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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 2, 2026 has been entered.
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, 15-22 and 26-30 are currently pending in the instant application. Claims 1, 11, 21 and 26-30 have been amended by Applicants’ amendment filed 07-02-2026. Claims 23-25 have been canceled by Applicants’ amendment filed 07-02-2026. No claims have been added by Applicants’ amendment filed 07-02-2026.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-15, 15-22 and 26-30 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Withdrawn Objections/Rejections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 July 2, 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 Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.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 Interpretation: the term “adapters” such as recited in claims 1 and 11 is interpreted to refer to any type of adapters including mechanical adapters, electrical adapters, chemical adapters, nucleic acid adapters, etc.
The term “controls” such as recited in claims 1 and 11 is interpreted to refer to any controls including any electronic, chemical, and/or mechanical controls (e.g., computers, sensors, controllers, actuators, software, monitors, cell phones, processors, motors, lever arms, gears, robotics, etc.).
The term “Spincell” as recited in claim 11 is interpreted to refer to an enclosure of any kind (e.g., a housing, a shield, a room, a chamber, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 15-22 and 26-30 is maintained 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, and claim 2 is newly rejected, as being indefinite for the recitation of the terms “lower portion” and “upper portion” such as recited in claim 1, lines 2 and 7 because the terms “lower” and “upper” are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. The terms “lower” and “upper” are not defined by the claim, and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite location of each portion as compared to some other location such that one portion qualifies as a “lower portion” and another portion qualifies as an “upper portion” (e.g., the base, the pedestal, the chuck assembly, etc.). Moreover, the portions of the apparatus are unclear regarding the location of the recited components relative one to another, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention 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 plurality of adapters” such as recited in claim 1, line 3 because it is unclear what type of adapters are encompassed by the term. It is unclear whether the term refers refer to a plurality of mechanical adapters, electrical adapters, chemical adapters, nucleic acid adapters (e.g., computer adapters, power adapters, DNA, a joint fitting, converter, linker, pipe connectors, etc.), and/or to some other type of adapters and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “configured to keep the wafer rotating about a rotation axis” such as recited in claim 1, line 11 because it is unclear whether the component is causes continuous rotation of the wafer (e.g., a motor, magnetic couplings, wafer chuck, etc.), such that the configuration of the wafer centering mechanism must be able to keep the wafer rotating about a rotation axis when the wafer processing apparatus is turned off, when it is not in use, etc. and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “at least one reagent” such as recited in claim 3, line 3 because claim 3 depends from instant claim 1 and 2, wherein claim 1 and 2 do not recite the presence of a reagent and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “a wafer conveyance robot” and such as recited in claim 5, lines 1-2 because it is unclear whether the “wafer conveyance robot” is located in the lower portion or in the upper portion of the wafer processing apparatus and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “remove the wafer from the vacuum chuck” such as recited in claim 5, line 3 because claim 5 depends from instant claim 1-3, wherein none of claims 1-3 recite that the wafer processing apparatus comprise a wafer and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “radially smaller than the wafer” such as recited in claim 6, lines 1-2 because claim 6 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite that the lid is a circular lid; and/or the presence of a wafer on the vacuum chuck and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite for the recitation of a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim), since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for example, claim 7 recites the broad range or limitation of a “part” of the lid, while the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range or limitation of “at least part” of the lid. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 20 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “at least one processor” such as recited in claim 9, line 2 because it is unclear whether the “at least one processor” is located in the lower portion or in the upper portion of the wafer processing apparatus and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 10 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “wafer”, “opening/closing”, “loading/unloading”, “dispensing at least one reagent”, and/or “a synchronization of the fluid system” such as recited in claim 10, lines 2-5 because claim 10 depends from instant claims 1-3, 5 and 9, wherein claims 1-3, 5 and 9 do not recite opening/closing the moveable cover, loading/unloading the wafer, the presence of a wafer or reagents, dispensing reagents, the presence of a fluid system, and/or synchronization of the fluid system and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 10 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the fluid system” such as recited in claim 10, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claim because claim 3, lines 1-2 recites the term “a fluidic system.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite, for example, “a synchronization of the fluidic system.”
Claim 11 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “wafer”, “reaction chamber”, and “nozzle” in claim 11, lines 25-27 and 29-30 because it is unclear whether the wafer, reaction chamber, and/or nozzle are located in the lower portion or the upper portion of the apparatus and/or whether the method as recited in claim 11 can be carried out using the device recited in claim 1 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 29 because the term “substantially” is relative terms 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 solid, liquid and/or gaseous reagent in the reaction chamber as compared to some other value that qualifies as a ‘substantially’ filled reaction chamber, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention 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 “Spincell” such as recited in claim 11, line 31. The term “Spincell” does not any specific usage in silicon wafer manufacturing, such that it is unclear what structure, apparatus, device or components represent a “Spincell” including whether the term refers to a centrifuge, an enclosed area encompassing the upper portion and the lower portions (e.g., a housing), or whether the term refers to something else and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Moreover, where 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 is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is appears to identify/describe a product made by Spinreact or Centillion Technologies. For the sake of compact prosecution a Spincell has been interpreted to refer to a complete or partial enclosure and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 13-15 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “dispensing an inert gas” such as recited in claim 13, lines 1-2 because it is unclear how an inert gas is dispensed into the reaction chamber. An inert gas is not considered to be a reagent because it is known that an a reagent is a substance consumed in the course of a chemical reaction as evidenced by IUPAC Goldbook (pgs. 1303 and 1311) and Photonics (pg. 1, first full paragraph). Moreover, claim 13 depends from instant claim 11, where claim 11 does not recite the presence of gas lines, or a component for dispensing an inert gas (e.g., an inert gas is not considered to be a reagent) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “adjusting the position of the wafer after (d), opening the movable cover after (d), and removing the wafer after (d)” because claims 18-20 depend from instant claims 11, 18 and/or 19, wherein claims 11, 18 and/or 19 do not recite adjusting the position of the wafer after (d), opening the movable cover after (d), and removing the wafer after (d); and/or the timing of steps the process steps and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “repeating (a), (b), (c), (d), thereby creating a plurality of oligonucleotides on the plurality of features on the wafer” such as recited in claim 21, lines 3-4 because the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. Instant claim 21 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite the presence of nucleotides, solvents, specific reaction reagents, carrying out any reaction such as hybridization, annealing, coupling, etc., such that it is completely unclear how repeating steps (a)-(d) synthesize a plurality of oligonucleotide (e.g., place a wafer on a vacuum chick, closing a movable cover, adjusting adjustment pins, and dispensing at least one reagent) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “plurality of features”, “plurality of oligonucleotides”, “fluorophore”, “a fluorescent signal”, “detecting a fluorescent signal”, and “fluorescence microscopic imaging” because claim 21 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite any features and/or oligonucleotides on the wafer, fluorophores, fluorescent labels or tags, any binding reaction to generate a signal, emission, and/or the generation of a fluorescent signal that can subsequently be detected. The as-filed Specification teaches that fluorescence microscopic imaging requires the hybridization of probes to target DNA in order to produce a fluorescent signal (paragraph [0080]-[0081]), none of which is recited to be occurring in instant claim 21. Additionally, claims 11 and 21 do not recite the presence of a fluorescent microscope and/or fluorescent microscopic imager and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “smaller variation” and “variation” such as recited in claim 21, lines 10-11 because the terms “smaller” and “variation” are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. Although the term “smaller variation” is compared to a “variation” in fluorescent signals generated from a corresponding wafer made in a flow cell, it is noted that: (i) the is no specific reference signal which to indicates the size, amount and/or level of a “smaller variation” or any “variation;” (ii) claim 11 does not recite producing a wafer; (iii) claims 11 and 21 do not recite any chemical synthesis and/or any chemical reactions that will generate the fluorescent signal; and (iii) it is completely unclear how a wafer made in a flow cell differs from the wafer used in the method recited in claim 11, such that no comparison can be made because it is unclear how the wafer recited in claim 11 was produced (e.g., also produced in a flow cell) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
The rejection of claims 26 and 27 is maintained as being 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. Thus, instant claim 1 does not recite a wafer and/or any component that spins a wafer and/or that is configured to spin 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 26-29 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “rounds per minute” and “(rpm)” such as recited in claim 26, lines 2-3 because the abbreviation “rpm” generally refers to a rotational speed measured in “revolutions per minute” as evidenced by Hall (col 1, lines 27-31) such that the meaning of the term “rounds per minute” is unclear and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
The rejection of claim 27 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the term “to agitate”, “at least one reagent”, “facilitate a chemical reaction” and “to spin off solvent” such as recited in claim 27, lines 1-4 because claim 27 depends from claims 1 and 3, wherein claims 1 and 3 do not recite spinning, agitating, a chemical reaction, and/or the presence of reagents and/or residual solvents and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
The rejection of claims 28 and 29 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the term “spun at a speed of about 100 rpm” in claim 28, lines 1-2 because claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite a processing apparatus comprising a wafer, a spin coater, a spin box, centrifuge, spin developer, etc. Thus, instant claim 11 does not recite a spinning wafer, any component that spins a wafer and/or any component that is configured to spin 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.
The rejection of claim 29 is maintained as being indefinite for the recitation of the terms “facilitate a chemical reaction,” “to agitate”, and “spin off solvent residual” such as recited in claims 28 and 29, lines 1-4 because claim 29 depends from claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite a spinning wafer, a wafer processing device comprising components that spin a wafer, it does not recite conducting a chemical reaction, and/or the presence of solvent, residual solvent, etc. and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 27 and 29 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “solvent residual” such as recited in claim 27, line 4 because it is unclear whether the term is meant to refer to residual solvent, or whether the term is meant to refer to something else and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 30 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “detecting…wherein the average fluorescence intensity is about 35090 arbitrary units (a.u.) ± 7.5%” such as recited in claim 30, lines 2-6 because claim 30 depends from instant claims 11 and 21, wherein claims 11 and 21 do not recite reagents and/or reactions that synthesize oligonucleotides comprising fluorescent tags or labels that can emit a fluorescent signal. Moreover, claims 11 and 21 do not recite the hybridization reaction required for the the generation of a fluorescent signal including at a specific intensity, and the claims do not recite the presence of a fluorescence microscope, fluorescence microscopic imaging, etc. and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 12 and 17 are indefinite insofar as they ultimately depend from instant claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) support for the terms “upper portion” and “lower portion” can be found in Figures 4 and 5; as well as, paragraphs [0061]-[0069], where Figure 5 shows the relative layout of the upper and lower portions of the Spincell (Applicant Remarks, pg. 9, last full paragraph; and pg. 10, first full paragraph); (b) regarding claims 6, 26 and 27, Applicant submits that claim 1 teach the presence of a wafer in claim 1(ii), wherein “a vacuum chuck disposed in the bowl, the vacuum chuck configured to hold a wafer that is rotatable” (Applicant Remarks, pg. 11, fifth full paragraph); (c) regarding claim 11 and the term “substantially fill up the reaction chamber,” Applicant submits that "substantially fill up the reaction chamber" encompasses filling to ~70% of full geometric capacity, see specification at paragraph [0129] (Applicant Remarks, pg. 13, second full paragraph through last full paragraph); (d) regarding claim 11, the term “Spincell” is fully defined in the specification at Figure 5 and paragraphs [0067]-[0068] (Applicant Remarks, pg. 14, first and second full paragraphs); (e) regarding claims 26 and 27 and the term “the wafer can be spun at a rate of”, Applicant nots that claim 1 recites "a wafer that is rotatable," and "a wafer centering mechanism ... configured to keep the wafer rotating about a rotation axis", such that claim 1 recites a wafer that can be rotated (Applicant Remarks, pg. 16, third full paragraph); and (f) regarding claims 28 and 29 and the terms “spun at a speed of 100 rpm”, “facilitate a chemical reaction,” “to agitate”, and “spin off solvent residual,” Applicant submits that claim 11 recites "placing a wafer on top of a vacuum chuck," "the wafer that is rotatable," "dispensing at least one reagent into the reaction chamber," and "the wafer can be spinning" (Applicant Remarks, pg. 16, last full paragraph; and claim 17, first full paragraph).
Regarding (a), with regard to claims 1 and 11 and the terms “upper portion” and “lower portion”, Applicant is reminded 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). The instant as-filed Specification and/or instant claims do not define the terms “upper portion” and “lower portion”, and/or whether the portions are “upper” or “lower” relative to some reference point. Additionally, instant claim 1 does not recite the term “Spincell” and the as-filed Specification does not define what that term means. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (b), with regard to claim 6 and the term “wafer”, it is noted that no wafer is recited to be present in instant claim 1. With regard to the term “configured to hold a wafer that is rotatable,” please see MPEP 2181(I), wherein the term “configured to” can be used in place of “means for” when determining whether a claim is recited under 35 USC 112(f). Additionally, the Examiner notes that a claim reciting that a component is “configured to” hold wafer, is stating the ability of the component to perform the function recited (e.g., hold a wafer). For example, a baseball mitt is “configured to” hold a baseball means that the mitt is designed to hold a baseball. On the contrary, instant claim 1 does not recite, for example, that the a wafer processing apparatus comprising a wafer. Moreover, in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Court analyzed the interpretation of “adapted to” under the plain meaning including two categories of functional language: (1) being ‘designed to accomplish the specified objective’ (e.g., “configured to,” “designed to”, “made to”); or (2) being capable of performing a function (e.g., “capable of,” “suitable for”) (See; pg. 25, last partial paragraph through pg. 27, first partial paragraph). The term “configured to” is synonymous with being designed to accomplish the specified objective. Thus, the claim remains rejected.
Regarding (c), with regard to claim 11 and the term “substantially fill up the reaction chamber,” the Specification (including at paragraph [0129]) does not teach or define the meaning of the term “substantially.” It is completely unclear how the term is interpreted by Applicant to be referring to approximately 70% of full geometric capacity. As noted supra, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Instant claims 1 and 11 do not recite the dimensions of the reaction chamber and/or the identity of the reagent dispensed (e.g., solid, liquid, and/or gas).Thus, it is completely unclear how much of the reaction chamber is filled when it is “substantially” filled up. The claim remains rejected.
Regarding (d), as an initial matter, the term “Spincell” is a trademark or trade name, which renders the claim indefinite. Moreover, the Examiner was unable to locate a specific definition of a “Spincell” including its structure, components and/or composition in the as-filed Specification. 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). The as-filed Specification at paragraphs [0067]-[0068] describes portions of a wafer processing apparatus of Figure 5; however, no “Spincell” is taught and/or labeled in Figure 5. Additionally, the instant as-filed Specification teaches that a “Spincell” is a system and method to synthesize chemical entities on a substrate to resolve previously reference difficulties (paragraph [0035]). This paragraph teaches various processes in which a Spincell may be used, or what a “Spincell” can do. However, the as-filed Specification does not provide any structure, location, complete list of components, etc. of a “Spincell.” Thus, claim 11 is indefinite for the recitation that the upper portion and lower portion are within a Spincell. The claim remains rejected.
Regarding (e), regarding claims 26 and 27 and the term “the wafer can be spun at a rate of”, it is noted that claims 26 and 27 depend from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite that the apparatus comprises a wafer, such that no wafer is spun at any speed. As previously discussed supra, the components recited are “configured to” perform a function, which is not the same as actually doing the recited process. Moreover, a “wafer centering mechanism” is configure to adjust the position of a wafer, such that it does not spin a wafer. Additionally, reciting that a wafer that is rotatable still does not recite a component of the apparatus that would spin a wafer. For example, a wafer can clearly be “rotated” by moving the entire apparatus in a circle, or by picking up the wafer and adjusting its position by hand. Furthermore, instant claim 1 does not recite a chemical reaction and/or the presence of any solvent. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (f), regarding claims 28 and 29 and the terms “spun at a speed of 100 rpm”, “facilitate a chemical reaction,” “to agitate”, and “spin off solvent residual,” it is noted that instant claim 11 does not recite that the reagent is agitated, that a chemical reaction is being conducted, and/or the presence of any solvent. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claims 6, 21 and 26-30 is maintained, and claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 18-20 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 3 recites (in part): “a fluidic system comprising a conduit inserted through the movable cover…configured to dispense at least one reagent into the reaction chamber via the nozzle” in lines 1-3 because claim 3 depends from instant claims 1 and 2, wherein claims 1 and 2 do not recite the presence of a reagent. Thus, claim 3 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 5 recites (in part): “configured to place the wafer onto the vacuum chuck and remove the wafer from the vacuum chuck” in lines 2-3 because claim 5 depends from instant claims 1-3 and/or 9, wherein claims 1-3 does not recite the presence of a wafer in the processing apparatus. Thus, claim 5 is an 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 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 that the presence of a wafer, and/or a circular lid. Thus, claim 5 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 10 recites (in part): “wherein the at least on processor is configured…or a combination thereof” in lines 1-5 because claim 10 depends from instant claims 1-3, 5 and 9, wherein claims 1-3, 5 and 9 do not recite the presence of presence of reagents, and/or the presence of a fluid system. Thus, claim 10 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 13 recites (in part): “further comprising, after (d): (e) dispensing an inert gas into the reaction chamber” in lines 1-2 because claim 13 depends from instant claim 11, where claim 11 does not recite the presence of gas lines, or a component for dispensing an inert gas (noting that an inert gas is not a reagent). Thus, claim 13 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 18-20 recites (in part): “adjusting the position of the wafer after (d), opening the movable cover after (d), and removing the wafer after (d)” in lines 4-5 because claims 18-20 depend from one or more of instant claims 11, 18 and/or 19, wherein claims 11, 18 and/or 19 do not recite adjusting the position of the wafer after (d), opening the movable cover after (d), removing of the wafer after (d) and/or the timing of the process steps. Thus, claims 18-20 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 21 recites (in part): “further comprising (i) creating a plurality of features on the wafer…from a corresponding wafer made in a flow cell” in lines 1-12 because claim 21 depends from instant claim 11, wherein claim 11 does not recite the presence of wafer features; the presence of nucleotides, solvents, specific reaction reagents, carrying out any reactions such as hybridization, annealing, etc.; the presence of oligonucleotides; the generation of a fluorescent signal; detecting a fluorescence signal; the presence of a fluorescence microscope; fluorescence microscopic imaging; and (iii) it is completely unclear how a wafer made in a flow cell differs from the wafer used in instant claim 11. 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.
Claims 26-29 recite (in part): “the wafter can be spun at a speed of” in claim 26, lines 1-2 because claims 26 and 27 depend from claims 1 and 2; and claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 11, wherein none of claims 1, 2 and 11 recite spinning a wafer. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer. Thus, claims 26-29 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.
Claims 27 and 29 recite (in part): “to agitate that at least one reagent to facilitate a chemical reaction” and “to spin off solvent residual” in claim 27, lines 1-4 because claim 27 depends from claims 1 and 2; and claim 29 depends from claim 11; and claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 11, wherein claims 1, 2 and 11 do not recite agitating the wafer; and/or the presence of a reagent, or the presence of a solvent. Thus, claims 27 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): “the method of claim 2, further comprising…the average fluorescence intensity is about 35090 arbitrary units (a.u.) ± 7.5%” in lines 1-6 because claim 30 depends from instant claims 11 and 21, wherein claims 11 and 21 do not recite reagents and/or reactions that synthesize oligonucleotides comprising fluorescent tags or labels that can emit a fluorescent signal. Moreover, claims 11 and 21 do not recite the hybridization reaction required for the generation of a fluorescent signal including at a specific intensity, and the claims do not recite the presence of a fluorescence microscope, fluorescence microscopic imaging, etc. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) regarding claims 26 and 27, Applicant nots that claim 1 recites "a wafer that is rotatable," and "a wafer centering mechanism ... configured to keep the wafer rotating about a rotation axis", such that claim 1 recites a wafer that can be rotated (Applicant Remarks, pg. 19, second full paragraph); and (b) regarding claims 28 and 29, Applicant submits that claim 11 recites "placing a wafer on top of a vacuum chuck," "the wafer that is rotatable," "dispensing at least one reagent into the reaction chamber," and "the wafer can be spinning" (Applicant Remarks, pg. 19, fourth and fifth full paragraphs).
Regarding (a), regarding claims 26 and 27, please see the discussion supra regarding these claims, including wherein claim 1 does not recite that the apparatus comprises a wafer. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (b), regarding claims 28 and 29, please see the discussion supra regarding these claims, including wherein claim 11 does not recite any chemical reaction and/or any solvents. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-21 and 26-30 is maintained 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 "processor" with associated memory 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 (interpreting the processor and pumps, motors, valves, sensors and detectors as a plurality of operation controls including operation, motion, communication and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0036]). Crnogorac teaches an external controller, such as a computer or microprocessor (interpreting a microprocessor in the lower portion (not with the bowl) as an operation, motion, communication and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], lines 28-30). 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 the device can comprise a computer system to control the delivery of reagents, the movement of parts of the device, and other operation of the device (interpreted as an operations control, a motion control, a communications control, and a programming control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0041]). Crnogorac teaches that Figure 1 shows a wafer conveyance robot 16 can compose a first robot mechanism 14 and a wafer holder 18, wherein the wafer conveyance robot 16 can be on a polar coordinate system and disposed on an upper surface of a base 10, such that the first robot can move vertically and horizontally (interpreting the surface of the base to be the lower portion; and the robot to be an adapter; as well as, a motion control, and an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0046]; and Figure 1). Figure 1 is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
712
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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_image2.png
400
460
media_image2.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 the delivery of reagents can be controlled by an external controller, for example, a computer or a microprocessor (interpreting an external controller to be located on the lower portion – not with the bowl; and comprising a motion control and/or an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0052], lines 6-9). 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_image3.png
369
575
media_image3.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 the device/system can be connected to an automated oligonucleotide synthesizer, which can comprise linkers such as HEG linkers (interpreting the oligo synthesizer as comprising HEG linkers and electronic connectors as a plurality of adapters; and acting as an operation control, motion control, and programming control located in the lower portion (not in the bowl), claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0073]). 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, such that the substrate can be viewed with a Bio-Rad MRC-1024 laser scanning confocal microscope to collect the emission from the fluorophore (interpreted as the lower portion comprising a motion control, communication control, and/or an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0080], lines 1-5). 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]). 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 1, 11 and 21) (paragraph [0093]). 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, claims 1 and 11) (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, claims 1 and 11) (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). 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, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0036]).
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_image4.png
394
741
media_image4.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 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 July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) Crnogorac does not teach the amended features of the claims 1 and 11 including a lower portion, the lower portion comprising (i) a plurality of adapters; and (ii) a plurality of operation controls, comprising a motion control, a communication control, and a programming control as shown in Figure 5 (Applicant Remarks, pg. 21, first and second full paragraphs); and (b) Crnogorac does not teach a wafer centering mechanism (Applicant Remarks, pg. 22, first partial paragraph).
Regarding (a), the Examiner has interpreted the term “adapters” to refer to any type of adapters including mechanical adapters, electrical adapters, chemical adapters, nucleic acid adapters, etc.; and the term “controls” to refer to any controls including any electronic, chemical, and/or mechanical controls (e.g., computers, sensors, controllers, actuators, software, monitors, cell phones, processors, motors, lever arms, gears, robotics, etc.).
. Moreover, 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 amended features of the claims 1 and 11 including a lower portion, the lower portion comprising (i) a plurality of adapters; and (ii) a plurality of operation controls, comprising a motion control, a communication control, and a programming control, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, the claims do not recite any specific location of the “upper portion” and/or the “lower portion.” Regarding Figure 5, Applicant is respectfully reminded 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). The Examiner contends that Crnogorac teaches all of the limitations of the claims. To that end - Crnogorac teaches:
DNA chips containing surface-bound oligonucleotides or probes are used to interrogate target nucleic acid sequences via hybridization (interpreting probes as adapters, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0022]).
The device can comprise a computer system to control the delivery of reagents, the movement of parts of the device, and other operation of the device (interpreted as an operations control, a motion control, a communications control, and a programming control located in the lower portion, below or lower than the upper portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0041]).
A "processor" with associated memory 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 (interpreting the processor and pumps, motors, valves, sensors and detectors as a plurality of operation controls including operation, motion, communication and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0036]).
An external controller, such as a computer or microprocessor (interpreting a microprocessor as comprising adaptor cord; being located in the lower portion (not with the bowl); and as an operation, motion, communication and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0040], lines 28-30).
A supporting shaft 320, where supporting shaft 320 is attached to the base 10 as shown in Figure 1 (interpreted as an adapter; being connected to the lower portion; and comprising a motion control and/or an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0051], lines 6-7).
The delivery of reagents can be controlled by an external controller, for example, a computer or a microprocessor (interpreting an external controller to be located on the lower portion – not with the bowl; and comprising a motion control and/or an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0052], lines 6-9).
Figure 1 shows a wafer conveyance robot 16 can compose a first robot mechanism 14 and a wafer holder 18, wherein the wafer conveyance robot 16 can be on a polar coordinate system and disposed on an upper surface of a base 10, such that the first robot can move vertically and horizontally (interpreting the surface of the base to be the lower portion; and the robot to be an adapter; as well as, a motion control, and an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0046]; and Figure 1).
The device/system can be connected to an automated oligonucleotide synthesizer, which can comprise linkers such as HEG linkers (interpreting the oligo synthesizer as comprising HEG linkers and electronic connectors as a plurality of adapters; and acting as an operation control, motion control, and programming control located in the lower portion (not in the bowl), claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0073]).
All fluorescence data and images can be collected by a confocal microscope, a chip reader, a biochip scanner, or a microarray reader, such that the substrate can be viewed with a Bio-Rad MRC-1024 laser scanning confocal microscope to collect the emission from the fluorophore (interpreted as the lower portion comprising a motion control, communication control, and/or an operation control, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0080], lines 1-5).
Crnogorac teaches all of the limitations of the claims, thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (b), Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac does not teach a wafer centering mechanism, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter, instant claims 1 and 11 do not recite any specific component as a “wafer centering mechanism.” To that end – Crnogorac teaches:
The lid can align with the wafer along a vertical axis at the center of and perpendicular to the surface of the wafer (interpreting the lid as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0048]).
The vacuum chuck 22 can comprise side arms 24 so that when a wafer placed on top of the vacuum chuck 22 by the wafer holder 18, the wafer can be centered on the vacuum chuck 22, wherein 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, side arms, wafer holder, and/or vacuum as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0047]).
The vacuum chuck can be positioned on top of a supporting shaft 20, which can optionally move vertically to adjust the height of the wafer (interpreting the supporting shaft as a wafer centering mechanism, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0047]).
Crnogorac teaches all of the limitations of the claims, thus, the claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 15-22 and 26-30 is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crnogorac et al. (hereinafter “Crnogorac”) (International Application 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; of record); and Tseng et al. (hereinafter “Tseng”) (US Patent No. 8616539, issued December 31, 2013; of record).
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_image5.png
527
477
media_image5.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]). Kim teaches that Figure 5 shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
552
868
media_image6.png
Greyscale
process chamber (1): substrate (s); spin chuck for manufacturing substrate (100); rotation support plate (110); first body portion (111); second body portion (112); rib (113); plurality of support pins (120); lower support pin (121); side support pin (122); spin cup (130); lower bowl (131); upper cover (132); rotating support plate seating portion (133); lower nozzle fixing block (134); position sensing sensor (135); rotating support plate driving portion (140); driving motor (141); driving shaft (142); shaft coupling portion (143); shaft bearing portion (144); spin cup driving portion (150); actuator (151); and power transmission shaft (152) (interpreting the lower portion to comprise the rotating support plate driving portion (140); driving motor (141); driving shaft (142); shaft coupling portion (143); shaft bearing portion (144); spin cup driving portion (150); actuator (151); and power transmission shaft (152), which include mechanical and electrical adapters and operation controls, motion controls, communication controls, and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0062]; and Figure 5). Kim teaches a spin chuck for manufacturing a substrate capable of simplifying and miniaturizing a structure of the spin chuck for manufacturing a substrate and improving accuracy and efficiency of a substrate manufacturing process, such that in general semiconductor manufacturing processes, touch panels, flat panel displays such as liquid crystal displays, LCD (Touch Panel), LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), FPD), etc., and photolithography techniques can be applied to form these patterns (interpreted as a lower portion comprising operation controls, motion controls, communication controls, and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraphs [0001]-[0002], lines 1-4). Kim teaches that the term substrate (s) as used herein refers to a transparent conductive film such as an indium tin oxide (Ito) film in which patterns of specific shapes are formed to manufacture a touch panel, and polyethylene terephthalate (pet) film, glass, and so on in which wirings connected thereto are formed (interpreted as adapters, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0023]). Kim teaches a plurality of support pins 120 can be fixed to an upper surface of the rotating support plate 110, and can support a lower surface or a side surface of the substrate (S) (interpreting support pins as motion control and operation control in the lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0039]).
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]). Kim teaches that the description will be omitted of the description of well-known in the art to which the invention pertains (paragraph [0019]), 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/or 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 July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) Applicant submits that the instant application teaches a wafer processing apparatus comprising a lower and upper portion or a method for processing wafers, wherein the wafer can rotate or spin to agitate the reagent and facilitate the chemical reaction, thereby achieving surprising result, i.e., improved uniformity of oligonucleotide synthesis (Applicant Remarks, pg. 22, last full paragraph); (b) Crnogorac does not disclose a wafer processing apparatus or a method for processing wafers comprising a lower and upper portion, wherein the lower portion comprises a plurality of adapters and a plurality of operation controls comprising a motion control, a communication control, and a programming control (Applicant Remarks, pg. 23, entire page); and (c) Kim is silent as to any rotation speed such that a person skilled in the art would not have motivation or success in arriving at the specific spinning speeds at 0 to 12000 rpm (Applicant Remarks, pg. 24, first and second full paragraphs).
Regarding (a), Applicant’s assertion that the instant application teaches a wafer processing apparatus comprising a lower and upper portion or a method for processing wafers, wherein the wafer can rotate or spin to agitate the reagent and facilitate the chemical reaction, thereby achieving surprising result, i.e., improved uniformity of oligonucleotide synthesis, is not found persuasive. The instant claims do not recite what Applicant asserts including any features or components that produce the asserted ‘surprising results.’ Moreover, the as-filed Specification does not teach any unexpected and/or surprising results. For example, claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer and/or a Spincell; and claims 1 and 11 do not recite a wafer comprising a specific composition (e.g., silicon, silicon oxide, silanated silicon oxide, etc.), a spinning wafer, agitation, specific chemical reagents, a specific chemical reaction, the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a wafer, a measure or determination of synthesis quality across a substrate, a flow cell, etc.
MPEP 2145 indicates that:
Rebuttal evidence may also include evidence that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art. Rebuttal evidence may consist of a showing that the claimed compound possesses unexpected properties. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1901. A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (underline and italics added).
Additionally, the evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (underline and italics added).
in order for evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus, i.e., a legally and factually sufficient connection or correspondence between the submitted evidence and the claimed invention. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 373 (2020). See MPEP § 716.01(b) (underline and italics added).
Moreover, MPEP 716.02(b) states:
the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (See also; In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977).
MPEP 716.02(c) indicates that:
unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting a prima facie obviousness. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978); and where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
The instant claims do not recite the creation a processing apparatus comprising a spinning wafer, an agitated wafer, specific chemical reagents dispensed on the wafer, a uniformity of distribution of reagents on a wafer, a chemical reaction, synthesizing oligonucleotides on the wafer, etc. It is noted that Applicant has not provided -
Evidence supporting the unexpected results.
Any evidence of improved properties that are reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
A nexus or co-extensiveness between Applicant’s asserted improvements and the steps as recited in claim 1.
Where the advantages or surprising results are recognized in the as-filed Specification. The Examiner cannot locate where the surprising or unexpected nature of the invention is taught.
Evidence has not been provided that the “superior results” asserted by Applicant were unknown in the prior art.
Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (b), Applicant’s assertion that Crnogorac and Kim do not disclose a wafer processing apparatus or a method for processing wafers comprising a lower and upper portion, wherein the lower portion comprises a plurality of adapters and a plurality of operation controls comprising a motion control, a communication control, and a programming control, is not found persuasive. 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 non-obviousness 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). Once again, it is note that the terms “lower portion” and “upper portion” are indefinite under 35 USC 112(b), and it is unclear exactly where the “lower portion” and “upper portion” are located relative one to the other and/or relative to some reference device. Moreover, instant claims 1 and 11 recite that the wafer processing apparatus comprises an “upper portion” and a “lower portion”, and they do not recite an “upper portion” and a “lower portion” of a spin chuck as argued by Applicant (noting that the term “spin chuck” is not even recited in the instant claims).
Please see the discussion supra regarding the teachings of Crnogorac regarding the plurality of adapters, plurality of operation controls comprising a motion control, a communication control, and a programming control. Additionally –
Crnogorac teaches:
A base, an upper surface of the base, components attached to the base, a reaction assembly 200, a wafer holder, a wafer, robots, shafts, supporting columns, pins, vacuum chuck, nozzle, pumps, controllers, computers, microprocessors, valves, motors, reagents, conduits, tubes, inert gas, a lid, a substrate surface for chemical reactions, oligonucleotide synthesis protocols, oligonucleotide probes, etc. (interpreted as comprising an upper portion and a lower portion, claims 1 and 11).
Kim teaches:
A spin chuck for substrate manufacturing, which is capable of simplifying, miniaturizing 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 improvements from spinning) (paragraph [0007]).
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 an upper cover connected to an open upper surface of the lower bowl (interpreted as comprising an upper portion and a lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (pg. 1, claim 1).
Figure 5 shows::
PNG
media_image6.png
552
868
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Process chamber (1): substrate (s); spin chuck for manufacturing substrate (100); rotation support plate (110); first body portion (111); second body portion (112); rib (113); plurality of support pins (120); lower support pin (121); side support pin (122); spin cup (130); lower bowl (131); upper cover (132); rotating support plate seating portion (133); lower nozzle fixing block (134); position sensing sensor (135); rotating support plate driving portion (140); driving motor (141); driving shaft (142); shaft coupling portion (143); shaft bearing portion (144); spin cup driving portion (150); actuator (151); and power transmission shaft (152) (interpreting the lower portion to comprise the rotating support plate driving portion (140); driving motor (141); driving shaft (142); shaft coupling portion (143); shaft bearing portion (144); spin cup driving portion (150); actuator (151); and power transmission shaft (152), which include mechanical and electrical adapters and operation controls, motion controls, communication controls, and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0062]; and Figure 5).
A spin chuck for manufacturing a substrate capable of simplifying and miniaturizing a structure of the spin chuck for manufacturing a substrate and improving accuracy and efficiency of a substrate manufacturing process, such that in general semiconductor manufacturing processes, touch panels, flat panel displays such as liquid crystal displays, LCD (Touch Panel), LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), FPD), etc., and photolithography techniques can be applied to form these patterns (interpreted as a lower portion comprising operation controls, motion controls, communication controls, and programming controls, claims 1 and 11) (paragraphs [0001]-[0002], lines 1-4).
The term substrate (s) as used herein refers to a transparent conductive film such as an indium tin oxide (Ito) film in which patterns of specific shapes are formed to manufacture a touch panel, and polyethylene terephthalate (pet) film, glass, and so on in which wirings connected thereto are formed (interpreted as adapters, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0023]).
A plurality of support pins 120 can be fixed to an upper surface of the rotating support plate 110, and can support a lower surface or a side surface of the substrate (S) (interpreting support pins as motion control and operation control in the lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (paragraph [0039]).
The combined references of Crnogorac and Kim teach an apparatus comprising an upper portion and a lower portion; as well as, all of the limitations of the claims. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Regarding (c), Applicant’s assertion that Kim is silent as to any rotation speed such that a person skilled in the art would not have motivation or success in arriving at the specific spinning speeds at 0 to 12000 rpm, is not found persuasive. As an initial matter,
Claims 26-29 are dependent claims;
Claim 1 does not recite the presence of a wafer, such that no wafer associated with claim 1 is spinning;
Claims 26-29 recite the term “rounds per minute (rpm),” such that claims 26-29 do not recite any spinning speed of a wafer; and
A wafer having a spinning speed of 0 rpm is a stationary wafer (e.g., the wafer is not spinning).
Moreover, Kim teaches:
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 an upper cover connected to an open upper surface of the lower bowl (interpreted as comprising an upper portion and a lower portion, claims 1 and 11) (pg. 1, claim 1).
Figure 2 shows spin chuck 100 that is dried by centrifugal force (paragraph [0034]).
A spin chuck, a wafer, and a support plate that rotates at high speed (paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
The description will be omitted of the description of well-known in the art to which the invention pertains (paragraph [0019]), wherein it is known that wafer spin processors can spin at speeds of 0 to 12,000 rpm as evidenced by SPS; 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.
The combined references of Crnogorac and Kim teach an apparatus comprising an upper portion and a lower portion; as well as, all of the limitations of the claims. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 15-22 and 26-30 are rejected.
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