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 Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claim 11 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In Claim 6 line 5, “the pipe” should be changed to “the pipe connected to the purification tank” to help distinguish it from the other pipes (e.g., “feed pipe” and “circulation pipe”).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIZUME (US PGPUB 20180197756) and MITA et al. (US Patent 5556539).
Regarding Claim 1, HASHIZUME teaches a substrate processing apparatus (substrate processing apparatus 1, see abstract, Figs. 1-6, ¶¶ 0042-43).
HASHIZUME’s apparatus comprises:
a rinse liquid supply nozzle (rinse liquid nozzle 24, see Fig. 2) that supplies a substrate with a rinse liquid containing water (see ¶¶ 0053-54);
an organic solvent supply nozzle (IPA nozzle 27, see Fig. 2) that supplies an organic solvent to the substrate (see ¶ 0055);
a collection tank (tank 31, see Figs. 3, 6, ¶ 0061) that stores a mixed fluid containing the water supplied to the substrate and then collected (see Figs. 3, 6, ¶¶ 0083, 0087, IPA having a small amount of water is expelled from the substrate and collected) and the organic solvent supplied to the substrate and then collected (see Figs. 3, 6, ¶¶ 0061, 0083, 0087, IPA expelled from the substrate is collected);
a circulation pipe (circulation piping 32) connected to the collection tank (see Figs. 3, 6);
a dewaterer (dehydration unit 35) disposed in the circulation pipe (see Figs. 3, 6) and including a separation membrane (separation membrane 42, see Figs. 3, 6) that allows the water to pass through and does not allow the organic solvent to pass through (see ¶ 0067);
a pump (pump 33) disposed in the circulation pipe (see Figs. 3, 6).
HASHIZUME does not explicitly teach: “a heater disposed downstream of the collection tank and upstream of the dewaterer in the circulation pipe, the heater heating the mixed fluid to a boiling point of the water or higher.”
MITA teaches a dewatering apparatus (see Fig. 1) for separating water and IPA (see col. 3 line 19-20), just like the present application. MITA teaches:
a circulation pipe (see reference numbers 101, 103, 105, 107 in Fig. 1);
a pump (pump 102) disposed in the circulation pipe (see Fig. 1);
a dewaterer (membrane module 106) disposed in the circulation pipe (see Fig. 1), the dewaterer including a separation membrane (see col. 3 line 64 to col. 4 line 24);
a heater (heater 104) disposed downstream of the pump (pump 102) and upstream of the dewaterer (membrane module 106) in the circulation pipe (see Fig. 1), wherein the heater is structurally fully capable of heating the mixed fluid to a boiling point of the water or higher (see col. 3 line 35-55, heating the liquid to boiling at both atmospheric and elevated pressures; the liquid may be a water-IPA mixture, see col. 3 line 19-20).
