DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending. In the amendment filed 02/02/2026, claims 1, 4, 8-9, 11-12, and 14 were amended, claim 6 was canceled, and claims 15-16 were newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 of the claim “are” should be “is” because the noun is the singular “an outlet” of at least some of the plurality of flow passages. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0185795).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Bang teaches an apparatus for processing a wafer-shaped article (Fig 2 and abstract), the apparatus comprising: a support (340 Fig 2 [0038]) for supporting the wafer-shaped article [0038]; and a liquid dispenser (380 Fig 2 [0037]) for dispensing a processing liquid onto a surface of the wafer-shaped article supported by the support [0041]; wherein the liquid dispenser comprises a nozzle assembly (400 Fig 2-3), the nozzle assembly comprising: an inlet portion (442 or 442 and 462 Fig 3); a dispensing nozzle (portion of 480 around 482 Fig 3); and a static throttle (490 Fig 3) between the inlet portion and the dispensing nozzle (Fig 3), the static throttle comprising a plurality of flow passages (492 Fig 3) through which the processing liquid can flow from the inlet portion to the dispensing nozzle (Fig 3) [0054]. Regarding the ratio of the length of the dispensing nozzle to the internal diameter, Bang fails to explicitly teach a length of the dispensing nozzle is at least four times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least five times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least six times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least seven times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle. Bang appears to demonstrate the recited ratios and ratios that are larger (met by the use of “at least”) in the images of the apparatus (see Fig 3, note the internal diameter is inclusive of the narrowest internal diameter and note portion of 480 around 482 is at least 5 times an internal diameter of the narrowest portion of the diameter of 482). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ratio of the length of the dispensing nozzle to the internal diameter of the because Bang appears to demonstrate this ratio. Further the specific ratio appear to represent mere optimization of the size of the nozzle to provide a controlled flow while not over using material in fabrication of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 2, Bang teaches the plurality of flow passages comprise a plurality of bore holes (492 Fig 3 and [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Bang teaches an internal diameter of the inlet portion (inner diameter of 442 or 442 and 462 Fig 3) is greater than an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle (portion of 480 around 482 Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, Bang teaches a diameter of the fluid flow through the nozzle assembly is narrowed on passing through the static throttle (490 Fig 3) (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 13, Bang teaches a control valve for turning on and off a supply of processing liquid to the liquid dispenser, the control valve being positioned upstream of the nozzle assembly (valve on line 412 or 414 as shown in Fig 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 1 in further view of Ito (prev. presented US 2016/0175898).
Regarding claim 3-5, Bang is silent as to the material of the dispensing nozzle. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1), Ito teaches the nozzle (20 Fig 1) is formed of polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the nozzle formed of polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE) because Ito teaches this is a preferred material for the high corrosion resistance [0035]. Regarding specifically claim 3, it is noted that the instant specification identifies PCTFE as a hydrophilic material (see p15, ln 15-16) and teaches this as more hydrophilic than PFA (note Ito also teaches PFA [0035]). Because the instant specification identifies these two chemicals as the hydrophilic material of the dispensing nozzle, the material must have the recited contact angles of claim 4 unless applicant is relying on essential limitations that have not been claimed or disclosed in the instant specification.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 1 in further view of Yoshimura (prev. presented JP 2006-187707, citing machine translation provided by applicant on 4/18/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Bang fails to teach an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1), Yoshimura teaches an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages (see 107 Fig 2) [0015]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages because this represents a mere change of shape of the passages and Yoshimura demonstrates this angled shape may be used for mixing in a nozzle (107 Fig 2).
Claim(s) 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 1 and 14 in further view of Sugano (prev. presented US 2005/0139319).
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach the nozzle assembly is machined from a single piece. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1,7), Sugano teaches the nozzle may be integrally formed [0097]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Bang to be integrally formed because Sugano teaches this is an alternative to separate components [0097].
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Bang remains as applied to claim 1 and 14. Bang fails to teach the static throttle further comprises a concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion on an inlet portion side of the static throttle, with an opening of the concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion facing the inlet portion; and inlets of the flow passages are located on a bottom surface of the concave, conical, tapered, or funnel-shaped portion because Bang teaches a static throttle (490 Fig 3) that is a flat plate. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1,7), Sugano teaches that as an alternative to a static throttle (103 Fig 2A-2B, 10A-10B, 11A-11B) that is a flat plate (Fig 2A-B, 10A-B, 11A-B), the static throttle may comprises a concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion on an inlet portion side of the static throttle (Fig 12, see 103b and [0210]), the opening of the concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion facing the inlet portion (Fig 12 see side facing 101), and teaches inlets of the flow passages are located on a bottom surface of the concave, conical, tapered, or funnel-shaped portion (see flow passage 103c Fig 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the shape of the static throttle of Sugano because Sugano [0208-0209] teaches this is a functional alternative to the plate shaped static throttle of Bang.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 1 in further view of Sonobata (prev. presented US 2019/0009534).
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach at least part of an internal surface of the dispensing nozzle has a surface roughness Ra of less than or equal to 0.5 µm, or less than or equal to 0.4 µm, or less than or equal to 0.3 µm, or less than or equal to 0.2 µm because Bang fails to teach the surface roughness. In the same field of endeavor of a nozzle (Fig 5B), Sonobata teaches the inner surface of the nozzle has surface roughness of 0.13-0.25 µm or 0.1 to 0.15 µm [0081] and teaches that this surface roughness range allows for suppressing variation of ejection direction [0081]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the surface roughness ranges taught by Sonobata because Bang does not limit the surface roughness and Sonobata teaches these ranges for a nozzle and teaches the allow for suppressing ejection direction variation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang as applied to claim 1 in further view of Kolb (prev. presented US 2003/0053372).
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach the plurality of flow passages each have a diameter d in the range of 0.8mm ≤ d ≤ 1.6mm because Bang fails to teach the diameter of the flow passages. Addressing the same problem of using narrowed flow passages for liquid mixing (abstract and Fig 5), Kolb teaches the diameter of the flow passages in the turbulent mixer (Fig 5) are 0.05 mm to about 1 mm [0051]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the flow passages have a diameter of about 1 mm because Kolb teaches this value as sufficient for mixing of a gas flow [0051].
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 13-14 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0001087 of Dinneen et al., hereinafter Dinneen.
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Bang remains as applied to claims 1 and 14 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can argue the claimed ratio is not obvious over the teachings of Bang. Bang teaches an apparatus for processing a wafer-shaped article (Fig 2 and abstract), the apparatus comprising: a support (340 Fig 2 [0038]) for supporting the wafer-shaped article [0038]; and a liquid dispenser (380 Fig 2 [0037]) for dispensing a processing liquid onto a surface of the wafer-shaped article supported by the support [0041]; wherein the liquid dispenser comprises a nozzle assembly (400 Fig 2-3), the nozzle assembly comprising: an inlet portion (442 or 442 and 462 Fig 3); a dispensing nozzle (portion of 480 around 482 Fig 3); and a static throttle (490 Fig 3) between the inlet portion and the dispensing nozzle (Fig 3), the static throttle comprising a plurality of flow passages (492 Fig 3) through which the processing liquid can flow from the inlet portion to the dispensing nozzle (Fig 3) [0054]. Regarding the ratio of the length of the dispensing nozzle to the internal diameter, Bang fails to explicitly teach a length of the dispensing nozzle is at least four times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least five times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least six times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle, or at least seven times an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle. Addressing the same problem of providing etchant to the substrate [0069], Dinneen teaches the tubular nozzle may have a length of at least 5 times the diameter [0069]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Bang to include the length to diameter ratio taught by Dinneen because Dinneen teaches this ratio allows for controlled flow to the substrate surface [0069].Regarding claim 2, Bang teaches the plurality of flow passages comprise a plurality of bore holes (492 Fig 3 and [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Bang teaches an internal diameter of the inlet portion (inner diameter of 442 or 442 and 462 Fig 3) is greater than an internal diameter of the dispensing nozzle (portion of 480 around 482 Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, Bang teaches a diameter of the fluid flow through the nozzle assembly is narrowed on passing through the static throttle (490 Fig 3) (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 13, Bang teaches a control valve for turning on and off a supply of processing liquid to the liquid dispenser, the control valve being positioned upstream of the nozzle assembly (valve on line 412 or 414 as shown in Fig 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Dinneen as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ito.
Regarding claim 3-5, Bang is silent as to the material of the dispensing nozzle. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1), Ito teaches the nozzle (20 Fig 1) is formed of polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the nozzle formed of polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE) because Ito teaches this is a preferred material for the high corrosion resistance [0035]. Regarding specifically claim 3, it is noted that the instant specification identifies PCTFE as a hydrophilic material (see p15, ln 15-16) and teaches this as more hydrophilic than PFA (note Ito also teaches PFA [0035]). Because the instant specification identifies these two chemicals as the hydrophilic material of the dispensing nozzle, the material must have the recited contact angles of claim 4 unless applicant is relying on essential limitations that have not been claimed or disclosed in the instant specification.
Claim(s) 9 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Dinneen as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yoshimura.
Regarding claim 9, Bang fails to teach an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1), Yoshimura teaches an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages (see 107 Fig 2) [0015]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include an outlet of at least some of the plurality of flow passages is closer to a central axis of the nozzle assembly than an inlet of the at least some of the plurality of flow passages because this represents a mere change of shape of the passages and Yoshimura demonstrates this angled shape may be used for mixing in a nozzle (107 Fig 2).
Claim(s) 10, 15, and 16 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Dinneen as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and in further view of Sugano.
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach the nozzle assembly is machined from a single piece. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1,7), Sugano teaches the nozzle may be integrally formed [0097]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Bang to be integrally formed because Sugano teaches this is an alternative to separate components [0097].
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Bang remains as applied to claim 1 and 14. Bang fails to teach the static throttle further comprises a concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion on an inlet portion side of the static throttle, with an opening of the concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion facing the inlet portion; and inlets of the flow passages are located on a bottom surface of the concave, conical, tapered, or funnel-shaped portion because Bang teaches a static throttle (490 Fig 3) that is a flat plate. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for processing wafer shaped articles (abstract and Fig 1,7), Sugano teaches that as an alternative to a static throttle (103 Fig 2A-2B, 10A-10B, 11A-11B) that is a flat plate (Fig 2A-B, 10A-B, 11A-B), the static throttle may comprises a concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion on an inlet portion side of the static throttle (Fig 12, see 103b and [0210]), the opening of the concave, conical, tapered or funnel-shaped portion facing the inlet portion (Fig 12 see side facing 101), and teaches inlets of the flow passages are located on a bottom surface of the concave, conical, tapered, or funnel-shaped portion (see flow passage 103c Fig 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the shape of the static throttle of Sugano because Sugano [0208-0209] teaches this is a functional alternative to the plate shaped static throttle of Bang.
Claim(s) 11 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Dinneen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sonobata.
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach at least part of an internal surface of the dispensing nozzle has a surface roughness Ra of less than or equal to 0.5 µm, or less than or equal to 0.4 µm, or less than or equal to 0.3 µm, or less than or equal to 0.2 µm because Bang fails to teach the surface roughness. In the same field of endeavor of a nozzle (Fig 5B), Sonobata teaches the inner surface of the nozzle has surface roughness of 0.13-0.25 µm or 0.1 to 0.15 µm [0081] and teaches that this surface roughness range allows for suppressing variation of ejection direction [0081]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the surface roughness ranges taught by Sonobata because Bang does not limit the surface roughness and Sonobata teaches these ranges for a nozzle and teaches the allow for suppressing ejection direction variation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Dinneen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kolb.
Regarding claim 10, Bang fails to teach the plurality of flow passages each have a diameter d in the range of 0.8mm ≤ d ≤ 1.6mm because Bang fails to teach the diameter of the flow passages. Addressing the same problem of using narrowed flow passages for liquid mixing (abstract and Fig 5), Kolb teaches the diameter of the flow passages in the turbulent mixer (Fig 5) are 0.05 mm to about 1 mm [0051]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bang to include the flow passages have a diameter of about 1 mm because Kolb teaches this value as sufficient for mixing of a gas flow [0051].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 02/02/2026, hereinafter reply, with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an obviousness analysis instead of an anticipatory analysis. Applicant argued (reply p6-7) that Bang does not explicitly teach the recited length to diameter ratio. Although the figured are not recited as being drawing to scale, the scale of the drawings (note the inner diameter is inclusive of the narrowest inner diameter) render obvious the recited ratio as explained above. Further, an additional and/or alternative rejection including Dinneen, which explicitly teaches a ratio of length to diameter of 5, demonstrates the obviousness of the claimed range. Applicant argues the length allows for mixing of the liquids but this appears to demonstrate that the claimed ratios represent optimization of the length and diameter to achieve a desired fluid dispensing. Applicant does not provide any evidence that the results are unexpected. Further, the effect of the ratio of length to diameter on reducing differences in flow velocity and reducing turbulent flow has been recognized in the prior art (see US 2,804,339 col 3, ln 65 to col 4, ln 5). Therefore applicant has not discovered a new and unrecognized reason for increasing the ratio of the nozzle length to diameter as applicants arguments (reply p7) suggest.
Because the rejection has been changed from an anticipation rejection to an obviousness rejection to address previously examined subject matter (text of claim 6, which was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) over Bang, was incorporated into claim 1), the office action has been made non-final.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p7-9) rely on the arguments directed to amended claim 1 which have been addressed above with the new or updated rejections. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0055099 teaches the chemical resistant nozzle of PCTFE [0021]. US 5,252,627 teaches a nozzle with a statis mixer having a length to diameter ratio of at least 29 (col 1, ln 63 to col 2 ln 5). US 6,045,058 teaches a mixing nozzle with an outlet bore with a length of at least 2 to at most 10 times the inner diameter (col 5, ln 20-45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights