DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12/16/2025.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-12 are pending.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are cancelled.
Claims 9-12 are new.
Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-12 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “wherein a diameter of an opening area of said annular upper portion above said substrate is not less than a half of a diameter of all of an upper surface of the supporter” is regarded as new matter.
Par. [0029], cited by Applicant as alleged support for the limitation above, only relates the area of the opening and half of the area of the substrate. There is no written mention in the remainder of the disclosure relating diameter of the opening to diameter of the upper surface of the supporter. As such, the Examiner looks to the Drawings for support.
After consideration, the Drawings are not regarded as providing sufficient support for this limitation. MPEP 2125(II) states:
PNG
media_image1.png
236
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With the above in mind, the Examiner regards the Drawings as support only to the extent that the diameter of the opening #313 is smaller than the diameter of the support body #21. The limitation in question is more specific than this, thus the Drawings cannot be relied upon to negate the presumption of new matter.
Regarding claims 3-5, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation: “wherein a diameter of an opening area of said annular upper portion above said substrate is not less than a half of a diameter of arrangement of support pins of said supporter” is regarded as new matter for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, with the added note that there is no written support for comparing the opening with “an arrangement of support pins”.
Regarding claims 10-12, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-12 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “wherein a diameter of an opening area of said annular upper portion above said substrate is not less than a half of a diameter of all of an upper surface of the supporter” is regarded as indefinite claim language in light of the disclosure.
Particularly, the claim language creates multiple interpretations that are both supported by the instant disclosure. The Examiner submits that a PHOSITA could interpret the claim in light of Fig. 1 to mean the space below the annular member and radially outward of the inner lip, or the distance between opposite sides of the opening, or simply the area where the annular member overlaps the substrate, but not the support table. As such, the intended metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as reading: “the diameter of the opening is smaller than the diameter of the support body” as shown in Figs. 1 and 3A, diameter of #313 less than #21.
Regarding claims 3-5, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation: “wherein a diameter of an opening area of said annular upper portion above said substrate is not less than a half of a diameter of arrangement of support pins of said supporter” is regarded as indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Particularly, it is unclear how Applicant intends “a diameter of arrangement of support pins” to be construed. Par. [0021] of the as-filed Specification identifies lower holding member #22 as a support pin, but the drawings only depict two such members (Fig. 2). Par. [0027] identifies #32 as an “upper holding member”, thus cannot be interpreted as a support pin for purposes of identifying an “arrangement of support pins”.
As such, it is unclear if Applicant intends the support pins #22 to be defining an imaginary circle with a diameter, the distance between pins, or some other distance in relation to other features of the apparatus.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as reading: “the diameter of the opening is smaller than the diameter of the support body” as shown in Figs. 1 and 3A, diameter of #313 less than #21.
Regarding claims 10-12, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-12 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negoro (US Pub. 2019/0240597).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Negoro teaches a substrate processing apparatus for supplying a processing liquid onto a substrate to process said substrate ([0056] and Fig. 3, substrate processing apparatus #1), comprising:
a supporter for directly or indirectly supporting a substrate in a horizontal position ([0066] and Fig. 3, spin base #12);
a rotator for rotating said supporter around a central axis oriented in an up-and-down direction ([0066] and Fig. 3, spin motor #14);
an annular member which is separably placed on said supporter and rotates together with said supporter while covering an outer edge portion of said substrate supported by said supporter ([0079] and Fig. 3, shielding member #33), wherein said annular member includes:
an annular sidewall opposed to an outer periphery of said substrate supported by said supporter and an outer periphery of said supporter in a radial direction (see Fig. 3);
an annular upper portion extending from said annular sidewall inward in the radial direction and being opposed to an outer edge portion of said upper surface of said substrate supported by said supporter in the up-and-down direction (see Fig. 3), wherein a diameter of an opening area of said annular upper portion above said substrate is smaller than the diameter of the support body (see Figs. 3-4, upper central opening #38 smaller in diameter than base #12; interpreted as italicized due to the §112(b) rejection),
a nozzle for supplying a processing liquid onto an upper surface or a lower surface of said substrate supported by said supporter ([0069] and Fig. 3, either of upper center nozzle #45 or lower surface nozzle #15), and
a fan filter unit for generating an airflow going downward toward an opening of said annular upper portion ([0063] and Fig. 3, fan filter unit #5).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Negoro teaches wherein said annular upper portion includes an annular protruding portion protruding downward in an inner peripheral portion of a lower surface thereof, the annular protruding portion facing an outer edge portion of the upper surface of the supporter (see Fig. 3, “outer portion” of the supporter can be reasonably interpreted as any portion not including the center, where a “portion” can be drawn from the annular upper portion that “protrudes downward”; the Examiner submits a “portion” is reasonably interpreted as “an often limited part of a whole” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Negoro teaches wherein said nozzle supplies an etching solution onto said lower surface of said substrate supported by said supporter ([0069]: lower nozzle can supply hydrochloric acid).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Negoro teaches an annular cover disposed outside said annular member in the radial direction in a still state, wherein an upper portion of said annular cover gets closer to an outer peripheral surface of said annular sidewall while going inward in the radial direction ([0074] and Fig. 3, either guard #25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately amended claim 1 to eliminate a minor informality, thus the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to eliminate indefinite claim language relating to an “object that is variable” relationship, thus the previous §112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, the aforementioned amendments have introduced new indefinite claim language in light of the disclosure, thus the claims are again rejected under §112(b) (and §112(a)) on new grounds.
Regarding the §102(a)(1) rejection to claims 1, Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
In rebuttal, the Examiner respectfully submits that the scope of Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the instant disclosure. As discussed in the §112(a) and §112(b) rejections herein, the argued limitations create both new matter concerns as well as indefiniteness concerns when considering the entire disclosure. The Examiner has attempted to provide a reasonable interpretation of the claims in order to provide the prior art rejections in the interest of compact and expedited prosecution.
In light of the above, the Examiner notes Applicant appears to explicitly agree with the Examiner that Negoro teaches the limitations of the claim as interpreted by the Examiner:
PNG
media_image2.png
80
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(excerpt taken from pg. 9 of Applicant’s Remarks 12/16/25).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the limitations in question are both definite and supported (which is explicitly not conceded by the Examiner), the Examiner notes the “wide opening” feature of the instant disclosure is clearly shown in Higashijima (US 2014/0116480 Fig. 1, cited by the Examiner on the PTO-892 dated 4/15/25). Higashijima teaches wherein the “wide opening” feature advantageously reduces flow resistance around the wafer to enhance exhaust performance (par. [0038]) and can allow for optical monitoring of the wafer (par. [0038]).
In accordance, even if Applicant is able to successfully rebut the Examiner’s §112 rejections, the claims could be rejected in their current form under §103 using Negoro in view of Higashijima.
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 on (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