The heater may increase the amount of liquid in contact with the separating membrane and let the liquid have a large quantity of latent heat (see col. 4 lines 5-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify HASHIZUME’s apparatus to incorporate a heater disposed downstream of HASHIZUME’s pump 33 and upstream of HASHIZUME’s dewaterer 35 in HASHIZUME’s circulation pipe 32, with reasonable expectation of separating the liquids. First, the heater may increase the amount of liquid in contact with the separating membrane and let the liquid have a large quantity of latent heat (see MITA); given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a heater between HASHIZUME’s pump 33 and dewaterer 35. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to provide a heater downstream of the pump and upstream of the dewaterer in the circulation pipe (see MITA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could've combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of HASHIZUME and MITA: a heater would be disposed downstream of HASHIZUME’s pump 33 and upstream of HASHIZUME’s dewaterer 35 in HASHIZUME’s circulation pipe 32, which means the heater also would be downstream of HASHIZUME’s collection tank 31 (see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6, pump 33 is already downstream of collection tank 31); a potential location of the heater is shown as label “A” in annotated Fig. 3 of HASHIZUME below. Moreover, the heater would be structurally fully capable of heating the mixed fluid to a boiling point of the water or higher (see MITA at col. 3 line 35-55; as explained above, the mixture may be a water-IPA mixture).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination also teaches a pressure adjustment valve (HASHIZUME’s valve 36, see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6, ¶ 0064), which is disposed downstream of the dewaterer and upstream of the collection tank (see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach “a cooler disposed downstream of the dewaterer and upstream of the collection tank in the circulation pipe,” MITA already teaches a cooler (cooler 114) disposed in the circulation pipe at a position downstream of the dewaterer and upstream of a pressure adjustment valve 108 (see MITA at Fig. 1). The cooler helps prevent abrupt vaporization (see id. at col. 4 line 30-31).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA to incorporate a cooler disposed in HASHIZUME’s circulation pipe 32 at a position downstream of HASHIZUME’s dewaterer 35 and upstream of HASHIZUME’s pressure adjustment valve 36, with reasonable expectation of cooling the fluid. First, given the benefit of preventing abrupt vaporization, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a cooler between the dewaterer and the pressure adjustment valve in the circulation pipe. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to dispose a cooler downstream of the dewaterer and upstream of the pressure adjustment valve in the circulation pipe (see MITA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of HASHIZUME and MITA: a cooler would be disposed in HASHIZUME’s circulation pipe 32 at a position downstream of HASHIZUME’s dewaterer 35 and upstream of HASHIZUME’s pressure adjustment valve 36, which is also upstream of HASHIZUME’s collection tank 31. A potential location of the cooler is shown as label “B” in annotated Fig. 3 of HASHIZUME below:
PNG
media_image1.png
630
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The claim language “wherein the cooler cools the mixed fluid to a temperature lower than a boiling point of the organic solvent and higher than a room temperature” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural requirements. Applicant is reminded that a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA, the cooler is structurally fully capable of cooling the mixed fluid to a temperature lower than a boiling point of the organic solvent and higher than a room temperature.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination teaches a pressure reducer (HASHIZUME’s pressure adjustment valve 36) that is disposed in the circulation pipe (see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6) and reduces a pressure (see id. at ¶¶ 0064-65) of the mixed fluid cooled by the cooler (as explained above, the pressure adjustment valve is downstream of the cooler).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the dewaterer (HASHIZUME’s dehydration unit 35) is disposed in an attitude such that a cell (i.e., a space in dehydration unit 35) that forms a flow path of the mixed fluid in the separation membrane (HASHIZUME’s membrane 42) extends in a vertical direction (see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6); and the mixed fluid flowing through the circulation pipe (HASHIZUME’s pipe 32) flows into the cell from an opening at a vertical bottom of the cell (see HASHIZUME at Figs. 3 & 6).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of HASHIZUME and MITA teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the dewaterer (HASHIZUME’s dehydration unit 35) and the heater are aligned in the vertical direction (see annotated Fig. 3 of HASHIZUME above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-8 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 4 and 6-8 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.
Claims 4 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claims 4 and 6-8, which are dependent claims. The most relevant prior art references are HASHIZUME and MITA, which are discussed in detail above.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate processing apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 4, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
wherein the circulation pipe includes a first pipe downstream of the heater and upstream of the cooler and a second pipe downstream of the cooler and upstream of the heater, and pressure resistance of the second pipe is lower than that of the first pipe.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate processing apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 6, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
a purification tank connected to the collection tank through a feed pipe and storing a concentrated fluid obtained by separating the water from the mixed fluid; and
a filter disposed in a pipe connected to the purification tank and capturing a removal target substance contained in the concentrated fluid flowing through the pipe.
Claim 7 is allowable because it depends on Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate processing apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 8, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
wherein the circulation pipe includes a plurality of branch pipes disposed between a branching position and a merging position, and the collection tank is disposed in each of the plurality of branch pipes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights