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 of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 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)). Claims 1-12 will be examined while claims 13-17 will be withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an extension line branched from at least one of first and second nodes of the main line” where it is unclear and indefinite to the Examiner if the first and second nodes are referring back to prior nodes or are being newly introduced. A search of the claims shows that these nodes are newly introduced and for examination purposes will be treated as follows “an extension line branched from at least one of a first node and a second node[[s]] of the main line’. Claims 2-12 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/00155188 (Jung hereinafter) in view of US 2015/0314338 (Morioka hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a substrate treating apparatus that discloses a vessel part having a substrate treatment region formed therein (Figure 12 with vessel made of upper housing 4110 and lower housing 4210) and including a supply port through which a treating fluid is supplied to the substrate treatment region (Supply ports 4500 with the specific supply port 4520) and an exhaust port through which the treating fluid is exhausted from the substrate treatment region (Exhaust port 4700); a fluid supply unit configured to supply the treating fluid to the substrate treatment region (Broadest reasonable interpretation of 4550 per ¶ 88); and an exhaust unit configured to exhaust the treating fluid from the vessel part (Port leading toward 4700 and the downstream exhaust unit structure), wherein the exhaust unit comprises: a main line connected to the exhaust port (Main line being the line connected to the port of 4700 interfacing with lower housing 4210); an extension line branched from at least one of first and second nodes of the main line (Line split from the main line to the two lines seen in Figure 12) and including at least one of a first orifice or a first check valve to control an exhaust speed (First check valve being the unshaded check valve in Figure 12 along the line without 4770); during a first process time, the treating fluid is discharged through the extension line (Evident from Figures 12 and 13).
Jung is silent with respect to an auxiliary line branched from a third node of the main line, where an orifice and a check valve are not formed, wherein, during a first process time, the treating fluid is discharged through the extension line, and the treating fluid is not discharged through the auxiliary line, and during a second process time, the treating fluid is discharged through the auxiliary line.
However, Morioka teaches a substrate treating apparatus with exhaust control (Figure 1 with treatment chamber 2 and exhaust routing downstream of 5 and shown in detail in Figure 4) that discloses an auxiliary line branched from a third node of the main line, where an orifice and a check valve are not formed (Figures 1, 2, and 4 show the three way routing performing in the exhaust unit 3). The resultant combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that, during a first process time, the treating fluid is discharged through the extension line (Figures 12 and 13 of Jung directed towards a specific type of exhaust per the modification with Morioka), and the treating fluid is not discharged through the auxiliary line (3rd line directed towards a non-targeted exhaust would be closed per Morioka), and during a second process time, the treating fluid is discharged through the auxiliary line (Any step in which the targeted exhaust for the third line is needed to be exhausted would close the other two lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exhaust unit of Jung with the exhaust switching and third line of Morioka to allow for the exhaust to be specifically treatment prior to leaving the exhaust unit.
Regarding claim 2, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that during the second process time, the treating fluid is not discharged through the extension line (Resultant combination would prevent the non-target exhaust from flowing during the second process time).
Regarding claim 3, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the extension line is installed in a chamber member provided with the vessel part (Line 4700/4750 as connected to the lower housing 4210 in Jung), and a control box disposed adjacent to the chamber member (Control box being 3 of Morioka), and the first orifice or the first check valve is installed in the control box (Resultant combination where the valves of Jung and Morioka would be installed with the box structure of Morioka as seen in Figure 4 of Morioka).
Regarding claim 4, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the auxiliary line is installed in the chamber member and the control box (A portion of the line 4700 of Jung connected to lower body 4210 of Jung and 3 of Morioka), and the auxiliary line in the chamber member is provided with a valve configured to close a flow path with the power turned on and open the flow path with the power turned off (Valves of Jung and valves of Morioka in Figure 4 would be within 3 of Morioka).
Regarding claim 5, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the first node, the second node, and the third node are formed in the chamber member (Evident from Figures 1 and 4 of Morioka).
Regarding claim 6, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the extension line comprises: a first line branched from the first node, including the first orifice or the first check valve to adjust an exhaust speed (Figure 12 of Jung with first node being the line with the unshaded valve), where a flow path is opened during a first sub-process time of the first process time (Figure 13 of Jung); and a second line branched from the second node, including at least one of a second orifice and a second check valve to adjust the exhaust speed (Jung Figure 12 with the shaded valve along 4760), where a flow path is opened during a second sub-process time of the first process time (Figure 12 of Jung).
Regarding claim 7, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the second orifice or the second check valve is installed in the control box (Resultant combination would place the valves shown in Jung within the control box 3 of Morioka as similarly shown in Figure 4 of Morioka).
Regarding claim 9, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the second process time is followed by the first process time (¶ 129 of Jung and evident of the progression from Figures 12 to 13 of Jung and the eventual modification with Morioka to incorporate the third flow path).
Regarding claim 11, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the extension line is provided with a valve configured to close the flow path with the power turned off and to open the flow path with the power turned on (Inherent control of the valve shown in Jung along the line opposite 470 and the valve control of Morioka).
Regarding claim 12, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Jung and Morioka would further disclose that the treating fluid is provided as supercritical CO2 (Jung ¶ 44), and the substrate is provided as a substrate whose liquid film is treated with an organic solvent, and supercritical drying is performed in the substrate treatment region (¶ 44 of Jung).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/00155188 (Jung) in view of US 2015/0314338 (Morioka) and further in view of US 2013/0319484 (Choi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Jung’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the extension line is connected to a first tank; and the auxiliary line is connected to a second tank physically separated from the first tank.
However, Choi teaches a substrate treatment assembly that discloses sending exhaust paths to their own recovery chambers/tanks (¶ 113). The resultant combination would be such that the extension line is connected to a first tank; and the auxiliary line is connected to a second tank physically separated from the first tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlets of the exhaust gases of Jung/Morioka with the tanks of Choi to allow for easy collection and releasing of the exhaust.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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. Claim 8 recites “the first line exhausts the amount of the treating fluid in the same range as the amount of the treating fluid supplied from the fluid supply unit so that the internal pressure of the substrate treatment region is maintained, the second line exhausts the treating fluid from the substrate treatment region in a state where the supply of the treating fluid supplied from the fluid supply unit is interrupted, wherein the treating fluid is exhausted at a first exhaust speed, and the auxiliary line is opened below a critical pressure, and exhausts the treating fluid at a second exhaust speed faster than the first exhaust speed and faster than the maximum exhaust speed of the extension line.” This limitation would require further modification to the already modifying reference in such a manner that continual operation of the system of Jung and Morioka cannot be guaranteed.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights