DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/22/2026.
Claims 11-20 and 24 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 21-23 and 25-31 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 10, 21-22, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miya (JP 2010199261 A) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Kim (US 2017/0153550 A1) (cited by Applicant) and Higashijima (US 2010/0200547 A1).
Re claim 1, Miya discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, title), comprising:
a nozzle plate (ref. 23, 25, 29) having an upper surface with a central region (see fig. 7a-c, central region occupied by ref. 25) and an outer edge region (region outside of ref. 25) including an outer edge surrounding the central region (edge of ref .23);
a support (ref. 24) configured to support a substrate at a predetermined distance from the nozzle plate with a first surface of the substrate facing the nozzle plate (see fig. 1 and 6);
a processing liquid supply unit (ref. 3) configured to supply a processing liquid to a second surface of the substrate opposite to the first surface;
a first supply unit (ref. 25 see fig. 7a) configured to supply a first fluid from a first supply port in the central region of the upper surface of the nozzle plate (gas supply freezing means); and
a second supply unit (ref. 21, see fig. 7c) configured to supply a second fluid (nitrogen gas room temperature) from a second supply port in the upper surface of the nozzle plate, the second supply port being closer to the outer edge of the upper surface than the first supply port (see fig. 7a-c supply unit between ref. 21 and 25 closer to outer edge than ref. 25), wherein
an open end of the first supply port is level with the planar portion of the upper surface (see fig. 7a-c ref. 25 open end is level with ref. 23), and
an open end of the second supply port is level with the planar portion of the upper surface (see fig. 7a-c opening between ref. 21 to ref. 25 is level with ref. 23) and spaced from the open end of the first supply port (space by the thickness of the wall of ref. 25).
Miya does not explicitly disclose wherein the first supply port is separated from the second supply port by a planar portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate.
Regarding the “separated by a portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate”, Kim discloses it is well-known in the substrate processing art (abstract) to provide a first supply port (ref. 470) is separated from the second supply port (ref. 430) by a portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate (see fig. 5 upper surface 412 of ref. 410).
Regarding “separated by a planar portion [that is level with an open end of the first supply port and the second supply port”, Higashijima discloses it is well-known in the substrate processing art (abstract) to provide a nozzle plate (ref. 19) with a planar upper surface (see figs. 2-3), having separate and non-concentric first supply port (ref. 20a) and second supply port (ref. 18b) (see fig. 2 open ends of both 18a and 18b are level with upper surface of ref. 19).
Here, it is prima facie obvious to shift and/or reposition the concentric first supply port and second supply port of Miya to be formed as non-concentric separated first supply port and second supply port on the same planar upper surface of the nozzle plate of Miya, as suggested by both Kim and Higashijima. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the first supply port and second supply port of Miya through and across the upper surface of the nozzle plate of Miya, as suggested by Kim, while maintaining the planar level of the upper surface of the nozzle, as suggested by Higashijima, in order to provide an easy to clean and maintained structure.
Re claims 4, Miya discloses wherein the support protrudes from an upper surface of the nozzle plate (consider nozzle plate as spin base 23, and support 24 from spin base 23).
Re claims 2-3 and 10, Miya discloses as shown above but does not disclose further comprising: a suction unit configured to apply suction to a suction port in the nozzle plate. However, Kim discloses it is well-known in the substrate processing art (abstract) to provide a suction unit (see fig. 5 refs. 492a, 492b), wherein the first supply portion is separated from the suction port by a portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate (see Kim fig. 5, suction from 492a 492b is separated by a portion of ref. 412; see also fig. 6, ref. 414 separated from ref. 470). wherein an open end of the suction port is in a region of the nozzle plate between the first supply port and the second supply port (see fig. 5, between center and exterior supply ports). Re claim 10, Independent claim 10 reads as a combination of limitations rejected above and is satisfied by the combination Miya/Kim.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in to modify the apparatus of Miya to further include a suction unit, as suggested by Kim, in order to remove the discharged liquids.
Re claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein a central portion of the nozzle plate protrudes beyond an outer peripheral portion of the nozzle plate (see figs. 4-5 ref. 400 protruding upward), and the support includes an opening that is larger in radial dimension than the central portion of the nozzle plate (see fig. 1 opening between refs. 346, 344 form a large opening).
Re claim 21¸ Regarding “a second supply unit configured to supply a second fluid from a second supply port in the upper surface of the nozzle plate, the second supply port being closer to a outer edge of the nozzle plate than the first supply port, wherein the open end of the suction port is in a region of the upper surface of the nozzle plate between the open ends of the first and second supply ports”, the recitation of a second supply unit and relative position of the suction port is rejected in the claims above.
Re claim 22, Kim further discloses wherein the upper surface of the nozzle plate is circular in a plane parallel to the first surface of the substrate when the substrate is being supported by the support (see fig. 6), the open end of the first supply port is the central region of the upper surface (see fig. 6), the open end of the second supply port is in the outer peripheral portion of the upper surface and spaced from the open end of the first supply port in a radial direction from the central region(see fig. 6), and the region of the upper surface of the nozzle plate in which the open end of the suction port is in is between the first and second supply ports in the radial direction (see fig. 6).
Re claims 27, Kim discloses a plurality of supports (see fig. 4 refs. 344, 346)
Re claim 25, Kim further discloses wherein a central portion of the nozzle plate protrudes vertically beyond an outer peripheral portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate (see fig. 5 curved surface of ref. 412), and the support (see fig. 4 ref. 344, 346) surrounds the central portion and is above the outer peripheral portion of the nozzle plate in the vertical direction (see fig. 4).
Re claim 26, Kim further discloses wherein the upper surface of the nozzle plate is circular in a plane parallel to the first surface of the substrate when the substrate is being supported by the support (see fig. 6), the open end of the first supply port is a center portion of the upper surface (see fig. 6), and the open end of the suction port is in an outer peripheral portion of the upper surface spaced along a substantially planar portion of the upper surface in a radial direction from the open end of the first supply port (see fig. 6). Regarding “by a distance greater than a maximum diameter of the open end of the first supply port”, the mere change in position and/or diameter of the first supply port and the suction port is simply an engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the pressure and area of spray from the first supply port. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Re claim 29, Kim further discloses herein a central portion of the nozzle plate protrudes vertically beyond an outer peripheral portion of the nozzle plate (see fig. 5 curved), and the support surrounds the central portion and is above the outer peripheral portion of the upper surface of the nozzle plate in the vertical direction (see fig. 4).
Re claim 30, Kim further discloses herein the open end of the suction port is in a region of the upper surface of the nozzle plate between the open ends of the first and second supply ports (see fig. 6).
Claims 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miya, as applied above, in view of Kim (US 2017/0153550 A1) (cited by Applicant), and further in view of Herchen (US 2009/0179366 A1).
Re claims 6-8, Miya/Kim discloses as shown above but does not disclose a sealing member on the support to be between the support and the substrate when the substrate is supported on the support. However, Herchen discloses it is well-known in the substrate processing apparatus art (abstract) to provide a sealing member on the support to be between the support and the substrate when the substrate is supported on the support (ref. 250, see figs. 4-5). further comprising: a heating unit to heat the sealing member (¶ [0050] bake plate 320). wherein the heating unit is a heating lamp.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Miya/Kim to further include a sealing member, as suggested by Herchen, in order to enable vacuum or cleaning.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miya, as applied above, in view of Kim and Herchen, and further in view of Kaufman-Osborn (US 20170350004 A1).
Re claim 9, Miya/Kim/Herchen disclose as shown above, but does not disclose a heat lamp. Howver, Kaufman-Osborn teaches it is well-known in the substrate processing art to provide a heating unit as a heat lamp (¶ [0088] substrate support heating…heating lamps (not shown)).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating unit of Miya/Kim/Herchen to further include a heat lamp, as suggested by Kaufman-Osborn for even and gentle heating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is allowed. The prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the upper surface of the nozzle plate is circular in a plane parallel to the first surface of the substrate when the substrate is supported on the support, and the support is in a position on the upper surface of the nozzle plate that is between the second supply port and the first supply port in a radial direction from the first supply port, in the context of claim 31
Claims 23 and 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate, the support protrudes vertically from the upper surface of the nozzle plate, and the support is in a position on the upper surface of the nozzle plate that is between the open ends of the second supply port and the suction port in the radial direction, in the context of claim 23.
The prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the upper surface of the nozzle plate is circular in a plane parallel to the first surface of the substrate when the substrate is supported on the support, and the support is in a position on the upper surface of the nozzle plate that is between the second supply port and the first supply port in a radial direction from the first supply port, in the context of claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2010067819A note arrangement of supply ports on a substantially planar nozzle plate.
US 20090056765 A1 note figs. 7-8 two supply ports on planar upper surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711