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
Applicant's submission filed on January 23, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 14-15 were added. Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are in the application and pending examination. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title. Claims 12-13 were previously withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites: “a discharge flow path which joins the recovery path of the container is provided in the sub-receiver”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“a discharge flow path is provided in the sub-receiver, said discharge flow path
Claim 15 recites:
“ a through hole allowing the processing liquid to pass through the container toward the target surface of the substrate is formed in the container”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ a through hole in the container, said through hole allowing the processing liquid to pass through the container toward the target surface of the substrate is formed
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejection of claims 1, 4-5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) .
Regarding claim 1, Kitano teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a rotator (56) configured to hold and rotate a substrate (W) ; a processing liquid supply (60, 65) including an ejector (N1, S1) configured to supply a processing liquid from the ejector (nozzle to a target surface (upper surface) of the substrate (W) that is being rotated by the rotator (56), thereby processing the substrate (W); and a receiver (91) including a container (90) having an open top, and provided to be relatively movable with respect to the ejector between a block position (position on left in Fig. 24) where the container blocks a supply of the processing liquid from the ejector to the substrate and an allowance position (position on right in Fig. 24) where the container allows the supply of the processing liquid from the ejector to the substrate. (See Kitano, Abstract, Figs. 2, 24-27, and col. 5, lines 11-64; col. 9, lines 42- col. 10, lines 47.)
Regarding claim 1, Kitano does not explicitly teach the container includes a recovery port connected to a recovery path configured to recover the processing liquid.
Nakayama teaches a solution dropping nozzle device which enables efficient cleaning including a container.
Nakayama teaches the container includes a recovery port (port to 8, 28) connected to a recovery path ( discharge pipe 8, 28) configured to recover the processing liquid. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the container includes a recovery port connected to a recovery path configured to recover the processing liquid, because Nakayama teaches this structure would enable the overflowing liquid to be recovered. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3; col. 4 lines 25-54.)
Regarding claim 4, Kitano teaches the ejector is provided to be movable between an ejection position where the processing liquid is ejected to the target surface of the substrate and a standby position that is deviated from an upper side of the target surface of the substrate, and the container is provided to be movable from the ejection position to the standby position while maintaining the block position. (See Kitano, Abstract, Figs. 2, 24-27, and col. 5, lines 11-64; col. 9, lines 42- col. 10, lines 47.)
Regarding claim 5, Kitano teaches the container is provided to be movable to the ejection position together with the ejector while maintaining the block position. (See Kitano, Abstract, Figs. 2, 24-27, and col. 5, lines 11-64; col. 9, lines 42- col. 10, lines 47.)
Regarding claim 6, Kitano does not explicitly teach when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined.
Nakayama teaches a solution dropping nozzle device which enables efficient cleaning.
Nakayama teaches when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined, because Nakayama teaches this structure would enable the receiver to have a diameter substantially larger than the nozzle and an opening formed through the bottom of the receiver. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3; col. 4 lines 25-37.)
The previous rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190355593 A1 to Ikeda et al (hereinafter Ikeda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190355593 A1 to Ikeda et al (hereinafter Ikeda) .
Regarding claim 2, Kitano does not explicitly teach a shield provided to be movable in a direction of contacting with and being separated from the rotator, and facing the substrate in a non-contact manner, wherein the shield is provided with a gas supply configured to supply a gas between a surface facing the substrate and the substrate.
Ikeda teaches a substrate processing apparatus.
Ikeda teaches a shield (partition, 40, including top plate portion 41) provided to be movable in a direction of contacting with and being separated from the rotator (30), and facing the substrate in a non-contact manner, wherein the shield (41) is provided with a gas supply (44) configured to supply a gas between a surface facing the substrate and the substrate. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 65, 76-77, 82, and 86-93.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a shield provided to be movable in a direction of contacting with and being separated from the rotator, and facing the substrate in a non-contact manner, wherein the shield is provided with a gas supply configured to supply a gas between a surface facing the substrate and the substrate, because Ikeda teaches this would enable the amount of the atmosphere adjustment gas to be supplied for a predetermined condition and the amount of gas to be reduced. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 65, 76-77, 82, and 86-93.)
Regarding claim 3, Kitano does not explicitly teach the ejector is provided in the shield.
Ikeda teaches the ejector (51) is provided in the shield (41a, 41) . (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ejector is provided in the shield, because Ikeda teaches this would enable the atmosphere to be adjusted to the predetermined condition. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
Regarding claim 10, Kitano does not explicitly teach a through hole facing the ejector is formed in the container.
Ikeda teaches a through hole (41a) facing the ejector. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 30-31, 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a through hole facing the ejector is formed in the container, this would enable the atmosphere to be adjusted to the desired predetermined condition and would reduce the amount of gas necessary to achieve this predetermined condition. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
Regarding claim 15, Kitano does not explicitly teach a through hole allowing the processing liquid to pass through the container toward the target surface of the substrate is formed in the container.
Ikeda teaches a through hole (41a) allowing the processing liquid to pass through the container toward the target surface of the substrate. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 30-31, 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a through hole allowing the processing liquid to pass through the container toward the target surface of the substrate is formed in the container, because Ikeda teaches this would enable the atmosphere to be adjusted to the desired predetermined condition and would reduce the amount of gas necessary to achieve this predetermined condition. (See Ikeda, Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 6-8; paragraphs 55-62, 71-74, 83-95, 101-105, and 112-128.)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama).
Regarding claim 6, Kitano does not explicitly teach when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined.
Nakayama teaches a solution dropping nozzle device which enables efficient cleaning.
Nakayama teaches when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined, because Nakayama teaches this structure would enable the receiver to have a diameter substantially larger than the nozzle and an opening formed through the bottom of the receiver. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3; col. 4 lines 25-37.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190355593 A1 to Ikeda et al (hereinafter Ikeda) as applied to claim 2 respectively and further in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190355593 A1 to Ikeda et al (hereinafter Ikeda) as applied to claim 2 respectively and further in view of US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama).
Regarding claim 7, Kitano does not explicitly teach when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined.
Nakayama teaches when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement when the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector is inclined, because Nakayama teaches this structure would enable the receiver to have a diameter substantially larger than the nozzle and an opening formed through the bottom of the receiver. (See Nakayama, Abstract, Figs. 2-3; col. 4 lines 25-37.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 4,944,332 B1 to Terrance G. Belland (hereinafter Belland) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 4,944,332 B1 to Terrance G. Belland (hereinafter Belland) .
Regarding claim 8, Kitano does not explicitly teach the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling onto the target surface of the substrate.
Belland teaches an improved structure for a drip tray.
Belland teaches an outer surface of the container (10) that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver (90) that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling. (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling onto the target surface of the substrate, because Belland teaches this structure and angle keeps the overflow in the desired position. (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
Regarding claim 9, Kitano does not explicitly teach an upper edge of the sub-receiver is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container.
Belland teaches wherein an upper edge of the sub-receiver (90) is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container (10). (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an upper edge of the sub-receiver is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container, because Belland teaches this structure and angle keeps the overflow in the desired position. (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37.)
Regarding claim 14, Kitano does not explicitly teach a discharge flow path which joins the recovery path of the container is provided in the sub-receiver.
Belland teaches a discharge flow path (16) which joins the recovery path (92) of the container is provided in the sub-receiver (90). (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37; and col. 8, lines 25-55.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a discharge flow path which joins the recovery path of the container is provided in the sub-receiver, because Belland teaches this structure allows the overflow to be received. (See Belland, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, col. 4, lines 25-37, and col. 8, lines 25-55.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 641,267 to Henry T. Cahill (hereinafter Cahill) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 641,267 to Henry T. Cahill (hereinafter Cahill).
Regarding claim 8, Kitano does not explicitly teach the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling onto the target surface of the substrate.
Cahill teaches an improved structure for a funnel.
Cahill teaches an outer surface of the container (10) that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver (C) that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling. (See Cahill, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, page 1, lines 96-104, page 2, lines 1-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement the container is relatively moved from the block position to the allowance position, an outer surface of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector includes a sub-receiver that prevents the processing liquid flowing on the outer surface of the container from falling onto the target surface of the substrate, because Cahill teaches this structure enables liquid to be transferred rapidly with reduced waste. (See Cahill, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, page 1, lines 20-30, 96-104, page 2, lines 1-10.)
Regarding claim 9, Kitano does not explicitly teach an upper edge of the sub-receiver is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container.
Cahill teaches wherein an upper edge of the sub-receiver (C) is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container (funnel). (See Cahill, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, page 1, lines 20-30, 96-104, page 2, lines 1-10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an upper edge of the sub-receiver is positioned inward from an upper edge of the container, because Cahill teaches this structure enables liquid to be transferred rapidly with reduced waste. (See Cahill, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, page 1, lines 20-30, 96-104, page 2, lines 1-10.)
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of JP-06080121 to Nobuhiro Okuhama (hereinafter Okuhama) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of JP-06080121 to Nobuhiro Okuhama (hereinafter Okuhama).
Regarding claim 11, Kitano does not explicitly teach a groove is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector such that the ejector passes the groove when the container is relatively moved between the block position and the allowance position.
Okuhama teaches an improved structure for a funnel.
Okuhama teaches a groove ( partition separated 1 from 2 in upper surface) is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector. (See Okuhama, Abstract, Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a groove is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector such that the ejector passes the groove when the container is relatively moved between the block position and the allowance position, because Okuhama teaches this structure prevents spill because there is no necessity to raise the funnel to exhaust inside air. (See Okuhama, Abstract, Figs. 1-2.)
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 1,638,446 to J. H. Le Bel (hereinafter Le Bel) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Num. 6,371,667 B1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) and US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat Num. 1,638,446 to J. H. Le Bel (hereinafter Le Bel).
Regarding claim 11, Kitano does not explicitly teach a groove is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector such that the ejector passes the groove when the container is relatively moved between the block position and the allowance position.
Le Bel teaches an improved structure for a funnel.
Le Bel teaches a groove is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector. (See El Bel, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, page 1: lines 1-12, 69-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a groove is formed in an upper edge of the container that passes a lower side of the ejector such that the ejector passes the groove when the container is relatively moved between the block position and the allowance position, because El Bel teaches this structure prevents discharge and enables the material to be discharged when desired. (See El Bel, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, page 1: lines 1-12, 69-80.)
PNG
media_image1.png
564
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 14-15 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.
US Pat Num. 5,261,566 B1 to Muneo Nakayama (hereinafter Nakayama) is being used to address the new limitation added to claim 1.
US Pat Num. 4,944,332 B1 to Terrance G. Belland (hereinafter Belland) is being used to address the new claim 14.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20190355593 A1 to Ikeda et al (hereinafter Ikeda) is being used to address the new claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Num. 5,928,425 to Do Gyung Lee teaches a chemical catcher. US Pat. Num. 5,261,566 to Nakayama teaches a chemical catcher.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights