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 .
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.
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 3-6 and 19-23 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “substrate separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-6 and 19-23 depend from claim 3 and are likewise rejected as indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 3 will be treated as referring to the “substrate rotator”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-6, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. (US 5626675, "Sakamoto").
3. Sakamoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a substrate rotator (combination of spin chuck 20, rotary cup 22 and cover 23, see Sakamoto fig. 2) to hold and rotate a substrate (W);
a gas-liquid separator provided so as to be separated from the substrate rotator and surround an outer circumference of the substrate rotator to separate gas and liquid droplets (combination of walls 24b and 24c are separated from and surround an outer circumference of rotator defined by 20, 22, and 23 and are configured to separate liquid and gas phases, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3 and 10:1-6. Note: wall 24c is improperly labeled as 14c in Sakamoto fig. 3); and
an exhaust route provided so as to surround an outer circumference of the gas-liquid separator to exhaust the gas separated by the gas-liquid separator (annular passage 24a extends from inner wall 24b to exhaust port 46, see Sakamoto fig. 3)
wherein the gas-liquid separator has a gas-liquid separating plate (24c, labeled as 14c in Sakamoto fig. 3) in front of an entrance of the exhaust route extending downward perpendicularly to the entrance of the exhaust route so as to separate the substrate rotator and the entrance of the exhaust route (wall 24c, labeled as 14c, is positioned between substrate rotator defined by 20, 22, and 23 and the exhaust route, see Sakamoto fig. 3), and wherein the gas-liquid separating plate has a tapered surface (24h) formed on a leading end of the gas-liquid separating plate extending downward (tapered surface 24h is formed on portion of wall 24c/14c, see Sakamoto fig. 3), the gas-liquid separating plate separates the gas and liquid droplets (Sakamoto 10:1-6),
the substrate rotator comprises a vacuum chuck configured to adsorb and hold the wafer (rotator defined by 20, 22, and 23 includes spin chuck 20, which is configured to suck and hold the wafer, see Sakamoto 4:50-53; as the chuck sucks the wafer, it may be understood as a vacuum chuck),
a lower end of the gas-liquid separating plate is located below an upper end of the vacuum chuck substrate rotator (lower end of wall 24c/14c is located below upper end of 20, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3), and
the exhaust route exhausts the gas separated by the gas-liquid separating plate (Sakamoto 9:64-10:6).
4. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the tapered surface is provided on a surface of the gas-liquid separating plate on a side of the exhaust route (tapered surface 24h is provided on a side of separating plate 14c/24c and is on the exhaust route, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
5. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a lower end of the gas-liquid separating plate is provided at a position lower than a lower end of the entrance of the exhaust route or a position that is flush with the lower end of the entrance of the exhaust route (bottom of plate 14c/24c defines entrance of the exhaust route, which means that it is positioned flush with the lower end of the entrance of the exhaust route, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
6. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a lower cup (24d) receiving the liquid droplets below the substrate (liquid is gathered in lower cup 24d to be exhausted from drain holes 24e, see Sakamoto fig. 3, 10:1-6, and 5:63-6:7), wherein the lower cup has a chamfered part below the substrate (lower cup 24d includes a sloped (i.e. chamfered) surface below substrate W, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
19. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a connection route (exhaust port 46) connected to a downstream side of the exhaust route (46 is connected to downstream end of exhaust route, see Sakamoto fig. 3), wherein a cross-sectional area of the connection route is larger than a cross-sectional area of the exhaust route (cross section of 46 is larger than cross section of the portion of the exhaust route between walls 24c/14c and 24b, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
20. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the exhaust route extends vertically from an entrance (see Sakamoto fig. 3).
23. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the gas-liquid separator is formed by an upper cup (14c/24c and upper portion of 24, Sakamoto figs. 2-3) and a side cup (24b) to separate gas and liquid droplets, the upper cup being an annular part with a space to cover an upper part of a peripheral edge of the substrate rotator (portion of separator between 14c/24c and outer wall of 24 is annular and surrounds an upper part of the edge of the rotator defined by 20, 22, and 23, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3), the side cup being an annular part provided so as to surround a side part of the substrate rotator (24b is positioned around an outer edge of the rotator defined by 20, 22, and 23, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3), an edge of the side cup being inserted into the space of the annular part of the upper cup (24b is inserted in space between 14c/24c and outer wall of 24, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Mori et al. (JP 2002170807, "Mori").
16. Sakamoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Sakamoto fig. 2) comprising:
a substrate rotator (spin chuck 20) to hold and rotate a substrate (W, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3);
a gas-liquid separator provided so as to surround an outer circumference of the substrate rotator to separate gas and liquid droplets (combination of walls 24b and 24c separate liquid and gas phases, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3 and 10:1-6. Note: wall 24c is improperly labeled as 14c in Sakamoto fig. 3);
an exhaust route provided so as to surround an outer circumference of the gas-liquid separator to exhaust the gas separated by the gas-liquid separator (annular passage 24a extends from inner wall 24b to exhaust port 46, see Sakamoto fig. 3), and
a recovery structure including the gas-liquid separator and the exhaust route to recover the liquid droplets spattering from the substrate (drain cup 24 includes walls 24c, 24b, and outer walls defining annular passage 24a and exhaust ports 46, see Sakamoto 5:5:48-6:25),
and an exhaust port (46) formed on a downstream side of the exhaust route at a lower side of the recovery structure (exhaust ports 46 are formed at least partly on a lower side of cup 24, see Sakamoto fig. 3); and
wherein the gas-liquid separator has a gas-liquid separating plate (24c, labeled as 14c in Sakamoto fig. 3) in front of an entrance of the exhaust route extending downward perpendicularly to the entrance of the exhaust route so as to separate the substrate rotator and the entrance of the exhaust route (wall 24c, labeled as 14c, is positioned between substrate rotator 20 and exhaust route, see Sakamoto fig. 3), and wherein the gas-liquid separating plate has a tapered surface (24h) formed on a leading end of the gas-liquid separating plate extending downward (tapered surface 24h is formed on portion of wall 24c/14c, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach that the gas-liquid separator and the exhaust route are formed to be monolithic. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Sakamoto such that the drain cup including both the gas-liquid separator and the exhaust route was formed to be monolithic, as it has been held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of a structure comprising several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, and applicant has provided no evidence that the use of such a construction solves a known problem in a manner contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), citing In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Sakamoto as modified does not teach the presence of an exhaust duct connected to the exhaust ports at a lower side of the recovery structure, wherein the exhaust duct extends higher than the recovery structure.
However, Mori teaches a substrate processing system (see Mori fig. 4) having exhaust ducts (6) connected to a lower side of a recovery structure (6 are connected to bottom of cup body 8, see Mori fig. 4) that extend higher than the recovery structure (6 extend above recovery structure 8, see Mori figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings regarding the structure for exhaust ducts from Mori into the apparatus of Sakamoto as modified such that the duct of the combined device was connected to the exhaust ports and extended higher than the recovery structure. Sakamoto as modified does not teach a specific structure for an exhaust duct, while Mori teaches a suitable structure for ducting in a related processing system. Integrating the ducts of Mori into the device of Sakamoto as modified, therefore represents no more than the combination of known prior art elements according to known prior at methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mori.
21. Sakamoto teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 3, comprising:
a recovery structure including the gas-liquid separator and the exhaust route to recover the liquid droplets spattering from the substrate (cup 24 includes both the separator 14c/24c and the exhaust route) and recovers liquid via drain ports 24e, see Sakamoto figs. 2-3 and 10:1-6), and an exhaust port (56) formed on a downstream side of the exhaust route in the recovery structure (exhaust port 46 is on a downstream side of the exhaust route in cup 24, see Sakamoto fig. 3).
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach the presence of an exhaust duct connected to the exhaust port.
However, Mori teaches a substrate processing system (see Mori fig. 4) having exhaust ducts (6) connected to a lower side of a recovery structure (6 are connected to bottom of cup body 8, see Mori fig. 4) that extend higher than the recovery structure (6 extend above recovery structure 8, see Mori figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings regarding the structure for exhaust ducts from Mori into the apparatus of Sakamoto as modified such that the duct of the combined device was connected to the exhaust ports and extended higher than the recovery structure. Sakamoto as modified does not teach a specific structure for an exhaust duct, while Mori teaches a suitable structure for ducting in a related processing system. Integrating the ducts of Mori into the device of Sakamoto as modified, therefore represents no more than the combination of known prior art elements according to known prior at methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
22. Sakamoto as modified teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein a cross-sectional area of the exhaust duct is not increased and decreased repeatedly (Mori teaches the use of exhaust ducts either having a consistent cross-sectional area or a cross-sectional area that consistently decreases, see Mori figs. 1-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 July, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 16, applicant argues that Sakomoto fails to teach the structure of a gas-liquid separating plate and tapered surface as claimed. As noted in the above rejection, Sakomoto teaches such elements (specifically, Sakamoto teaches a tapered surface 24h positioned on a front face—i.e. a leading end—of front plate 14c/24c).
Applicant correctly states that neither Sakomoto nor Mori explicitly teach the use of a monolithic construction. However, the rejection relied on case law described in MPEP § 2144.04(V)(b) indicating the use of a monolithic construction instead of a structure comprising several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit is, absent some sort of evidence that the use of such a construction solves a known problem in a manner contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art, a matter of obvious engineering choice and therefore obvious. As arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence and applicant has not provided such evidence, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that because Sakamoto and Mori have differing structure, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine their teachings, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-6 and 19-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights