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
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
-Group I, claims 1-11 and 20, drawn to a coating machine component,
-Group II, claims 12-19, drawn to a method .
Lack of Unity
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Lack of unity of invention may only become apparent “a posteriori,” that is, after taking the prior art into consideration, in the case of independent claims to A + X and A+Y, unity of invention (i.e. species) is present a posteriori as Ais common to both claims.
The inventions listed as Groups | and II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: they lack the special technical feature which is referred to in Annex B of Appendix A1 of the MPEP (Administrative Instructions under the PCT, ”Unity of Invention”). The express “special technical features” is defined as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” (Rule 13.2).
Unity only exists when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding claimed special features. In this case, the technical feature shared by each invention a chamber comprising a substrate holder, a nozzle capable of injecting a liquid onto a surface of a substrate, and a gas injector.
The question of unity of invention has been reconsidered retroactively by the examiner in view of the search performed; a review of JP 2016/182531, makes clear that the inventions of the groups | and II lack the same or corresponding special technical feature because the cited reference(s) appear to demonstrate that the claimed technical feature does not define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Accordingly, the prior art of the record
supports restriction of the claimed subject matter in to the groups as mentioned immediately above.
Specifically, JP ‘S31 teaches an apparatus comprising a holder (2), a nozzle (5) dispensing liquid (PW), and a gas nozzle (4) (Fig. 1).
A telephone call was made to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made. However, an election to the Restriction between Groups I and II was made in a writing submission on August 27, 2025 electing Group I in writing.
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and the product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
In addition if Group I is elected, an election of species from three different groups is required
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species a. A chamber in a substrate processing system including: at least one gas injector arranged radially outward of the nozzle, wherein the at least one gas injector is configured to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate, Claims 1-11
Species b. A chamber in a substrate processing system including: at least one drying pad arranged around an edge of the substrate, wherein the at least one drying pad is configured to contact the edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate , Claim 20;
The species are independent or distinct because they contain a different elements having different structure ( gas inject or one drying pad). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on
the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there are no generic claims with respect to Species a and b.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-11 and 20 in the reply filed on June 27, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Additionally, a telephone call was made on December 8, 2025 to request an oral election to the species restriction requirement, an election was made without traverse by Hemant KESKAR Reg. Num. 61, 776 to elect the species including claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Species b, claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “assembly that is configured to rotate during the drying period” in claim 7, “injector configured to move between a first position and a second position” in claim 8, and “gas injector is (i) moved to the first position during the pre-wetting period and during transport of the substrate to and from the substrate holder and (ii) moved to the second position during the drying period” in claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 1-4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) .
Regarding claim 1, Harumoto teaches a substrate holder (2) configured to support a substrate (W) ; a nozzle (3) arranged above the substrate, wherein the nozzle (3) is configured to inject a pre-wetting liquid onto a surface of the substrate during a pre-wetting period; and at least one gas injector (4) arranged radially outward of the nozzle, wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is configured to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Harumoto does not explicitly teach a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate.
Nonaka is directed to a liquid processing apparatus.
Nonaka teaches a chamber (20) in a substrate processing system (3, 16), the chamber comprising: a substrate holder (30) configured to support a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nonaka teaches this structure is effective for performing a liquid processing using a nozzle on a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
Regarding claim 2, Harumoto teaches wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (W) without removing the pre-wetting liquid from an interior of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 3, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas away from an interior of the substrate and radially outward toward the edge of the substrate (W). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 4, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas at an acute angle relative to the surface of the substrate holder. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 6, Harumoto teaches the substrate holder (2) is configured to rotate during at least one of the pre-wetting period (t1 to t2) and the drying period (t7). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 8, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector is configured to move between a first position ( one position to the left of WD in Fig. 10) and a second position( one position to the right of WD in Fig. 10). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43,46,56-57.)
Regarding claim 9, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector is (i) moved to the first position ( one position to the left of WD in Fig. 10) during the pre-wetting period (t1 to t2) and during transport of the substrate to and from the substrate holder and (ii) moved to the second position ( one position to the right of WD in Fig. 10) during the drying period (t7). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 10, Harumoto teaches a controller (31, CPU) configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject the gas during the drying period (t7). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 11, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector is arranged to inject the gas radially inward from an edge of the substrate toward an interior of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Claim 5 is rejected under JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Harumoto does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Chen is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Chen teaches the at least one gas injector (140) comprises two or more gas injectors (400, 400) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Chen teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
Claim 5 is rejected under JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 5, Harumoto does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Nam is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Nam teaches the at least one gas injector (212, 222) comprises two or more gas injectors (212, 222) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nan teaches this allows the gas to be supplied to the predetermined portion of the edge section. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
Claim 7 is rejected under JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda).
Regarding claim 7, Harumoto does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector is mounted on an assembly that is configured to rotate during the drying period.
Okuda is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Okuda teaches the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted on an assembly (1019) that is configured to rotate during the drying period. (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector is mounted on an assembly that is configured to rotate during the drying period, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Okuda teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Jun Sawada (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) .
Regarding claim 1, Sawada teaches a substrate holder (34) configured to support a substrate (36) ; a nozzle (38) arranged above the substrate, wherein the nozzle (38) is configured to inject a pre-wetting liquid (48) onto a surface of the substrate during a pre-wetting period; and at least one gas injector (44) arranged radially outward of the nozzle, wherein the at least one gas injector (44) is configured to inject gas toward an edge (36b-d) of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (36b-d). (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Sawada does not explicitly teach a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate.
Nonaka is directed to a liquid processing apparatus.
Nonaka teaches a chamber (20) in a substrate processing system (3, 16), the chamber comprising: a substrate holder (30) configured to support a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nonaka teaches this structure is effective for performing a liquid processing using a nozzle on a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
Regarding claim 2, Sawada teaches wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (W) without removing the pre-wetting liquid from an interior of the substrate. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 3, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas away from an interior of the substrate and radially outward toward the edge of the substrate (W). (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 4, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas at an acute angle relative to the surface of the substrate holder. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 11, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector is arranged to inject the gas radially inward from an edge of the substrate toward an interior of the substrate. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Claim 5 is rejected under JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Chen is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Chen teaches the at least one gas injector (140) comprises two or more gas injectors (400, 400) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Chen teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
Claim 5 is rejected under JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Nam is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Nam teaches the at least one gas injector (212, 222) comprises two or more gas injectors (212, 222) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nan teaches this allows the gas to be supplied to the predetermined portion of the edge section. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
Claim 7 is rejected under JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda).
Regarding claim 7, Sawada does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector is mounted on an assembly that is configured to rotate during the drying period.
Okuda is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Okuda teaches the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted on an assembly (1019) that is configured to rotate during the drying period. (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector is mounted on an assembly that is configured to rotate during the drying period, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Okuda` teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717