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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed reply filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 26-30 are currently pending. Claims 10-25 have been cancelled. Claims 26-30 are newly added.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0152780 (Douki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Douki teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a wetting apparatus configured to supply a fluid onto a substrate (Processing step 41 per ¶ 71-74 and Figure 15); a substrate weight measurement apparatus configured to measure a weight of the substrate which has passed through the wetting apparatus and which has thereon fluid from only the wetting apparatus (Weight measurement by the carrier 39a per ¶ 144-147 and Figures 18/19); and a drying apparatus configured to dry the substrate which has passed through the substrate weight measurement apparatus (Drying section 43 per ¶ 88-95), wherein the substrate weight measurement apparatus comprises: a measurement chamber providing a measurement space (Space surrounding 39a in Figure 15); a measurement stage in the measurement chamber (Stage formed by the pins 395a); and a weight sensing sensor configured to sense the weight of the substrate disposed on the measurement stage (Sensors 394/396 per ¶ 144-147).
Regarding claim 2, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses that the measurement stage comprises a plurality of pins extending vertically (Pins 295a in Figure 19), and wherein the plurality of pins are spaced apart from each other in directions orthogonal to a vertical direction and are configured to support the substrate (¶ 145 discloses three pins and are shown to extend vertically while spaced orthogonally from each other).
Regarding claim 4, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses that the weight sensing sensor comprises a load cell (Load cells 394 and 396 in Figures 18 and 19 per ¶ 144-147), and wherein the load cell is located below the plurality of pins (Evident from Figure 19).
Regarding claim 9, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses that the wetting apparatus comprises: a wet chamber (Chamber within 41 holding the fluid per ¶ 71-74); and a fluid supply configured to supply the fluid into the wet chamber (Fluid supplied to 41 per ¶ 71-74).
Regarding claim 26, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses that the substrate weight measurement apparatus is not configured to supply a fluid to the substrate (Evident from Figures 15, 18, and 19 along with ¶ 144-147).
Regarding claim 27, Douki teaches a substrate processing apparatus that discloses a wetting apparatus configured to supply a fluid onto a substrate (Processing step 41 per ¶ 71-74 and Figure 150; a substrate weight measurement apparatus that is not configured to supply a fluid to the substrate and that is configured to measure a weight of the substrate which has passed through the wetting apparatus (Weight measurement by the carrier 39a per ¶ 144-147 and Figures 18/19); and a drying apparatus configured to dry the substrate which has passed through the substrate weight measurement apparatus (Drying section 43 per ¶ 88-95),wherein the substrate weight measurement apparatus comprises: a measurement chamber providing a measurement space (Space surrounding 39a in Figure 15); a measurement stage in the measurement chamber (Stage formed by the pins 395a); and a weight sensing sensor configured to sense the weight of the substrate disposed on the measurement stage (Sensors 394/396 per ¶ 144-147).
Regarding claim 28, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses that the measurement stage comprises a plurality of pins extending vertically (Pins 395a in Figures 18 and 19), and wherein the plurality of pins are spaced apart from each other in a first direction orthogonal to a vertical direction and are spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction and orthogonal to the vertical direction (¶ 145 discloses three pins and are shown to extend vertically while spaced orthogonally from each other), and wherein the plurality of pins are configured to support the substrate (Evident from Figures 18 and 19).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0152780 (Douki)
Regarding claim 3, Douki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that each of the plurality of pins is spaced apart from a center of the measurement stage by 100 mm or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the space between the pins and a center of the measurement stage by 100 mm or more, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233. Please note that the provided specification in its entirety does not disclose a specific criticality for the claimed size range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6221171 (Maekawa) in view of US 2022/0152780 (Douki) and further in view of US 20090301518 (Oikawa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that where Douki further discloses that the measurement chamber has: an insertion hole through which the substrate is passed (Figure 15 and 16 of Douki would have to have some entry point for 3 for the substrate to pass through).
Maekawa is silent with respect to an air outlet spaced apart from the insertion hole, the air outlet configured to exhaust air in the measurement space.
However, Oikawa teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a treatment chamber with an air outlet spaced apart from an insertion hole, the air outlet configured to exhaust air in the treatment space (¶ 77-78). The resultant combination would apply the air outlet of Oikawa to Douki such that there is an air outlet spaced apart from the insertion hole, the air outlet configured to exhaust air in the measurement space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measurement chamber of Douki with the air outlet of Oikawa to allow for air to be exhausted and filtered after processing is finished.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0152780 (Douki) in view of US 20090301518 (Oikawa) and further in view of US 2003/0092261 (Kondo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Douki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect that the measurement chamber has an air inlet that is spaced apart from the insertion hole and the air outlet and that connects the measurement space to an outside space that is outside of the measurement chamber.
However, Kondo teaches a substrate processing system that discloses an air inlet that connects a treatment space to an outside space (Figures 66 and 67 with 1539 and 1546). The resultant combination would be such that the measurement chamber has an air inlet that is spaced apart from the insertion hole and the air outlet (Air inlet of Kondo as applied to Maekawa) and that connects the measurement space to an outside space that is outside of the measurement chamber (evident of Figures 66/67 of Kondo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measurement space of Douki with the air inlet of Kondo to ensure that each stage of Maekawa is provided with fresh air.
Regarding claim 7, Douki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Douki and Kondo would further disclose that the substrate weight measurement apparatus comprises an air supply configured to supply air into the measurement space, and wherein the air supply is connected to the air inlet (Kondo Figures 66/67 through 1539 and 1546 shows the air supply structure).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0152780 (Douki) and further in view of US 2018/0358242 (Kim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Douki further discloses a drying chamber (Douki Figures 12 and 13 showing the drying chamber 240/22/250).
Douki is silent with respect to a drying fluid supply configured to supply a supercritical fluid into the drying chamber. Douki does apply a gas for drying at 231 per ¶ 88-89.
However, Kim teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a drying chamber (Chamber of section 1040), and a drying fluid supply configured to supply a supercritical fluid into the drying chamber (¶ 95-96 with Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying sequence of Douki with the drying process of Kim to ensure that the substrate is effectively cleaned.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0152780 (Douki) and further in view of US 6221171 (Maekawa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 29, Douki’s teachings are described above in claim 28 but are silent with respect that the plurality of pins comprise four pins, a first two pins of the four pins are spaced apart from a center of the measurement stage in the first direction, and a second two pins of the four pins are spaced apart from the center of the measurement stage in the second direction.
However, Maekawa teaches a substrate processing system that discloses the plurality of pins comprise four pins (Figure 3 show the use of 4 pins), a first two pins of the four pins are spaced apart from a center of the measurement stage in the first direction (Figure 3), and a second two pins of the four pins are spaced apart from the center of the measurement stage in the second direction (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the three pins of Douki with the four pins of Maekawa to increase the stability of the substrate.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0152780 (Douki) and further in view of US 6221171 (Maekawa) and further in view of US 2019/0113853 (Onvlee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 30, Douki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 29 but are silent with respect that the plurality of pins support the substrate such that the substrate sags in the vertical direction at a center of the substrate between the between the first two pins and between the second two pins.
However, Onvlee teaches a substrate support system that discloses the plurality of pins support the substrate such that the substrate sags in the vertical direction at a center of the substrate between the between the first two pins and between the second two pins (¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support system and substrate of Douki/Maekawa with the teachings of Onvlee to allow for some space for minor size or shape manipulations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 26-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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