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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-10 are currently pending. Claims 3, 4, and 7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 5 and 6 (treated as one due to the duplicated language):
Prong 1: The claims recite “a solution sending mechanism configured to send” where mechanism is the generic placeholder.
Prong 2: The generic placeholder “mechanism” is modified by “configured to send”
Prong 3: The claims do not present additional structure to assist in defining the solution sending mechanism.
Interpretation: A review of the specification refers to the solution sending mechanism as 250 in Figure 4 and appears to be a pipe network. The resultant interpretation would be along the lines of a pipe network or fluid path for the solution to travel.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0375158 (Crabtree hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Crabtree teaches a solvent application system for a substrate that discloses a solvent storage configured to be kept warm at a temperature equal to or higher than a saturation temperature of a solvent stored therein (¶ 120 and 129 where the heating system 404 is disclosed as a vessel [¶ 129] which implies some manner of storage); a precooler configured to precool the solvent vapor generated in the solvent storage (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pipe from 404 to the inlet for 408 can function as a pre-cooler since the solvent is not being directly heated during this time frame); and a temperature regulator configured to regulate a temperature of the precooled solvent vapor to a target temperature when the solvent vapor is supplied to the substrate treatment apparatus (Thermocouple 413 per ¶ 120, where the Examiner in viewing the precooled vapor being the portion exiting 404 and heated to a temperature that will provide the needed temperature in 408 assuming some loses [read precooling]), wherein the temperature regulator is configured to supply the solvent vapor regulated to the target temperature to the substrate treatment apparatus (Inherent operation of 404 sending the vapor to 408 in Figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, Crabtree’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Crabtree further discloses that the precooler is a pipe through which the solvent vapor generated in the solvent storage flows (Figure 7, pipe connecting 404 and 408); and the pipe is connected to the solvent storage and the temperature regulator (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Crabtree’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Crabtree further discloses a solution sending mechanism configured to send a solvent generated by condensation of part of the solvent vapor generated in the solvent storage, to the solvent storage (Return system 412 from 429 to 422 in Figure 7 per ¶ 126-128 and 157-158).
Regarding claim 6, Crabtree’s teachings are described above in claim 2 where Crabtree further discloses a solution sending mechanism configured to send a solvent generated by condensation of part of the solvent vapor generated in the solvent storage, to the solvent storage (Return system 412 from 429 to 422 in Figure 7 per ¶ 126-128 and 157-158).
Regarding claim 9, Crabtree teaches a method of apply a solvent vapor to a substrate that discloses generating the solvent vapor by heating a solvent (¶ 120 and 129 where the heating system 404) precooling the solvent vapor generated in the generating the solvent vapor (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pipe from 404 to the inlet for 408 can function as a pre-cooler since the solvent is not being directly heated during this time frame); and regulating a temperature of the precooled solvent vapor to a target temperature when supplying the solvent vapor to the substrate treatment apparatus (Thermocouple 413 per ¶ 120, where the Examiner in viewing the precooled vapor being the portion exiting 404 and heated to a temperature that will provide the needed temperature in 408 assuming some loses [read precooling]), and supplying the solvent vapor regulated to the target temperature to the substrate treatment apparatus (Inherent operation of 404 sending the vapor to 408 in Figure 7).
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0375158 (Crabtree) in view of US 2016/0293403 (Muramatsu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Crabtree’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the substrate treatment apparatus is configured to heat a substrate on which a film of a block copolymer containing at least two polymers is formed, under an atmosphere of the solvent vapor, to phase-separate the block copolymer.
However, Muramatsu teaches a substrate treatment system utilizing a solvent that discloses a substrate treatment apparatus is configured to heat a substrate on which a film of a block copolymer containing at least two polymers is formed, under an atmosphere of the solvent vapor, to phase-separate the block copolymer (¶ 28, 32, 41, and the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate treatment process of Crabtree with the teachings of Muramatsu to accelerate the substrate treatment process per ¶ 12 of Muramatsu.
Regarding claim 10, Crabtree’s teachings are described above in claim 9 but are silent with respect that in the supplying the solvent vapor to the substrate treatment apparatus, the solvent vapor is supplied to a substrate treatment apparatus configured to heat a substrate on which a film of a block copolymer containing at least two polymers is formed, under an atmosphere of the solvent vapor, to phase-separate the block copolymer.
However, Muramatsu teaches a substrate treatment system utilizing a solvent that discloses a substrate treatment apparatus that in the supplying the solvent vapor to the substrate treatment apparatus, the solvent vapor is supplied to a substrate treatment apparatus configured to heat a substrate on which a film of a block copolymer containing at least two polymers is formed, under an atmosphere of the solvent vapor, to phase-separate the block copolymer (¶ 28, 32, 41, and the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate treatment process of Crabtree with the teachings of Muramatsu to accelerate the substrate treatment process per ¶ 12 of Muramatsu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0273290 (Somervell), US 2012/0034369 (Ito), and US 2009/0232977 (Morinaga) each teach specific film treatment methods and devices utilizing a solvent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762