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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 8, 21-22, 26-27, and 30 were amended. Claims 11-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are in the application. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the Drawings to claim to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) with respect to the following “plurality of flexible regions” in claim 3, “adjacent flexible regions” in claim 3, “a plurality of flexible regions” in claims 22 and 27, “adjacent flexible regions of plurality of flexible regions” in claim 22 is withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims.
The previous objection to the Drawings based on the following limitation “composition of the reinforcing material is a same composition as at least one of the plurality of flexible regions “ in claim 27 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 27.
Additionally, the “sheets of flexible material” and “adjacent flexible material’ in claim 3 and“ the flexible container comprises: one or more sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container, and the one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material“ in claim 27 must be shown in the drawings.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of a replacement title.
The previous objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter “pressure regulation apparatus” in claims 26 and 30, “first fixture” and “second fixture” in claim 27, , the “plurality of flexible regions” in claim 3, “adjacent flexible regions” in claim 3, a “plurality of flexible regions” in claims 22 and 27, “adjacent flexible regions of plurality of flexible regions” in claim 22 is withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims.
Additionally, the following claimed subject matter :
“ to form a film extending across an entirety of the substrate” and “ structurally capable of ” in claim 1, “outer surface of the flexible container closest to the inner surface of the pressure vessel “ in claim 21, and “composition of the reinforcing material is a same composition as at least one of the plurality of flexible regions “ in claim 27 are withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the “adjacent flexible material’ in claim 3 and“ the flexible container comprises: one or more sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container, and the one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material“ in claim 27.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coating apparatus” in claims 1, 21, 24, and 27; “attachment apparatus” in claim 7; “thermal apparatus” in claim 25; and “pressure regulation device” in claims 26, 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 27-30 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180074407 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a coating system comprising: a vessel (121, 145); a flexible container (131) within the vessel (121, 145) , the flexible container (collapsible liner 131) including an outlet port (147), wherein the flexible container (131) is configured to contract in response to an increase in pressure within the vessel, and the flexible container (131) is configured to output a coating composition through the outlet port in response to contraction; and a coating apparatus (160) for receiving the coating composition from the outlet port (147). (See Zhou, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 13-17, 21, 23, and 32.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Zhou does not explicitly teach an intermediate reservoir for containing a first volume of the coating composition, wherein a second volume of the coating composition is applied to a substrate.
Lin is directed to a method for dispensing photoresist.
Lin teaches an intermediate reservoir (112) containing a first volume of the coating composition, wherein a second volume of the coating composition (volume of coating material minus the coating material sent back to the reservoir via 48) is applied to a substrate. (See Lin, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 13, 44-46, 48-49, and 51-52 and Fig. 9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an intermediate reservoir containing a first volume of the coating composition, wherein a second volume of the coating composition is applied to a substrate, because Lin teaches this would allow liquid not dispensed to be returned to the intermediate reservoir and the improve the accuracy of the discharge to increase the yield of the semiconductor integrated circuit. (See Lin, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 13, 44-46, 48-49, and 51-52 and Fig. 9.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Zhou does not explicitly teach a ratio between the first volume and the second volume being at least 5:1.
Yoshihara is directed to a processing liquid supplying apparatus.
Yoshihara teaches a ratio between the first volume and the second volume can be adjusted for a subsequent substrate based on dispense adjustments to optimize pressure. (See Yoshihara, Abstract, paragraphs 126 and 141, and Figs. 1-22.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispense a ratio between the first volume (9 ml, 2.6 ml) and the second volume (1 ml, 0.5 ml) being at least 5:1, because Yoshihara these are known ranges and amounts to be dispensed. ((See Yoshihara, Abstract, paragraphs 126 and 141, and Figs. 1-22.)
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the device would be capable of having a reservoir containing a first volume of the coating composition, applying a second volume to the substrate where a ratio between the first volume and the second volume being at least 5:1.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. a ratio between the first volume and the second volume being at least 5:1). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Zhou in view of Lin and Yoshihara is capable of performing the intended use and as results meets the claim limitation.
Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). (See MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon)
n In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited "[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface." An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that "the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle." Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." Id. at 580.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches the coating composition is a photoresist. (See Zhou, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 3 and 14-15.)
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the coating system further comprising: a controller (125) for controlling the pressure within the vessel (121, 145). (See Zhou, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 23.)
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the coating system further comprising: a filter (165) between the flexible container (131) and a dispensing nozzle (171). (See Zhou, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 15.)
The previous rejection of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180074407 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou does not explicitly teach the flexible container comprises one or sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between flexible material of the one of more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container.
Petriello is directed to a flexible container for dispensing reactive liquids.
Petriello teaches the flexible container (1) comprises a plurality of flexible regions (7), and a reinforcing material (6), wherein the reinforcing material (6) is between adjacent flexible regions (region of flexible material above 6, region of flexible material below 6) of the plurality of flexible regions in a circumferential direction of the flexible container (1). (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the flexible container which comprises the flexible container comprises one or sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between flexible material of the one of more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container., because Petriello teaches this structure would allow liquid to be dispensed in a controlled manner. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
PNG
media_image1.png
411
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Zhou does not explicitly teach the reinforcing material is at least one of stronger, thicker, or less flexible than each of the plurality of flexible regions.
Petriello teaches the reinforcing material (6) is less flexible than each of the plurality of flexible regions. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the reinforcing material is at least one of stronger, thicker, or less flexible than each of the plurality of flexible regions, because Petriello teaches this structure would allow liquid to be dispensed in a controlled manner. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
The previous rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180074407 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140131380 A1 to Pethe (hereinafter Pethe) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou does not explicitly teach the flexible container comprises a reinforced region, the reinforced region having an interior surface area and being connected to a first attachment apparatus.
Pethe is directed to a flexible container including liner-based assembly overpack.
Pethe teaches the flexible container (406) comprises a reinforced region (486 being integral), the reinforced region having an interior surface area and being connected to a first attachment apparatus (480). (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the flexible container comprises a reinforced region, the reinforced region having an interior surface area and being connected to a first attachment apparatus, because Pethe teaches this would allow liquid not dispensed to be returned to the intermediate reservoir and the improve the accuracy of the discharge to increase the yield of the semiconductor integrated circuit. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding claim 8, Zhou does not explicitly teach the flexible container comprises: a flexible region, the flexible region being connected to the reinforced region and configured to contract, and wherein the interior surfaces of the reinforced region and the first attachment apparatus define a variable container volume.
Pethe teaches the flexible container (406) comprises: a flexible region (sides of 406), the flexible region being connected to the reinforced region (486) and configured to contract, and wherein the interior surfaces of the reinforced region (interior of 486) and the first attachment apparatus (408) define a variable container volume. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the flexible container comprises: a flexible region, the flexible region being connected to the reinforced region and configured to contract, and wherein the interior surfaces of the reinforced region and the first attachment apparatus define a variable container volume, because Pethe teaches this would allow liquid to be dispensed by holding it in a suitable position for dispensing. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding claim 9, Zhou does not explicitly teach the first attachment apparatus further comprises an inlet port.
Pethe teaches the first attachment apparatus (480) further comprises an inlet port (490). (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first attachment apparatus further comprises an inlet port, because Pethe teaches this would allow liquid to be dispensed. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding claim 10, Zhou does not explicitly teach the outlet port has a first configuration operable for establishing a fluidic connection with an outlet line; and the inlet port has a second configuration operable for preventing the establishment of a fluidic connection to the outlet line.
Pethe teaches the outlet port has a first configuration operable for establishing a fluidic connection with an outlet line; and the inlet port has a second configuration operable for preventing the establishment of a fluidic connection to the outlet line. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the outlet port has a first configuration operable for establishing a fluidic connection with an outlet line; and the inlet port has a second configuration operable for preventing the establishment of a fluidic connection to the outlet line, because Pethe teaches this would allow liquid to be dispensed at the appropriate time and for the supply container to be shipped or handled in an aseptic manner. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
The previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150262817 A1 to Okuno ( hereinafter Okuno) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches a coating system comprising: a pressure vessel (121, 145); a pressurized fluid reservoir (105) connected to the pressure vessel, a flexible container (131) containing a coating composition (150) within the vessel (121, 145) , the flexible container (collapsible liner 131) including an outlet port (147) for dispensing the coating composition from the flexible container (131), and a coating apparatus (160) for receiving the coating composition from the outlet port (147). (See Zhou, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 13-17, 21, 23, and 32.)
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches the pressure vessel (121) further comprises an inlet (connected to 128) for introducing a pressurized fluid into a space between an inner surface of the pressure vessel (121) and an outer surface of the flexible container (131) closest to the inner surface of the pressure vessel. (See Zhou, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 13-17, 21, 23, and 32.)
Regarding claim 21, Zhou does not explicitly teach the pressure vessel further comprises an inlet for introducing a pressurized fluid from the pressurized fluid reservoir into a space between an inner surface of the pressure vessel and an outer surface of the flexible container.
Zhou teaches a pressure regulating system regulates pressure by adding or removing fluid 129 from the space between the rigid shell 121 and liner 131 using a pump 127.
Okuno teaches a pressurized gas supply source is art recognized equivalent way to supply gas. (See Okuno, Abstract and paragraph 107.)
Examiner is considering a pressurized fluid reservoir to be an art recognized equivalent structure for adding a pressurized fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the pressure vessel further comprises an inlet for introducing a pressurized fluid from the pressurized fluid reservoir into a space between an inner surface of the pressure vessel and an outer surface of the flexible container as an art recognized equivalent way to supply gas. (See Okuno, Abstract and paragraph 107.)
The previous rejection of claims 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150262817 A1 to Okuno ( hereinafter Okuno) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 22, Zhou does not explicitly teach the flexible container comprises:
one or more sheets of flexible material, and
a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container.
Petriello teaches the flexible container comprises:
one or more sheets of flexible material (7), and
a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material (6) is between adjacent flexible material (area above 6; area below 6) of the one or more sheets of flexible material (7) in a circumferential direction of the flexible container. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the flexible container comprises:
one or more sheets of flexible material, and
a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container, because Petriello teaches this structure would allow liquid to be dispensed in a controlled manner. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
Regarding claim 23, Zhou teaches the flexible container (131) comprises a volume variable between a first volume (low pressure ) and a second volume (increased pressure) in response to the pressurized fluid in the space between the inner wall of the pressure vessel and the outer wall of the flexible container. (See Zhou, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 13-17, 21, 23, and 32.)
The previous rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150262817 A1 to Okuno ( hereinafter Okuno) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) as applied to claim 23 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) is being maintained.
(The previous heading for the rejection of claim 24 included a typographical error. The heading above has been corrected.)
Regarding claim 24, Zhou does not explicitly teach intermediate reservoir between the flexible container and the coating apparatus for receiving an intermediate volume of the coating composition from the flexible container.
Lin teaches an intermediate reservoir (112) between the supply container and the the coating apparatus (144) for receiving an intermediate volume of the coating composition from the flexible container. (See Lin, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 13, 24, 26,44-46, 48-49, and 51-52 and Figs. 1-4 and 8-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an intermediate reservoir between the flexible container and the coating apparatus for receiving an intermediate volume of the coating composition from the flexible container, because Lin teaches this would allow liquid not dispensed to be returned to the intermediate reservoir and the improve the accuracy of the discharge to increase the yield of the semiconductor integrated circuit. (See Lin, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 13, 24, 26,44-46, 48-49, and 51-52 and Figs. 1-4 and 8-9.)
The previous rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150262817 A1 to Okuno ( hereinafter Okuno) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20180174826 A1 to Raaijamakers et al (hereinafter Raaijmakers).
Regarding claim 25, Zhou does not explicitly teach the intermediate reservoir further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a coating composition temperature within the intermediate reservoir.
Raaijmakers teaches the intermediate reservoir (buffer tank) further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a desired temperature in the intermediate reservoir (buffer tank). (See Raaijmakers, Abstract, paragraphs 34, 66, and page 10, col. 1, last paragraph .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate reservoir further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a coating composition temperature within the intermediate reservoir, because Raaijmakers teaches this would enable buffer tank to the desired temperature. (See Raaijmakers, Abstract, paragraphs 34, 66, and page 10, col. 1, last paragraph.)
The previous rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150262817 A1 to Okuno ( hereinafter Okuno) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070272327 A1 to Y. Sean Lin (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,015,066 to Kimura et al (hereinafter Kimura) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 26, Zhou does not explicitly teach the intermediate reservoir further comprises a pump for controlling a head pressure applied to the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir.
Kimura teaches the intermediate reservoir (268, 368, 370) further comprises a pump (402, 388, 408, 410) for controlling a head pressure applied to the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir. (See Kimura, Abstract, col. 12, lines 57-67, col. 13, lines 8-13, col. 14, lines 1-12, 38-68; col. 17, lines 1-20; and Figs. 1, 8, and 13.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate reservoir further comprises a pump for controlling a head pressure applied to the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir, because Kimura teaches this would enable the liquid to be supplied to the nozzles in a degassed state. (See Kimura, Abstract, col. 12, lines 57-67, col. 13, lines 8-13, col. 14, lines 1-12, 38-68; col. 17, lines 1-20; and Figs. 1, 8, and 13.)
The previous rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140131380 A1 to Pethe (hereinafter Pethe) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 27, Zhou does not explicitly teach coating system comprising: a pressure vessel comprising a first attachment assembly; a flexible container comprising a second attachment assembly, wherein the first attachment assembly and the second attachment assembly are engageable to attach, temporarily, the flexible container within the pressure vessel; and a coating apparatus.
Pethe teaches a coating system comprising: a pressure vessel (402) comprising a first attachment assembly (480); a flexible container (406) comprising a second attachment assembly (486), wherein the first attachment assembly (480) and the second attachment assembly (486) are engageable to attach, temporarily, the flexible container (406) within the pressure vessel (402); and a coating apparatus (dispensing apparatus). (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include coating system comprising: a pressure vessel comprising a first attachment assembly; a flexible container comprising a second attachment assembly, wherein the first attachment assembly and the second attachment assembly are engageable to attach, temporarily, the flexible container within the pressure vessel; and a coating apparatus, because Pethe teaches this would allow liquid to be dispensed at the appropriate time and for the supply container to be shipped or handled in a aseptic manner. (See Pethe, Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 8-12, 82-84, and 86 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding claim 27, Zhou does not explicitly teach the flexible container comprises: one or more sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container, and the one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material.
Petriello teaches the flexible container (1) comprises: one or more sheets of flexible material (6, 7), and a reinforcing material (composition of 6 including metal filler) , wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material (7) of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction (circumferential direction extending from bottom of 1 to the top of 1 along the outer circumference) of the flexible container, and the one or more sheets of flexible material (6) are bonded along a periphery (periphery of 6 extending around the outside of 1) to form the reinforcing material. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
PNG
media_image1.png
411
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the flexible container comprises: one or more sheets of flexible material, and a reinforcing material, wherein the reinforcing material is between adjacent flexible material of the one or more sheets of flexible material in a circumferential direction of the flexible container, and the one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material, because Petriello teaches this would allow liquid to be dispensed at the appropriate time and for the supply container to be shipped or handled in an aseptic manner. (See Petriello, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 20-40.)
The previous rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) US Pat. Pub. No. 20140131380 A1 to Pethe (hereinafter Pethe) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040144736 A1 to Yajima (hereinafter Yajima) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 28, Zhou does not explicitly teach intermediate reservoir between the flexible container and the dispensing nozzle, the secondary reservoir being sized to receive a first volume of the coating composition.
Yajima teaches an intermediate reservoir (61) between the supply container and the dispensing nozzle (50), the secondary reservoir being sized to receive a first volume of the coating composition. (See Yajima, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 24, 36-37, and 40-43 and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an intermediate reservoir between the flexible container and the dispensing nozzle, the secondary reservoir being sized to receive a first volume of the coating composition, because Yajima teaches this would allow liquid not dispensed to be returned to the intermediate reservoir and the improve the accuracy of the discharge to increase the yield of the semiconductor integrated circuit. (See Yajima, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 24, 36-37, and 40-43 and Fig. 1.)
The previous rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140131380 A1 to Pethe (hereinafter Pethe) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20180174826 A1 to Raaijamakers et al (hereinafter Raaijmakers) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 29, Zhou does not explicitly teach the intermediate reservoir further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a coating composition temperature within the intermediate reservoir.
Raaijmakers teaches the intermediate reservoir (buffer tank) further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a desired temperature in the intermediate reservoir (buffer tank). (See Raaijmakers, Abstract, paragraphs 34, 66, and page 10, col. 1, last paragraph .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate reservoir further comprises a thermal apparatus for establishing a coating composition temperature within the intermediate reservoir, because Raaijmakers teaches this would enable buffer tank to the desired temperature. (See Raaijmakers, Abstract, paragraphs 34, 66, and page 10, col. 1, last paragraph .)
The previous rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. US 20180067395 A1 to Zhou et al (hereinafter Zhou) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140131380 A1 to Pethe (hereinafter Pethe) and US Pat. Num. 3,213,913 to John V. Petriello (hereinafter Petriello) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,015,066 to Kimura et al (hereinafter Kimura) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 30, Zhou does not explicitly teach the intermediate reservoir further comprises a pump for controlling a head pressure applied to the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir.
Kimura teaches the intermediate reservoir (268, 368, 370) further comprises a pump (402, 388, 408, 410) for controlling a head pressure above the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir. (See Kimura, Abstract, col. 12, lines 57-67, col. 13, lines 8-13, col. 14, lines 1-12, 38-68; col. 17, lines 1-20; and Figs. 1, 8, and 13.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the intermediate reservoir further comprises a pump for controlling a head pressure applied to the coating composition within the intermediate reservoir, because Kimura teaches this would enable the liquid to be supplied to the nozzles in a degassed state. (See Kimura, Abstract, col. 12, lines 57-67, col. 13, lines 8-13, col. 14, lines 1-12, 38-68; col. 17, lines 1-20; and Figs. 1, 8, and 13.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 21 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.
With respect to claim 1, applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the fifth paragraph of page 8, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“Paragraph 0126 of Yoshihara cannot be reasonably be interpreted as teaching or suggesting the recited ratio at least because there is no second volume with which to determine the recited ratio.”
Examiner disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Yoshihara teaches two values: a first volume contained in an intermediate reservoir; and a second volume of the coating composition in the claimed ratio.
Specific structures connecting the intermediate reservoir to the dispensing nozzle are not claimed. The Yoshihara reference is relied to teach the ratios not the structure.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the last paragraph of page 8 to the first paragraph of page 9, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“Further paragraph 0141 states ‘ the ejecting amount of the resist liquid to be rejected is set 0.5 ml, the returning amount of the resist L to be returned to the primary side of the filter 52. Even if the buffer tank 61, understood as being interpreted as
the recited intermediate reservoir, is on the primary side of filter 52, all of the Figures of Yoshihara clearly indicate that other components are on the primary side of filter 52 in addition to buffer tank 61. The other components include at least return pipelines 55, second liquid processing liquid supplying pipeline 51b and shutoff valve V34. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of the components will contain some volume of resist liquid during operation of the structure in Yoshihara. To the extent that the Office attempts to maintain that the components between filter 52 and buffer tank 61 would not contain resist liquid, Applicants respectfully request that the Office specifically identify the portion of Yoshihara that supports such an interpretation; and how that portion of Yoshihara is consistent with the description in Yoshihara related to…”
Specific structures connecting the intermediate reservoir to the dispensing nozzle are not claimed. The Yoshihara reference is relied to teach the ratios not the structure.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
In the second paragraph of page 9, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“ To the extent that the Office attempts to assert that the recited ratio is a mere obvious optimization, Applicants respectfully traverse such an assertion. MPEP 2144.04 states "If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection." Applicants note that the publication of the originally filed application provides evidence of criticality at least in the non-limiting description in paragraph 0016. Further, Applicants note that criticality of unexpected results are not the same, as evidenced by MPEP 2144.05, which lists the two concepts in the alternative. “
Examiner is relying on the reference to teach values within the explicitly claimed ratio.
Additionally, Examiner does not consider the data identified by Applicant in paragraph as sufficient to demonstrate criticality. Examiner is considering the asserted evidence of criticality of “including enough coating material in a coating reservoir to coat more than one substrate” would fall within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art of semiconductor manufacturing or photolithography.
With respect to claim 21, applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph and second paragraph of page 11, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“Assuming arguendo that Zhou is modified in the manner asserted by the Office, the resulting structure would be non-functional.
Connecting the outlet of element 105 of Zhou to the "space" between the rigid shell 121 of Zhou and the liner 131 of Zhou would result in the pressure at the inlet 144 of the liner 131 and the "space" would be equal. The pressure at both locations would be equal because the outlet conduit 119 would need to supply both locations. The equal pressure would prevent the liner 131 from being compressed and forcing the chemical solution 150 to the dispensing system 160. Thus, the structure resulting from connecting the asserted pressurized fluid containing to the recited space would result in a non-functional structure. Based on MPEP 2143.01, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable motivation to modify Zhou in the manner asserted because the resulting structure would be incapable of functioning. “
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to this rejection.
Zhou teaches a pressure regulating system regulates pressure by adding or removing fluid 129 from the space between the rigid shell 121 and liner 131 using a pump 127. (See Zhou, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 13-17, 21, 23, and 32.)
Okuno is being used to teach a pressurized gas supply source is an art recognized equivalent way to supply gas. (See Okuno, Abstract and paragraph 107.)
Examiner is simply substituting the gas tank in Okuno to replace the pump used to supply gas in Zhou. None of the connections in Zhou are being modified.
In the third paragraph of page 11 to first paragraph of page 12, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“ To the extent that the Office attempts to assert that some additional modification to the structure could be performed in order to produce a functioning structure, Applicants respectfully traverse such an assertion as not supported by the ground of rejection as set forth in the outstanding Office Action. Further, such a modification would require maintaining the chemical solution 150 in the storage container 105 for a prolonged period of time in order to facilitate application of pressure into the "space" for dispending the chemical solution 150 from the liner 131 to the dispending system 160. Zhou states that storing the chemical solution 150 for a long period of. “
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to this rejection.
Okuno is being used to teach a pressurized gas supply source is an art recognized equivalent way to supply gas. (See Okuno, Abstract and paragraph 107.)
Examiner is simply substituting the gas tank in Okuno to replace the pump used to supply gas in Zhou. None of the connections in Zhou are being modified.
Examiner is considering within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a tank of gas (an art recognized equivalent)” to replace a pump to supply gas would be within the skill of a person in the area of photolithography.
In the sixth paragraph of page 12, and second paragraph on page 13 of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative’s understanding is that the inclusion of Lin in the heading is a typographical error. Examiner confirms this understanding is correct.
With respect to claim 27, applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the last paragraph of page 13 to fourth paragraph of page 14, of the Remarks Section, Applicant’s Representative argues:
“Applicants respectfully submit that Petriello fails to teach or suggest at least the claim language "one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material," as recited in claim 27.
As shown in Figures 1-3 of Petriello, the flexible container includes alternating latitudinal bands, reinforced bands 6 and non-reinforced bands 7, arranged horizontally around the hemispherical container. The reinforced bands 6 and flexible bands 7 in Petriello are pre-formed, separate bands of different material compositions that are arranged in an alternating pattern.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reinforcing material, i.e., band 6, is not formed by bonding sheets of flexible material along a periphery. Rather, Petriello's reinforcement results from the use of a different material composition for the reinforced bands. The Office acknowledged that Petriello includes "a composition (tetrafluorethylene resin, basic polymeric component) of the reinforcing material (6)" that includes metallic additives, as described in Petriello at col. 2, lines 41-48, 53-67; col. 3, lines 47-54; col. 4, lines 20-40, 60- 65. This confirms that the reinforcement in Petriello is achieved through material composition differences, not through bonding sheets of flexible material together.
Claim 27 recites "one or more sheets of flexible material are bonded along a periphery to form the reinforcing material." In contrast, the reinforcing material in Petriello is a pre-formed band of modified polymer.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to this rejection. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “bonded”, the claim limitations read upon the combination of references.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights