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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 11-17) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is directed to an apparatus rather than to the presently claimed method. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 11-17 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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “collecting the flushing liquid to the second tank through the main circulation line” in lines 5-6 renders the claim indefinite because it is not exactly clear what this means. Is the main circulation line being used to collect liquid that is enroute to the second tank? Is the main circulation line being used to collect liquid, the liquid then being collected in the second tank? Both? Something else? It appears that the intended meaning may be that the liquid is collected in the second tank, the main circulation line being used to do so, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “liquid collected to the second tank” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this means. It appears the intended meaning may be “liquid collected in the second tank”, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the chemical stored" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the intended meaning may be “the chemical accommodated” (see claim 1, line 4).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the flushing mode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “collects the flushing liquid to the second tank through the main circulation” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this means. It appears the intended meaning may be that the liquid is collected in the second tank, the main circulation line being used to do so, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “collects the flushing liquid to the first tank through the main circulation” in lines 4-5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this means. It appears the intended meaning may be that the liquid is collected in the first tank, the main circulation line being used to do so, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “liquid collected to the first tank” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this means. It appears the intended meaning may be “liquid collected in the first tank”, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the secondary flushing mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the intended meaning may be for claim 16 to depend from claim 15, which teaches a secondary flushing mode, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6159651 to Tokyo Electron Ltd. (“Tokyo”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 11, Tokyo teaches a chemical exchange method in a chemical processing apparatus including a first tank (translation, page 1, para beginning “The present invention”, page 3, para beginning “The processing fluid supply source”, note ref. 102)), and a main circulation line (translation, page 3, para beginning “The processing fluid supply source”, note ref. 104) connected to the first tank, the chemical exchange method comprising: a flushing step of draining a chemical accommodated in the first tank (translation, page 3, para beginning “The liquid processing”, note ref. 118) supplying a flushing liquid to the first tank (translation, page 4, section heading “[First flushing liquid filling step]”), and then draining the flushing liquid (translation, page 4, section heading “[First flushing liquid discharge step]”); and a chemical exchange step of exchanging chemicals by supplying a new chemical to the first tank (translation, page 6, para beginning “Thereafter, an unillustrated on-off valve”).
Tokyo does not explicitly teach the use of a second tank. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Tokyo method wherein it includes the use of a second tank, such that the second tank is similarly connected to the circulation line and similarly operated (i.e. drained of chemical, supplied with flushing fluid, drained of flushing fluid, and supplied with new chemical), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance supply availability capacity and overflow control, thereby enhancing process control. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (and are rejected as indefinite), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and properly amended to cure the indefiniteness issues).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is JP 6159651 to Tokyo Electron Ltd. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the flushing liquid collected in the second tank is drained through a drain line connected to a sub-circulation line circulating the chemical accommodated in the second tank, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0216072 to Lee teaches method of flushing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights