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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-30 are currently pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 18, 19, 21 and 23 have been amended by Applicants’ amendment filed 03-04-2026. Claims 4 and 16 have been canceled by Applicant’s amendment filed 03-04-2026. Claims 24-30 have been added by Applicants’ amendment filed 03-04-2026.
A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-30 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The present application filed August 5, 2022 is a CON of PCT/US2021/017091, filed February 8, 2021; which claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application 62971224, filed February 7, 2020.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicants’ amendment and arguments filed February 20, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
Maintained Objections/Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-23 are maintained, and claims 24-30 are newly rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the terms “(a) a lower portion”; and “(b) an upper portion, the upper portion comprising: a bowl affixed to the lower portion” in claim 1, lines 1-4 because the terms “lower portion” and “upper portion” are not defined by the claim, and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite position of each portion of the apparatus as compared to some component or reference point of the apparatus that clearly qualifies as a “lower portion” and/or an “upper portion”, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the “upper portion” is recited to comprise a bowl that is affixed to the “lower portion,” such that the relative location of the components of the apparatus is confusing and unclear and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “a vacuum chuck disposed in the bowl, the vacuum chuck configured to hold a wafer” such as recited in claim 1, lines 5-6 because the relative location of the vacuum chuck within the upper portion and/or relative to the lower portion is completely unclear and confusing. It is noted that claim 1 recites that the bowl is located in the upper portion, but that it is affixed to the lower portion (lines 3-4), that the bowl comprises a plurality of operation controls (line 2), and that the vacuum chuck is disposed in the bowl (line 5), wherein the vacuum chuck is not recited to be an operation control, such that the bowl cannot also comprise a vacuum chuck and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 24-27 are indefinite because the claims appear to recite both a product and process in the same claim. The examiner cautions that according to the MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). PXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). For example, claim 1 recites: “A wafer processing apparatus” in line 1; “(a) a lower portion…and (b) an upper portion” in lines 2-3; “a bowl…a vacuum chuck disposed in the bowl” in lines 4-5; and “a movable cover disposed above the bowl…a lid” in lines 9-11; while claim 1 also recites: “thereby keeping the wafter rotating about a rotation axis of the vacuum chuck” in lines 7-8; and claims 26 and 27 recite “the wafer can be spun at a speed of XX rpm.” Such claims can also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the theory that the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Id. at 1551.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “conduit inserted through the movable cover and the lid” such as recited in claim 3, line 2 because claim 3 depends from claim 1 and 2, wherein claims 1 and 2 do not recite that the movable cover and/or the lid comprise holes, vias, channels, etc. for the insertion of a fluidic conduit and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 6, 26 and 27 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “wafer” such as recited in claim 6, line 2 because claims 6, 26 and 27 depend from instant claim 1, wherein the wafer processing apparatus as recited in claim 1 does not recite the presence of a “wafer”, such that it is unclear how comparisons to a wafer and/or spinning a wafer is carried out when a wafer is not present on the apparatus and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 10 and 20 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “synchronization of the fluid system” such as recited in claim 10, line 4 because it is unclear what the processor is actually configured to control (e.g., pumps, actuators, pressure, fluid flow rate, etc.) in order to ‘synchronize the fluid system.’ Moreover, the meaning of the term “synchronization of the fluid system” is unclear and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
The rejection of claim 11 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the term “substantially fill up the reaction chamber” in claim 11, line 27 because the term “substantially” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite amount of reagent as compared to the size of the reaction chamber that results in ‘substantially filling up’ the reaction chamber such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. Moreover, the height of the reaction chamber, and the amount of reagent (dry or solution) is unknown such that it is unclear whether the reaction chamber is substantially filled up or not and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 11 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “Spincell” such as recited in claim 11, line 28 because the wafer processing apparatus of claim 11 does not recite a “Spincell” as a component or feature of the apparatus. Moreover, the structure of the “Spincell” is completely unclear including whether the term “Spincell” refers to a specific device, a device component, a housing, an area surrounding the apparatus, a centrifuge, whether the term is a Tradename, etc. When a trademark or trade name (research designation) is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name (e.g., Spincell) is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves and, accordingly, the descriptions are indefinite. In the instant case, the term “Spincell” is interpreted to refer to the name of a wafer processing manufacturer.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “releases a fluorescent signal” and “fluorescent pattern” such as recited in claim 21, lines 3, 4, 6 and 8 because claim 21 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claims 11 and 21 do not recite the presence of any tags, labels, fluorophores, probes, etc. that produce a fluorescent signal; and it is completely unclear how creating “features” on a wafer will release a fluorescent signal and/or create a fluorescent pattern and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “detecting the fluorescent signal;” ”fluorescent microscopic imaging;” and “flow cell” such as recited in claim 21, lines 4-5 and 8-9 because claim 21 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite that the wafer processing apparatus comprises a fluorescent detector, a fluorescent microscope, a fluidic system, channels, and/or a flow cell and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
The rejection of claim 21 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the term “a smaller variation” in claim 21, lines 7-8 because the term “smaller” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “smaller” is not defined by the claim, and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite amount of variation in fluorescent signal as compared to a signal generated by separate features on the same wafer, and/or generated by a wafer made in a flow cell (as opposed to the instant signal that is generated by creating a feature on the wafer). Moreover, it is unclear what “smaller variation” in the signal is displayed, and whether there is a ‘smaller variation’ in signal strength, between individual each feature on the same wafer substrate, between individual features between different wafers substrates, etc. such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 23 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “repeating (a), (b), (c), (d), thereby creating a plurality of oligonucleotides on the plurality of features” such as recited in claim 23, lines 1-2 because claim 23 depends from claims 11 and 21, wherein claims 11 and 21 do not recite the presence of monomers, oligonucleotides, coupling reagents, etc., such that repeating general steps of claim 11(a)-(d) including placing a wafer on a vacuum chuck, closing a cover, adjusting adjustment pins, and dispensing reagent into a reaction chamber will create a plurality of oligonucleotides on each feature of a wafer and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 26 and 27 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the wafer can be spun at a rate of” such as recited in claim 26, lines 1-2 because claims 26 and 27 depend from claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite a processing apparatus comprising a wafer, a spin coater, a spin box, centrifuge, spin developer, etc. such that the apparatus does not comprise a spinning wafer and/or any component that spins a wafer. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, and not to a method of using the apparatus and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 28 and 29 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “spun at a speed of about 100 rpm,” “facilitate a chemical reaction,” and “spin off solvent residual” such as recited in claim 28, lines 1-1 because claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite a wafer processing device that can spin the wafer, conducting a chemical reaction, and/or the presence of solvent or residual solvent and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 30 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “releases a fluorescent signal,” “detecting fluorescent signals by fluorescence microscopic imaging,” “determining average fluorescence intensity;” and “the average fluorescence intensity is about 35090 a.u. ± 7.5%” such as recited in claim 30, lines 1-6 because claim 30 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite the presence of any fluorophores; fluorescent tags, labels, probes, etc. that produce a fluorescent signal; the apparatus is not recited to comprise a detector and/or a fluorescence microscopic imaging device of any kind, and it is completely unclear how creating “features” on a wafer will release a fluorescent signal and/or how fluorescence intensity can be calculated and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 12-15, 17-19, 22, 24 and 25 are indefinite insofar as they ultimately depend from instant claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) one of skill in the art would understand that the “smaller variation” refers to the fluorescence intensities and variations of the chips from a flow cell wafer compared to a Spincell wafter, as shown in Figure 13C; and Specification paragraphs [0026], [0097]-[0099], and [0108] (Applicant Remarks, pg. 16, last full paragraph).
Regarding (a), it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As an initial matter, please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection and discussion supra regarding the term “Spincell.” Instant claim 21 depends from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite any components (e.g., fluorescent tags, labels, oligonucleotides, coatings, assays, probes, etc.) that can generate a fluorescent signal; and does not recite any specific a fluorescent detector, a fluorescent microscope, a fluidic system, channels, and/or fluorescent microscopic imaging devices that display fluorescent signals. Additionally, instant claim 21 recites comparing fluorescent signals to those signals generated from a wafer produced by an unknown process and comprising unknown components and/or features, which is made in a flow cell (which may or may not be the same process that produced the instant wafer). Moreover, it is unclear what “smaller variation” in the signal is displayed, and whether there is a ‘smaller variation’ in signal strength, between individual each feature on the same wafer substrate, between individual features between different wafers substrates, etc. Applicant has not particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claims 21 and 23 is maintained, and claims 6 and 26-30 are newly rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites (in part): “wherein the lid is radially smaller than the wafer” in lines 1-2 because claim 6 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer in the apparatus. Thus, claim 6 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 recites (in part): “further comprising: creating a plurality of features on the wafer,
wherein the creating of each of the plurality of features on the wafer releases a fluorescent signal; detecting the fluorescent signal…wherein the fluorescent signals display a smaller variation when compared to the fluorescent signals generated from a corresponding wafer made in a flow cell” in lines 1-9. Claim 21 depends from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite the presence of any tags, labels, fluorophores, probes, etc. that produce a fluorescent signal, a fluorescent detector, a fluorescent microscope, a fluidic system, channels, and/or a flow cell. Thus, claim 21 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites (in part): “further comprising: repeating (a), (b), (c), (d), thereby creating a plurality of oligonucleotides on the plurality of features on the wafer” in lines 1-3. Claim 23 depends from claims 11 and 21, wherein claims 11 and 21 do not recite the presence of monomers, oligonucleotides, coupling reagents, solvents, etc., such that repeating the steps of claim 11(a)-(d) including placing a wafer on a vacuum chuck, closing a cover, adjusting adjustment pins, and dispensing reagent into a reaction chamber will create a plurality of oligonucleotides on each feature of a wafer. Thus, claim 23 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 26 and 27 recite (in part): “wherein the wafer can be spun at a speed of between about XX rpm to about XXX rpm” such as in claim 26, lines 1-2 because claims 26 and 27 depend from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer; and/or that the processing apparatus comprises a spin coater, a spin box, centrifuge, spin developer, etc. such that the apparatus does not comprise any component that spins a wafer at any rpm. Thus, claims 26 and 27 are improper dependent claims for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 28 and 29 recite (in part): “wherein: (i) the wafer can be spun at a speed of about” and “wherein: (i) the wafer can be spun at a speed of about 100 rpm to agitate the at least one reagent to facilitate a chemical reaction, and/or (ii) the wafer can be spun at a speed of about 1000 rpm to spin off solvent residual” in claim 28, lines 1-2; and claim 29, lines 1-3 because claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite a wafer processing device that can spin the wafer, conducting a chemical reaction, and/or the presence of solvent or residual solvent. Thus, claims 28 and 29 are improper dependent claims for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 30 recites (in part): “further comprising: (i) creating a plurality of features on the wafer; wherein the creating of the plurality of features on the wafer releases fluorescent signals… wherein the average fluorescence intensity is about 35090 a.u. ± 7.5%” in lines 1-7 because claim 30 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite the presence of any tags, labels, fluorophores, probes, etc. that produce a fluorescent signal; the apparatus does not recite the presence of a fluorescence microscopic imaging device of any kind, and there is no component of the “features” on a wafer that will release a fluorescent signal. Thus, claim 30 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-23 is maintained, and claims 24, 25 and 30 are newly rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crnogorac et al. (hereinafter “Crnogorac”) (International Application No. WO2018217853, published November 29, 2018; of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Crnogorac teaches methods, device, and system for wafer processing, wherein the wafer processing apparatus uses a nozzle in a lid to disperse a solution to the surface of a wafer; and the wafer is positioned on top of a vacuum chuck and does not spin while the solution is dispensed over the surface of the wafer via surface tension, thereby permitting the first solution to react with a reagent on the surface, such that when dispensing the first solution, a separation gap between the lid and the wafer is at a predetermined distance, for example, from about 20 μm to about 2 mm (interpreted as a wafer processing apparatus; top portion; bottom portion; dispensing reagent; lid; positioned on top; enclosing a vacuum chuck; vacuum chuck to rotatably hold the wafer; comprises a nozzle; does not spin when reagent is dispensed; fluid/fluidic system; width of the reaction chamber is 20 mm to 200 mm; and interpreting the gap with wafer to form the reaction chamber, claims 1, 3, 9-12 and 14) (Abstract). Crnogorac teaches that the system comprises components including: a wafer cassette, a wafer conveyance robot, a vacuum chuck, a lid, and a reaction chamber, wherein the wafer processing apparatus can further comprise a plurality of containers for holding the solutions/reagents (interpreted as a wafer, conveyance robot, vacuum chuck, interpreting containers as including a bowl and cover, and lid and reaction chamber, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040]). Crnogorac teaches that the lid, the wafer and the vacuum chuck are placed inside a controlled atmosphere chamber or an inert atmosphere chamber filled with inert gas, such as, for example, nitrogen, argon or another noble gas, or mixture thereof, such that the chamber can have an inlet for the inert gas and an outlet for the inert gas so that a constant air flow can be maintained within the controlled atmosphere chamber to enclose the reaction chamber, so that air-sensitive or moisture sensitive reaction may occur in the reaction chamber (interpreting the controlled chamber to comprise a bowl; enclose the wafer, chuck, lid and reaction chamber; and a cover, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], last 7 lines). Crnogorac teaches a wafer conveyance robot, which can retrieve a specific wafer from a first wafer cassette, transfer the wafer to at least one pre-determined location; and place the wafer to a second wafer cassette or the first wafer, depending on the needs, wherein the wafer conveyance robot can comprise at least one motor, at least one movable arm, and a wafer holder attached to the end of one arm, such that the wafer conveyance robot can move horizontally and vertically with the help of the motors (interpreting the wafer conveyance robot as a wafer centering mechanism to adjust the position of the wafer; and a wafer that is rotatable via the conveyance robot, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], lines 7-12). Crnogorac teaches that Figure 2 illustrates a partial, perspective graphical depiction of a reaction assembly 200, comprising: a lid 226 that can be movable by supporting columns 228A, 228B and 228C vertically or horizontally (interpreted as a movable lid) and, optionally, can be movable on the horizontal plane via a motor, wherein the supporting columns 228 can be adjustment screws (interpreting adjustment screws and supporting columns as adjustment pins), such that the lid 226 can be transparent so that a naked eye or an instrument can inspect a wafer 250 directly below the lid 226, wherein the wafer 250 can sit on a vacuum chuck (not shown), such that the vacuum chuck can be configured to support and secure the wafer 250 (interpreted as a vacuum chuck support; transparent lid and cover; and secures the wafer); and the vacuum chuck can engage with a shaft 220 which can move the vacuum chuck vertically, wherein the lid 226 aligns with the wafer 250 along a vertical axis at the center of and perpendicular to the surface of the wafer 250, wherein the wafer 250 and the bottom surface of the lid 226 are circular, such that the center of the lid 226 can comprise a hole 260, through which a nozzle and/or an inlet tube can be inserted so that to dispense at least one reagent or solution over the top surface of the wafer 250 in a controlled manner (interpreted as a nozzle in the center of the lid), such that a first hanging frame 262 can engage with both the supporting columns 228 and the lid 226; and a second hanging frame 264 can engage with secure the supporting columns 228 (interpreted as comprising a lower portion; an upper portions; vacuum chick in a bowl affixed to the lower portion; rotatably holding the wafer; a movable cover; a lid connected to the cover; three or more adjustment pins; lid configured to adjust the position relative to the wafer; defining a reaction chamber; enclosing the vacuum chuck, lid and wafer have a top surface and a bottom surface; wafer, lid interpreting the second hanging frame 264 as a movable cover; and reaction chamber, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0050]). Figure 2 is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crnogorac teaches that when describing filling the reaction chamber with a solution or reagent in the present disclosure, the phrase "substantially fill the reaction chamber" generally refers to fill at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 96% or at least 99% of the volume of the reaction chamber (interpreted as substantially filling up the reaction chamber, claim 11) (paragraph [0055], lines 9-12). Crnogorac teaches that Figure 3 illustrates the relative layout of the lid and the vacuum chuck is further depicted as reaction assembly 300 according to another embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the center of a lid 326 there can be a nozzle 352 for controlled delivery of reagents to the top surface of a wafer 350, which is supported and secured by a vacuum chuck 322, wherein the lid 326 can be movable with the help of supporting columns 328A and 328B (interpreted as a movable lid, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0051]; and Figure 3). Figure 3 is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
369
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Crnogorac teaches that the vacuum chuck 22 can comprise side arms 24 so that when a wafer is placed on top of the vacuum chuck 22 by the wafer holder 18, the wafer can be centered on the vacuum chuck 22; and a vacuum applied via the vacuum chuck 22 can hold the wafer in place and force the wafer move together with the moving vacuum chuck 22, wherein the vacuum chuck 22 can be positioned on top of a supporting shaft 20, wherein the supporting shaft can optionally move vertically to adjust the height of the wafer (interpreted as adjusting any of the three or more adjustment pins; and interpreting the vacuum chuck and wafer holder as a wafer centering mechanism to adjust the position of the wafer, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0047]). Crnogorac teaches that the lid can align with the wafer along a vertical axis at the center of and perpendicular to the surface of the wafer; and located in the middle of the lid can be a nozzle for controlled delivery of solutions or reagents to the top surface of the wafer reagents can be in solution, liquid or gas forms (interpreted as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1, 11, 13, 14 and 15) (paragraph [0040], #4, Lids). Crnogorac teaches that the method of claim 1, further comprises prior to (a), adjusting support columns of the lid, thereby making a bottom surface of the lid and the first surface of the wafer substantially parallel (interpreted as adjusting the position of the wafer relative to the rotation axis, claim 16) (pg. 28, claim 16). Crnogorac teaches that an ultrasonic module can be added to the reaction chamber for improved mixing (interpreted as being within a Spincell, wherein the wafer can be spinning or stationary, claim 11) (paragraph [0061]). Crnogorac teaches that when a flow cell reaction chamber is used, standard manipulation of the substrates can be followed when conducting surface chemistry, including shaking, turning, agitating the substrate inside the flow cell reaction chamber (interpreted as being within a Spincell, wherein the wafer can be spinning or stationary, claim 11) (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Crnogorac teaches that the term “processor” generally refers to a personal computer with associated memory including having sufficient transient RAM memory, and transient storage memory, processing power, and hardware, such as interface cards to run the associated control software, interface with and operate the automated components of the apparatus, such as the various pumps, motors, valves, sensors, and detectors, and record the values from the sensors, probes and detectors (interpreted as an actuator and processors, claims 2, 9, 10, 18 and 20) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claims 5, 9 and 19, Crnogorac teaches that the system comprises components including: a wafer cassette, a wafer conveyance robot, a vacuum chuck, a lid, and a reaction chamber, wherein the wafer conveyance robot can retrieve a specific wafer from a first wafer cassette, transfer the wafer to at least one pre-determined location; and place the wafer to a second wafer cassette or the first wafer, depending on the needs; and can comprise at least one motor, at least one movable arm, and a wafer holder attached to the end of one arm, such that the wafer conveyance robot can move horizontally and vertically with the help of the motors (interpreting the processing apparatus to comprise a wafer conveyance robot; configured to place and remove the wafer onto the vacuum chuck, claims 5, 9 and 19) (paragraph [0040]). Crnogorac teaches that Figure 1 shows a wafer conveyance robot 16 can comprise a first robot mechanism 14, and a wafer holder 18; and the wafer conveyance robot 16 can be on a polar coordinate system and disposed on an upper surface of a base 10 (interpreting the surface of the base to be the lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0046]; and Figures 1).
Regarding claim 6, Crnogorac teaches that the gap distance d between the top surface of the wafer 350 and the bottom surface of the lid 326 can range from about 20 μm to about 2 mm, wherein the diameter of the lid 326 can be the same as the diameter of the wafer 350 it covers, longer than the diameter of the wafer 350, or shorter than the diameter of the wafer 350, or the lid 326 can be longer than the diameter of the wafer 350 (interpreted as the lid being radially smaller than the wafer, claim 6) (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Crnogorac teaches that the lid 226 can be transparent so that a naked eye or an instrument can inspect a wafer 250 directly below the lid 226, wherein the wafer 250 can sit on a vacuum chuck (not shown), such that the vacuum chuck can be configured to support and secure the wafer 250 (interpreted as a transparent lid; and secures the wafer) (paragraph [0050], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Crnogorac teaches that a second hanging frame 264 can engage and secure the supporting columns 228 (interpreting the second hanging frame as a partly transparent movable cover, claim 8) (paragraph [0050], last two lines).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 18 and 20, Crnogorac teaches that the term “processor” generally refers to a personal computer with associated memory including having sufficient transient RAM memory, and transient storage memory, processing power, and hardware, such as interface cards to run the associated control software, interface with and operate the automated components of the apparatus, such as the various pumps, motors, valves, sensors, and detectors, and record the values from the sensors, probes and detectors (interpreted as an actuator and processors, claims 2, 9, 10, 18 and 20) (paragraph [0036]). Crnogorac teaches a method for processing wafers, comprising: (a) dispensing a first solution onto a first surface of a first wafer by a nozzle residing in a lid; (b) spreading the first solution over the first surface (claim 1); and (c) reacting the first solution with a first reagent on the first surface, thereby forming a first product; wherein the first wafer does not spin in (a)-(c); and the method of claim 1, further comprising prior to (a): (i) moving the first wafer from a first position to a second position by a wafer conveyance robot; and (ii) placing the first wafer on top of a vacuum chuck at the second position (claim 15); as well as, the method of claim 15, further comprising after (c): (d) removing the first wafer from the second position; (e) moving a second wafer from the first position to the second position by the wafer conveyance robot; and (f) placing the second wafer on top of the vacuum chuck at the second position; and dispensing a third solution onto the second surface (interpreted as repeating controlling, closing, adjusting, opening, etc., claims 18 and 20) (pgs. 27-28, claims 1, 15, 23 and 24).
Regarding claims 12-15, Crnogorac teaches that reagents in the forms of gas, liquid or solution can be introduced into the conduit or tube 330 in a controlled manner, wherein the nozzle 352 can deliver the reagents onto the top surface of the wafer 350 when the wafer 350 does not spin or when the wafer 350 is stationary relative to the lid 326, wherein liquid reagents can spread by capillary action or surface tension when the wafer 350 does not spin or when the wafer 350 is stationary relative to the lid 326 (interpreted as gas reagents or fluidic reagents; and the wafter does not spin or is stationary when during dispensing, claims 13-15) (paragraph [0055], lines 1-6). Crnogorac teaches that the wafer does not require spinning during the addition of the solutions/reagents (interpreted as spinning or stationary during dispensing of reagents, claims 12-15) (paragraph [0080], lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 17, Crnogorac teaches that moving in (i) comprises removing the first wafer from the wafer cassette at the first position (interpreted as opening and removing the wafer from the vacuum chuck, claim 17) (pg. 28, claim 17).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Crnogorac teaches that Figure 4 shows an example of image analysis of fluorescent signals from wafers obtained by a method disclosed in the present disclosure (interpreted as detecting signals, claim 21) (paragraph [0018]; and Figure 4). Crnogorac teaches that Figure 6 is a bar graph to compare fluorescent signals recorded using the device/system/method of the present disclosure and those recorded using a flow-cell (interpreted a smaller variations compared to signals generated by a wafer made in a flow cell, claim 21) (paragraph [0020]; and Figure 6). Figure 6 is shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
394
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Crnogorac teaches fluorophore attachment to the substrate, wherein the substrate with the PCG group removed from 5' position can be put back to the DNA "chip maker", such that using the DNA "chip maker" the free 5' OH group on the DNA sequence can react with fluorophore-bearing phosphoramidite or a mixture of fluorophore-bearing phosphoramidite and DMT-nucleoside phosphoramidite (interpreted as creating a plurality of features on the wafer that release fluorescent signals, claims 21 and 22) (paragraph [0078]). Crnogorac teaches that all fluorescence data and images can be collected by a confocal microscope, a chip reader, a biochip scanner, or a microarray reader, wherein the substrate can be viewed with a Bio-Rad 9Bio-Rad Laboratories laser scanning confocal microscope using an appropriate wavelength as the excitation source, an appropriate bandpass filter in front of a photomultiplier tube to collect the emission from the fluorophore, e.g., fluorescein (interpreted as detecting fluorescence signals; and fluorescence microscopic imaging, claims 21 and 22) (paragraph [0080]). Crnogorac teaches that phosphoramidite reagents can be used (interpreted as phosphoramidite reagents, claim 22) (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 23, Crnogorac teaches that the device/system/method of the present disclosure can exhibit the following characteristics: (1) thin uniform layer of oligonucleotide on the surface of the wafer due to surface wetting of the reagent, thereby ensuring uniform reaction conditions for oligonucleotide synthesis; (2) high reaction efficiency for surface chemistry related to oligonucleotide synthesis; (3) uniform fluorescence signals for probes obtained from oligonucleotide synthesis; (4) strong fluorescence signals for probes; (5) easy implementation to ensure parallelism between the wafer and the lid during oligonucleotide synthesis; (6) cost saving due to a smaller reaction volume when compared with a flow cell; and (7) there is cost savings due to less waste in reagents since less material can be lost due to spinning or other physical motions of the substrate during the oligonucleotide synthesis process, and smaller reaction chamber when compared with a flow-cell (interpreted as smaller variation in signals compared to a wafer made in a flow cell; and synthesizing oligonucleotides, claim 21 and 23) (paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 24, Crnogorac teaches a lid, which can be raised or lowered to a specific height by a motor, wherein the lid can have at least one supporting column connected to either the motor or an arm controlled by the motor (interpreting the connector as an adapter, claim 24) (paragraph [0040], #4). Crnogorac teaches that the two supporting columns 28A and 28B can be connected with a wall portion 34 via side arms 32A and 32B, respectively (interpreting the connector as an adapter, claim 24) (paragraph [0048], lines 8-9). Crnogorac teaches an outlet tube can be inserted into the lid away from the nozzle and the tube connected to the nozzle (interpreting the connector as an adapter, claim 24) (paragraph [0065], lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 25, Crnogorac teaches a "processor" which refers to a personal computer with associated memory including sufficient transient RAM memory, non-transient storage memory, processing power, and hardware, such as interface cards to run the associated control software, interface with and operate the automated components of the apparatus, such as the various pumps, motors, valves, sensors, and detectors, and record the values from the sensors, probes and detectors (interpret a processor that control pumps, motors, valves, sensors and detectors as including motion control, communication control and programming control, claim 25) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 30, Crnogorac teaches fluorophore attachment to the substrate, wherein the substrate with the PCG group removed from 5' position can be put back to the DNA "chip maker", such that using the DNA "chip maker" the free 5' OH group on the DNA sequence can react with fluorophore-bearing phosphoramidite or a mixture of fluorophore-bearing phosphoramidite and DMT-nucleoside phosphoramidite (interpreted as creating a plurality of features on the wafer that release fluorescent signals, claim 30) (paragraph [0078]). Crnogorac teaches that all fluorescence data and images can be collected by a confocal microscope, a chip reader, a biochip scanner, or a microarray reader, wherein the substrate can be viewed with a Bio-Rad 9Bio-Rad Laboratories laser scanning confocal microscope using an appropriate wavelength as the excitation source, an appropriate bandpass filter in front of a photomultiplier tube to collect the emission from the fluorophore, e.g., fluorescein (interpreted as detecting fluorescence signals; and fluorescence microscopic imaging, claim 30) (paragraph [0080]). The Examiner notes that average fluorescent intensity is dependent on the specific fluorophores and their relative concentration or relative density on a surface. The instant claims do not recite the presence of fluorophores, fluorescent tags, any reactions that cause fluorescence to occur (e.g., cleavage, reaction, etc.). Moreover, per MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Crnogorac does not specifically exemplify where the wafer is spinning during reagent dispensing (claim 15, in part); and spinning a wafer at a specific speed (rpm) (claims 26-29).
Crnogorac meets all the limitations of the claims and, therefore, anticipates the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) Crnogorac does not teach a wafer processing apparatus or a method for processing wafers comprising a lower and upper portion, wherein the lower portion comprises a plurality of operation controls, and wherein the lower portion and the upper portion are within a Spincell (Applicant Remarks, pg. 21, second full paragraph, lines 2-4); (b) Crnogorac does not teach a wafer centering mechanism (Applicant Remarks, pg. 21, second full paragraph, lines 5-6); and (c) Crnogorac specifically recites that the wafer is "positioned on top of a vacuum chuck and does not spin while the solution is dispensed over the surface of the wafer via surface tension (Applicant Remarks, pg. 21, second full paragraph, lines 6-8).
Regarding (a), although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, MPEP 2112.01(I) states that:
where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
MPEP 2112.01(II) indicates:
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. “The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty”) (underline added).
Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac does not teach the lower portion and the upper portion are within a Spincell, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, the term Spincell is rejected under 35 USC 112(b); and the term Spincell is not recited in instant claim 1. Additionally, the components of the wafer processing apparatus and the method of processing wafers as recited in claims 1 and 11 are very broadly recited, such that the instant claims do not recite any specific position, location, structure, and/or features for the upper portion, lower portion, and/or the Spincell that encompasses the lower portion and the upper portion. To that end -
Crnogorac teaches:
The wafer conveyance robot 16 can be on a polar coordinate system and disposed on an upper surface of a base 10 (interpreting the base to be the lower portion; and everything on the base is located in the upper portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0046]; and Figures 1). Figure 1 is shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
716
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 depicts a partial perspective view of the reaction assembly 200 of a wafer processing apparatus (interpreting the reaction assembly and reaction chamber to comprise a bowl attached to the lower portion, wherein the upper portion comprises the reaction chamber; and is a Spincell, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0016]; and Figure 2). Figure 2 is shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
630
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Crnogorac clearly teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding (b), please see the discussion supra regarding the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments; as well as, the broadness of the instant claims. Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac does not teach a wafer processing apparatus or a method for processing wafers comprising a lower and upper portion, wherein the lower portion comprises a plurality of operation controls, and wherein the lower portion and the upper portion are within a Spincell, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, the term Spincell is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Moreover, the term Spincell is not recited in instant claim 1. Additionally, the components of the wafer processing apparatus and the method of processing wafers as recited in claims 1 and 11 are very broadly recited. Instant claims 1 and 11 do not recite and/or describe any specific wafer centering mechanism. To that end -
Crnogorac teaches:
A wafer conveyance robot, which can retrieve a specific wafer from a first wafer cassette, transfer the wafer to at least one pre-determined location (interpreting the wafer conveyance robot as a wafer centering mechanism to adjust the position of the wafer, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], lines 7-12).
The vacuum chuck 22 can comprise side arms 24 so that when a wafer is placed on top of the vacuum chuck 22 by the wafer holder 18, the wafer can be centered on the vacuum chuck 22; and a vacuum applied via the vacuum chuck 22 can hold the wafer in place and force the wafer move together with the moving vacuum chuck 22 (interpreting the vacuum chuck and/or the wafer holder as a wafer centering mechanism to adjust the position of the wafer, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0047]).
As shown in Figure 2, the lid 226 can align with the wafer along a vertical axis at the center of and perpendicular to the surface of the wafer 250 (interpreting the lid as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1 and 11) (paragraphs [0048]; and [0050]).
The vacuum chuck can engage with the shaft 220 which can move the vacuum chuck vertically as shown in Figure 2 (interpreting the shaft as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0050]; and Figure 2).
Crnogorac clearly teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding (c), please see the discussion supra regarding the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments. MPEP 2123(I) states:
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); and Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (underline added).
Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac specifically recites that the wafer is "positioned on top of a vacuum chuck and does not spin while the solution is dispensed over the surface of the wafer via surface tension,” while the instant claims recite a wafer process apparatus wherein the wafer can rotate or spin, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, instant claim 12 recites similar language to that cited by Applicant regarding Crnogorac, wherein “the wafer is stationary during the dispensing of the at least one reagent.” Moreover, instant claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, and not to a method of using the apparatus. Additionally, claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer, such that there is nothing to spin. Instant claim 11 recites that the wafer can be spinning or stationary. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, claims 1 and 11 do not recite spinning a wafer. Instead, instant claims 1 and 11 recite (in part):
“a vacuum chuck disposed in a bowl, the vacuum chick configured to hold a wafer that is rotatable” (claim 1, lines 5-6).
“a wafer centering mechanism configured to adjust a position of the wafer, thereby keeping the wafer rotating about a rotation axis of the vacuum chuck” (underline added, claim 1, lines 7-8).
“the wafer can be spinning or stationary” (underline added, claim 11, line 29).
Crnogorac clearly teaches a wafer that is rotatable, can spin or be stationary; as well as, teaching a variety of wafer centering mechanisms. Instant claim 1 and 11 recite that the undefined wafer centering mechanism, thereby keeping the wafer rotating about a rotation axis of the vacuum chuck. Thus, an apparatus or process comprising a wafer centering mechanism will keep the wafer rotating about the rotation axis of the vacuum chuck. Moreover,
Crnogorac teaches:
When a flow cell reaction chamber is used, standard manipulation of the substrates can be followed when conducting surface chemistry, including shaking, turning, agitating the substrate inside the flow cell reaction chamber (interpreted as a rotatable wafer; and being within a Spincell, wherein the wafer can be spinning or stationary, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0082]).
The wafer conveyance robot can move horizontally and vertically using motors, wherein the wafer conveyance robot can transfer a wafer (interpreting the wafer conveyance robot as a wafer centering mechanism to adjust the position of the wafer; and a wafer that is rotatable via the conveyance robot, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], lines 7-12).
An ultrasonic module can be added to the reaction chamber for improved mixing (interpreted as a wafer that is rotatable; and wherein the wafer can be spinning or stationary, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0061]).
Crnogorac clearly teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Please Note: the references have been modified slightly in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03-04-2026.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-23 is maintained, and claims 24-30 are newly rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (hereinafter “Crnogorac”) (International Application No. WO2018217853, published November 29, 2018; of record) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (South Korean Application KR101055601; published August 9, 2011; and Machine Translation of KR101055601; published August 9, 2011; of record) as evidenced by SPS (SPS, 2015, 1-24); and Tseng et al. (hereinafter “Tseng”) (US Patent No. 8616539, issued December 31, 2013).
The teachings of Crnogorac with regards to claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-30 are described supra.
Crnogorac does not specifically exemplify where the wafer is spinning during reagent dispensing (claim 15, in part); and spinning a wafer at a specific speed (rpm) (claims 26-29).
Regarding claim 15 (in part), Kim teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a rotating support plate rotatably installed inside a process chamber and having a thin disk shape; a plurality of support pins fixed to an upper surface of the rotating support plate and supporting a lower surface or a side surface of a substrate; a plurality of support pins formed to wrap around the rotating support plate, a spin cup for preventing a chemical liquid or a cleaning liquid sprayed onto the substrate from scattering to the outside; and a rotating support plate driving unit connected to a central portion of the rotating support plate and rotationally driving the rotating support plate, wherein an upper surface of the lower bowl is open, an outer wall is formed to surround a periphery of the rotating support plate, and a lower surface of the lower bowl is formed with a through hole to communicate with the rotating support plate driving unit; a lower bowl is open, an upper surface of the lower bowl is connected to the open upper surface of the lower bowl and coupled with the lower bowl, an upper cover configured to provide a space in which the rotating support plate is accommodated; and a rotating support plate seating part coupled to the through hole and rotatably coupled to the rotating support plate (interpreted as spinning during dispensing, claim 15) (pg. 1, claim 1). Kim teaches an upper cover connected to an open upper surface of the lower bowl and coupled to the lower bowl to provide a space in which the rotating support plate is received, and a rotating support plate seating part coupled to the through hole and rotatably coupled to the rotating support plate (interpreted as a cover, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0009]). Kim teaches that Figure 7 shows a spin cup 130 can be comprises of a lower bowl 131, an upper cover 132 and a rotating support plate seat 133, wherein an upper surface of the lower bowl 131 can be opened, an outer wall can be formed to wrap around the rotation supporting plate 110, and a through hole 131 a can be formed on a lower surface thereof to communicate with the rotation supporting plate driving unit 140, such that an upper surface of the upper cover 132 can be opened, and connected to the opened upper surface of the lower bowl 131 and coupled with the lower bowl 131, thereby providing a space in which the rotation supporting plate 110 is accommodated (interpreted as a cover, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0049]). Figure 7 is shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
527
477
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches a spin cup driving unit 150 configured to move the spin cup 130 up and down is connected to a side of the spin cup 130, wherein the spin cup driving unit 150 can mount the substrate s loaded by the substrate transfer unit on the plurality of rotating support pins 120 and raise the spin cup 130 to perform the peeling process, and when the substrate transfer unit transfers the substrate s finished peeling process, the spin cup 130 can be lowered; and as shown in Figure 5, the spin cup drive 150 can use at least one actuator 151, such as a pneumatic cylinder, and a power transfer shaft 152 (interpreted as an actuator, claims 2 and 10) (paragraph [0053]). Kim teaches a spin chuck for substrate manufacturing, which is capable of simplifying and miniaturizing a structure of a spin chuck for substrate manufacturing and improving accuracy and efficiency of a substrate manufacturing process by including a plurality of support pins on an upper surface of a rotating support plate (interpreted as spinning, claim 15) (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 26-29, Kim teaches that the chemical liquid jetted by the jetting nozzles 60, 70 can be spread over the entire upper surface by the rotating force of the rotating substrates, and the overall peeling process may be uniformly performed (interpreted as spinning while dispensing a reagent, claim 15) (paragraph [0030]). Kim teaches that the drying apparatus can perform a drying process for drying the chemical liquid, pure water, or the like remaining on the surface of the substrates after the cleaning process is performed; wherein the drying apparatus can use the spin drying method of drying the substrates using the rotational force of the spin chuck 100, or use the chemical liquid remaining on the substrate s by evaporating the IPA solution using a chemical reaction of IPA (isopropyl alcohol), the IPA drying method of drying the substrates by substituting pure water and IPA solution, and so on (interpreted as spinning to agitate reagents; to spin off residual solvent, claims 26-29) (paragraph [0033]). Kim teaches that conventional spin chuck supports a substrate using a support plate of approximately cylindrical shape, wherein the support plate rotates at high speed (interpreted as encompassing speeds of about >1500 rpm, claims 26-29) (paragraph [0005]), wherein it is known that wafer spin processors can spin at speeds of 0 to 12,000 rpm as evidenced by SPS (pg. 3, col 2, System Benefits); and it was known that rotatable wafer chucks can be spun at speeds including 100-500 rpms and 2000-4000 rpms as evidenced by Tseng (col 5, lines 15-17).
It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; the court held that, "…a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950)”. Therefore, in view of the benefits of using spin drying to remove chemicals from the surface of the wafer as exemplified by Kim, it would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, system and methods for wafer processing comprising: (a) dispensing a first solution onto a first surface of a first wafer by a nozzle residing in a lid; (b) spreading the first solution over the first surface; and (c) reacting the first solution with a first reagent on the first surface, thereby forming a first product; wherein the first wafer may not spin in (a)-(c) as disclosed by Crnogorac to include spinning the wafter using a spin chuck in any step as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in spreading a chemical liquid uniformly over the surface of the wafer; in drying the apparatus by evaporating a chemical solution from the substrate; and/or in removing various contaminants adhering to the substrate during the process steps.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC §103 as obvious over the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) Crnogorac specifically teaches that the wafer is positioned on top of a vacuum chuck and does not spin while the solution is dispensed over the surface of the wafer via surface tension; and even though Kim discloses a rotating support plate, Kim does not disclose or suggest the use of such rotating support plate to improve the uniformity of the fluorescence intensity from a oligonucleotide synthesis reaction as taught in the instant Specification at paragraph [0036]; and [0130]-[0132]) (Applicant Remarks, pg. 22, last full paragraph through pg. 23, first full paragraph); and (b) a person of skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the stationary wafer of Crnogorac with the display manufacturing spin chuck of Kim to arrive at the claimed invention of a wafer processing apparatus or a method for processing wafers as recited in amended claims 1 and 11 (Applicant Remarks, pg. 23, second full paragraph).
Regarding (a), please see the discussion supra regarding the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 11 with regard to “spinning.” it is noted that none of the references has to teach each and every claim limitation. If they did, this would have been anticipation and not an obviousness-type rejection. 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). Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac teaches that the wafer does not spin while the solution is dispensed over the surface of the wafer via surface tension; and even though Kim discloses a rotating support plate, Kim does not disclose or suggest the use of such rotating support plate to improve the uniformity of the fluorescence intensity from a oligonucleotide synthesis reaction as taught in the instant Specification at paragraph [0036]; and [0130]-[0132]), is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, instant claims 1 and 11 do not recite one or more of: a wafer, fluorescence, oligonucleotide synthesis, oligonucleotide synthesis reactions, and/or any uniformity of the fluorescence intensity from a oligonucleotide synthesis reaction. Moreover, MPEP 2112.01(II) indicates that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, such that a processing apparatus comprising the same structure will provide the same improvements.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As noted supra, claims 1 and 11 do not recite spinning a wafer. Instead, instant claims 1 and 11 recite:
“a vacuum chuck disposed in a bowl, the vacuum chick configured to hold a wafer that is rotatable” (claim 1, lines 5-6).
“a wafer centering mechanism configured to adjust a position of the wafer, thereby keeping the wafer rotating about a rotation axis of the vacuum chuck” (underline added, claim 1, lines 7-8).
“the wafer can be spinning or stationary” (underline added, claim 11, line 29).
Crnogorac clearly teaches a wafer that is rotatable, can spin or be stationary; as well as, a variety of wafer centering mechanisms thereby keeping the wafer rotating about a rotation axis of the vacuum chuck. Additionally,
Kim teaches:
A spin chuck for manufacturing substrate comprising a rotating support plate (pg. 1, claim 2).
A plasma processing apparatus comprising: a rotating support plate rotatably installed inside a process chamber and having a thin disk shape; a plurality of support pins fixed to an upper surface of the rotating support plate and supporting a lower surface or a side surface of a substrate; a plurality of support pins formed to wrap around the rotating support plate, a spin cup for preventing a chemical liquid or a cleaning liquid sprayed onto the substrate from scattering to the outside (interpreted as a wafer that can spin; upper portion; and lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0009]).
A rotating support plate driving unit connected to a central portion of the rotating support plate and rotationally driving the rotating support plate, wherein an upper surface of the lower bowl is open (interpreted as a wafer that can spin; upper portion; and lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0009]).
The combined references of Crnogorac and Kim teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding (b), Applicant’s assertion that a person of skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the stationary wafer of Crnogorac with the display manufacturing spin chuck of Kim, is not found persuasive. The Applicants are reminded that the motivation for combining the teachings of the prior art may be different from applicants’ motivation to make the disclosed compositions. The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Office has provided motivation for using the spinning wafer exemplified by Kim in the method taught by Crnogorac, where one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be motivated to combine the processing steps disclosed by Crnogorac to include the rotating substrate plate and/or spin chuck in the substrate manufacturing process to uniformly spread a chemical liquid over the surface of the wafer; to evaporate a chemical solution from the substrate; and/or to removing various contaminants adhering to the substrate. The combined references of Crnogorac and Kim teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
New Objections/Rejections
Claim Objection
Claims 26-30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 26-30 recites the term "rpm” and “a.u.”, where an abbreviation should be spelled out in the first encounter of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-30 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMY M BUNKER whose telephone number is (313) 446-4833. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (6am-2:30pm).
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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571) 272-2876. 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.
/AMY M BUNKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights