel with pipe connections (FIG. 3 shows a vessel with pipe connections). Cipolla teaches the first and second through-holes have roughness the same as surface roughness of inner surfaces of the first and second process fluid supply pipes (column 8 lines 35-38 the inner container 4 and its associated piping has an average surface roughness of less than 20 microinches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, and Francis to have a vessel and its pipe connections with the same surface roughness as taught by Cipolla. It is known in the art to have the same surface roughness in order to prevent issues with turbulence and to reduce contamination of the fluid or corrosion issues with the pipes.
As to claim 16, Cipolla further teaches the first and second through-holes are electro-polished (column 8 lines 35-38 the inner container 4 and its associated piping is electropolished).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis).
As to claim 18, Lee teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a vessel providing a sealable treatment space through a combination of an upper body and a lower body (FIG. 3 paragraph [0045]-[0047] the process chamber 410 includes a second body 420 and a first body 430. The first body 430 and the second body 420 are coupled to each other to form the processing space 412 therein); and
a substrate supporting member positioned in the treatment space of the vessel and supporting a substrate (FIGS. 2 and 3 paragraph [0050] substrate support unit 440 supports the substrate W in the processing space 412), wherein the upper body and the lower body each comprise:
a through-hole formed through from an outer surface to an inner surface such that a process fluid is supplied to the treatment space (paragraph [0047] upper supply port 432 functions as a flow channel for allowing fluid to be supplied to the processing space 412); and
a pipe connection assembly provided on an outer surface on which the through-hole is formed, and provided for connection with a process fluid supply pipe (paragraph [0059] upper supply line 492).
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the pipe connection assembly comprises: a protruding port through which the through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer surface; an expansion pipe connected to the protruding port by welding; and a connection pipe connected to the expansion pipe by welding and having a joint for fitting with the process fluid supply pipe.
Ozaki teaches pipe connections with a pressure vessel (Figure 2 shows a pressure vessel 1 is connected to pipe 4). Ozaki teaches a protruding port through which the through-hole extends and that protrudes from the outer surface (FIG. 2 the combination of pressure vessel 1 and nozzle 3 would read on the protruding port through which the through-hole extends); and a connection pipe (FIG. 2 paragraph [0003] safe end 8 would read on the connection pipe, as one end of the safe end 8 is welded to nozzle 3 and the other end of the safe end 8 and the pipe 4 are welded together).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Ozaki. It is known to those skilled in the art to have a protruding port that extends from the outer surface in order to weld a pipe to the vessel.
Wimmer teaches a pipe connection fitting (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100). Wimmer teaches an expansion pipe (FIG. 1 paragraph [0047] reduction piece 100).
The combination of Lee, Ozaki, and Wimmer would result in an expansion pipe connected to the protruding port by welding; and a connection pipe connected to the expansion pipe by welding (it would have been obvious to connect pipes by welding as it is one of the many ways to connect pipes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with an expansion pipe as taught by Wimmer. It is known in the art to use a reduction piece to connect pipes or pressure vessels of different nominal diameters or pipe inner diameters (paragraph [0050]).
Francis teaches pipe connections (column 8 line 52 pipeline system 10). Francis teaches a joint for fitting pipes together (column 8 lines 50-62 a pipeline system may include one or more pipe fittings (e.g., connectors) 18. The pipe fittings will connect two pipe segments together.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with pipe connections as taught by Francis. Using a pipe fitting is one of the various ways to connect to pipes together.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer), and Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis) as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar).
As to claim 19, Lee, Ozaki, Wimmer, and Francis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the pipe connection assembly further comprises a protective cap provided to surround a weld between the protruding port and the expansion pipe and a weld between the expansion pipe and the connection pipe.
Pischlar teaches a pipe connections (paragraph [0021] a welding system 10 that may be used to join polymeric components, such as a tubular member 18 and a second tubular member 20). Pischlar teaches a protective cap provided to surround a weld (paragraph [0028] compression sleeve 22 reads on the claimed protective cap).
Pischlar’s compression sleeve can surround a weld between the protruding port and the expansion pipe and a weld between the expansion pipe and the connection pipe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, Wimmer, and Francis with a protective cap as taught by Pischlar. It would have been obvious to have a sleeve to aid in the bonding of the two tubular members (paragraph [0029]) or to aid in the protection of the tubular members from heat distortion (paragraph [0028]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .U.S. Publication 2022/0305536 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Ozaki et al. JP H0972487 (henceforth referred to as Ozaki), Wimmer U.S. Publication 2020/0254551 (henceforth referred to as Wimmer), Francis et al. U.S. Patent 11,169,044 (henceforth referred to as Francis), and Pischlar et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0126401 (henceforth referred to as Pischlar) as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Cipolla et al. U.S. Patent 5,165,246 (henceforth referred to as Cipolla).
As to claim 20, Ozaki and Wimmer further teach the expansion pipe has a first end portion having a first inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] second nominal diameter n2), a second end portion having a second inner diameter (Wimmer FIG. 1 paragraph [0048] first nominal diameter n1), and a connecting portion connecting the first end portion and the second end portion (Wimmer FIG. 1 wall 101 connects the first end portion having an inner diameter and the second end portion having a second inner diameter);
the inner diameter of the protruding port is the same as an inner diameter of the through- hole (Ozaki FIG. 2 the protruding port (mainly indicated by nozzle 3) has the same inner diameter as the diameter of the through-hole);
the inner diameter of the connection pipe is the same as an inner diameter of the process fluid supply pipe (Ozaki FIG. 2 the inner diameter of safe end 8, which reads on the connecting pipe, has the same inner diameter as the pipe 4, which is the process fluid supply pipe); and
the through-hole has roughness the same as surface roughness of an inner surface of the process fluid supply pipe.
Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer and Pischlar do not teach an inner diameter of the protruding port, and an inner diameter of the connection pipe; and the first and second through-holes have an inner diameter larger than inner diameters of the first and second process fluid supply pipes. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion. Wimmer’s reduction piece can accommodate the variable diameters between the inner diameter of the protruding port and the inner diameter of the connection pipe.
Cipolla teaches a vessel with pipe connections (FIG. 3 shows a vessel with pipe connections). Cipolla teaches the through-hole has roughness the same as surface roughness of an inner surface of the process fluid supply pipe (column 8 lines 35-38 the inner container 4 and its associated piping has an average surface roughness of less than 20 microinches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Ozaki, Francis, Wimmer and Pischlar to have a vessel and its pipe connections with the same surface roughness as taught by Cipolla. It is known in the art to have the same surface roughness in order to prevent issues with turbulence, to reduce contamination of the fluid, and to prevent corrosion issues with the pipes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 at 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights