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
Claims 1-10 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
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(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (USPGPub 2017/0001165) in view of Chang et al. (USPGPub 2012/0258487) and Kanefuni et al. (JP2003-11850).
Regarding claims 11-13, Crnogorac teaches that it is known to place a wafer on the center of a spin chuck [0005] wherein thereafter a lid dispenser is lowered overall the wafer on the platform [0051] thereby forming a reaction chamber [0052] and thereafter dispersing a liquid reagent on the surface of the wafer. Crnogorac fails to teach transferring the wafer thereafter to a UV aligner thereafter. However, Chang teaches that after the deposition of layers onto wafers via spin-coating they are patterned by a UV exposure contact mask aligner through a photolithography mylar mask [0176]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art steps of spin-coating a wafer of Crnogorac and performing UV alignment and photolithography on a wafer of Chang according to known methods wherein each process would merely perform the same process that is performed by that process independently when the processes are combined and wherein the results of the combination would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Chang. The teachings of Crnogorac in view of Chang are as shown above. Crnogorac in view of Chang fails to teach wherein the substrate is transported to different location during the process.
However, Kanefuni teaches that it is known to transport both substrates and masks within lithography/aligner systems using robots [0015-0020] as part of the manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the substrates and masks of Crnogorac in view of Chang using robots as in Kanefuni in order to allow for automation of the movement process with precision and the avoidance of exposure to humans that may introduce impurities into the process. Further Kanefuni teaches that multiple circuit patterns may be formed on the same wafer by repeating the pre- and post-processing steps [0200-0208] that are also generally taught by Crnogorac in view of Chang. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the general processing steps of Crnogorac in view of Chang as guided by Kanefuni in order to provide multiple circuit patterns on the same wafer. Further it noted that repeating the process steps would require re-centering the wafer during the coating step as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that in addition to spin-coating, Crnogorac further teaches wherein the coating materials may be spread by surface tension (abstract) instead of centrifugal force, reasonably implying that the fluids are allowed to spread on their own versus be spread under the forces related to rotation.
Regarding claim 15, the masks of Kanefuni are transported between storage and use by AGVs [0028-0034].
Regarding claim 16, the teachings of Crnogorac in view of Chang and Kanefuni are as shown above. Crnogorac in view of Chang and Kanefuni fails to teach wherein the dimensions of the width of the reaction chamber are as claimed. However, the Court has long held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17, Crnogorac further teaches wherein the reagent applied is a phosphoramidite agent [0016].
Regarding claim 18, Crnogorac further teaches wherein an inert gas is employed inside the formed chamber [0020].
Regarding claim 19, in a scenario wherein the reagents of Crnogorac are spread by surface tension then the application of the inert gas would reasonably be applied wherein the substrate is not spinning as well.
Regarding claim 20, Crnogorac further teaches that computers or microprocessors are generally employed to control operations within his invention [0051]. Further Kanefuni teaches that his systems are AGVs implying automation. As such, there was knowledge in the prior art along with means to automate the steps provided wherein further the Court has long held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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 at 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights