DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendments filed 1/14/2026 and the RCE filed 2/9/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 and 21 are pending.
Claims 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 13-20 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record, the Examiner notes the claims reciting a “portion” (claims 3, 6, 11) are construed in light of the BRI of the claim to mean: “an often limited part of a whole” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). That is, if the prior art can be divided into imaginary sub-divisions with the same shape as the instant portions, it meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US Pub. 2019/0189471) in view of Parette (US Patent 5,725,663).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a substrate treating apparatus ([0059] and Fig. 6, apparatus #10) comprising: a housing ([0059] and Fig. 6, chamber #800); a treating container in the housing ([0059] and Fig. 6, container #200), the treating container defining a treating space ([0062] and Fig. 6, space around substrate W); a support configured to support and rotate a substrate in the treating space ([0059] and Fig. 6, support unit #100; [0068] for rotation); an airflow supply configured to direct an airflow from a top of the housing in a downward direction into the treating container ([0061] and Fig. 6, fan filter unit #810); and an exhaust line coupled to a lower location of the treating container and configured to exhaust the airflow within the treating space ([0069] and Fig. 6, exhaust tube #275).
Jung does not appear to teach a support frame provided independently of a rotation of the support and positioned between the treating container and the support; and a guide vane protruding from an outside of the support frame with side surfaces configured to guide the airflow within the treating space in a downward direction, wherein the guide vane is provided in a plurality along a circumferential direction of the an outer circumferential surface of the support frame.
However, Parette teaches a support frame provided independently of a rotation of the support and positioned between the treating container and the support (Parette – Figs. 1, 4-6: plenum member #50 provided between chuck #24 and bowl #12); and a guide vane protruding from an outside of the support frame with side surfaces (Parette – Figs. 1, 6: protrusions of flange wall #58), wherein the guide vane is provided in a plurality along a circumferential direction of an outer circumferential surface of the support frame.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding the limitation: “configured to guide the airflow within the treating space in a downward direction”, the limitation is merely an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing this intended use. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the modified Jung apparatus would be capable of performing the above function by virtue of the fan unit (Jung) and the downward facing protrusions (Parette). As the fan unit shows only downward directed flow, the protrusions are viewed as capable of “guiding” the airflow downward by virtue of their presence alone.
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches wherein the support includes a spin chuck supporting the substrate ([0063] and Fig. 6, chuck #110); a rotation shaft coupled to a bottom surface of the spin chuck and configured to rotate the spin chuck ([0063] and Fig. 6, support shaft #140; [0068] for rotation); and a first driver configured to provide a rotational force to the rotation shaft ([0068] and Fig. 6, actuator #150 provided for shaft #140, not labeled in Fig. 6 but believed to be feature directly below #140),
Jung does not teach wherein the support frame has a ring shape that surrounds an outer circumferential surface of the rotation shaft.
However, Parette teaches a wherein the support frame has a ring shape that surrounds an outer circumferential surface of the rotation shaft (Parette – Figs. 1, 4-6: plenum member #50 provided around central shaft).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Jung does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Parette teaches wherein the guide vane includes a longitudinally-extending portion that extends 90 degrees from a top surface of the spin chuck. (Parette – Figs. 1, 4-6: protrusions extending from #72 90° downward).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Jung does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Parette teaches wherein the guide vane further includes a transversely-extending portion that extends a longitudinally-extending portion along a top surface of the support frame, the transversely-extending portion having a top surface that is lower than the bottom surface of the spin chuck (Parette – Fig. 1, a sub-division can be drawn that would include a longitudinally-extending portion along the top of #50 that would be below #24 and also include a “guide vane” portion – shown as the downward protrusions of #58).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding claim 8, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2114(II).
The modified Jung apparatus would be capable of having a stationary support frame if the device were simply not powered on. Additionally, the support frame of Parette is not disclosed as rotating and, when combined with Jung, would be a separate structure from the rotational shaft and would have no ability to rotate.
Regarding claim 11, Jung does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Parette teaches wherein the support frame further includes an annular ring body adjacent a bottom of the spin chuck and having a top surface and a bottom surface that each are planar (Fig. 1, portion of #52 comprising #68), and the guide vane including a first portion transversely-extending along the top surface of annular ring body and a second portion longitudinally-extending from the first portion at least along an outer sidewall of the annular ring body (Parette – Fig. 1, a sub-division can be drawn that would include a transversely-extending portion and a longitudinally-extending portion as claimed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding claim 21, Jung teaches wherein the airflow supply is configured to direct the airflow in an airflow path into the treating container (Jung – [0061] and Fig. 6, fan filter unit #810 generates a descending air flow) and along lateral sides of the support to the exhaust (Jung – Fig. 1: from #810 along #110 to #275).
Jung does not teach a guide vane.
However, Parette teaches a guide vane (Parette – Figs. 1, 6: protrusions of flange wall #58).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Jung apparatus to comprise the support frame of Parette in order to allow for uniform exhaust of liquid, gas, and particulates (Parette – C3, L1-4).
Regarding the limitation: “configured to guide the airflow along the lateral sides”, the limitation is merely an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing this intended use. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the modified Jung apparatus would be capable of performing the above function by virtue of the fan unit (Jung) and the downward facing protrusions (Parette). As the fan unit shows only downward directed flow, the protrusions are viewed as capable of “guiding” the airflow downward by virtue of their presence alone.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US Pub. 2019/0189471) and Parette (US Patent 5,725,663), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 20110116469, using the previously-provided English machine translation).
The limitations of claims 1-3,6,8,11, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Jung does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Cho teaches a rear nozzle on the top surface of the annular ring body that is configured to discharge a liquid to the spin chuck (Cho – Figs. 1, 6: second cleaner #300 with nozzle tube #320; see also [0030], [0037], [0046])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Jung apparatus to comprise the rear nozzles of Cho in order to clean the bottom surface thereof (see above citations).
Response to Arguments
As an initial note, the current Examiner agrees with the position of the previous Examiner (see at least the Response to Arguments section of the Final Office Action dated 11/14/2025). Particularly, even if Applicant were to amend the claims to remove and/or modify the word “portion”, the current Examiner agrees differences between the instant invention and Parette apparatus would be merely obvious matters of making integral/separable and/or duplication of parts.
These rationales are not currently utilized in the rejections of any claims, but are stated explicitly herein in the interest of fairness and full disclosure to the Applicant in light of the re-assignment of this application. Applicant is advised that the current Examiner reserves the right to utilize any or all obviousness rationales in future actions, if applicable.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous prior art rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Jung remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights