CTFR 18/105,993 CTFR 87586 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The Applicant’s amendment filed on April 15, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended and claims 15-17 were newly added. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued January 15, 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sano et al. (US 2015/0262848) in view of Noda et al. (US 2011/0286738) on claims 1, 2 and 8 are maintained. The rejections are restated below. Regarding claim 1: Sano et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus chamber (10) having a spin chuck (20) which is a rotary holder that holds and spins a substrate (W), a processing cup (40) surrounding the substrate (W) and spin chuck (20), three processing liquid nozzles (30, 60, 65) provided on nozzle arms (32, 62, 67) which can all either provide coating liquids or removal liquids that remove films from the periphery of the substrate (par. 87), and a camera (70) that takes an image of the processing space above the spin chuck (20) (par. 92, figures 2-3). Sano et al. further discloses that a separate camera dedicated to one of the liquid nozzles (65) can also be provided separate to and in addition to the processing space camera (70) (par. 116), but fails to explicitly disclose that it is attached to the arm of the corresponding liquid nozzle (65). However, Noda et al. discloses a similar processing apparatus using a camera (17) which is meant to observe the dispensing process from a nozzle (10) which can either be mounted on the nozzle support arm (11) or provided separately (pars. 77-78, figures 2-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the camera of Sano et al. which is dedicated to one nozzle (30, 60, 65) to its arm (32, 62, 67) in the way described by Noda et al. because Noda et al. teaches that it being fixed to the arm or not are two functionally equivalent arrangements (par. 78) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). The camera on the nozzle arm would necessarily have an optical axis different from the camera (70) above the processing space, as shown in the annotated figure 3 below. PNG media_image1.png 534 768 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2: Sano et al. discloses an exhaust duct (18) connected to a port in the wall (11) of the chamber (10) connected to an exhaust mechanism (par. 114, figure 3), as well as nozzle base (33, 63, 68) coupled to each nozzle arm (32, 62, 67) which is a movement shaft around which the arms (32, 62, 67) rotationally pivot (par. 99, figure 2), where the exhaust duct (18) can be considered to be in one of a front or rear area and at least one of the nozzle bases (33, 63, 68) can be considered to be on an opposite side (see figures 2-3). Regarding claim 8: Sano et al. discloses that the cameras are designed to take images of an imaging region (PA) above the substrate (W) to determine whether or not is in the proper processing position corresponding to a reference pattern (RP) over the center of the substrate (W) (pars. 128, 137, figures 8-9). In the combination having two cameras, one attached to the nozzle arm and one on a wall of the chamber, the second one inherently captures the image at a different angle. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. and Noda et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above . Regarding claim 15: Sano et al. and Noda et al. disclose the above combination in which one camera (70) is arranged to be at an upper wall region of the chamber (10), and the other camera is arranged to be attached to the lower surface of the nozzle arm (see Noda et al. figure 3) which, in the combination, would be at two different vertical heights (see Sano et al. figure 3, annotated figure 3 above). Regarding claim 16: Sano et al. and Noda et al. disclose the above combination in which one camera (70) is arranged to be at an upper wall region of the chamber (10) capturing an image of the nozzle (30), and the other camera is arranged to be attached to the lower surface of the nozzle arm capturing another image of the nozzle (see Noda et al. figure 3) which, in the combination, means that the two cameras are capturing images of the nozzle (30) from two different directions (see Sano et al. figure 3, annotated figure 3 above). Regarding claim 17: Sano et al. discloses that multiple images and imaging regions (PA) are used to determine if the nozzle (30) is in the proper position (par. 128, 137). As discussed above, Sano et al. discloses that multiple cameras can be used to view the nozzle (30) if any part of it is obstructed from the processing space camera (70) (par. 116) which would require images from both cameras to be captured in order to properly determine if the nozzle (30) is in the correct position and make corrections in the case that it is not (par. 137, 140-143). Regardless, the limitations in claim 17 solely describe the process performed by the apparatus, and as such they are considered to be intended use limitations that do not further limit apparatus claims. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02, 2114-2115. In the instant case, the controller of Sano et al. is capable of instructing the cameras of Sano et al. and Noda et al. to perform these functions. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sano et al. and Noda et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 15-17 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (JP 2008135678, translation filed January 15, 2026 used for citation purposes) on claims 3, 10 and 11 are maintained. The rejections are restated below. Regarding claim 3: Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to explicitly disclose slide rails including a first and second rail that allow the cup (40) to be pulled out and replaced. However, Nakajima et al. discloses a similar processing apparatus in which the cup body (2) is provided on a moving mechanism (7) which includes a set of inner rails (71) which support the cup (2) and a slider (72) which is an outer rail that supports the inner rails (71) which allow the cup (2) to be pulled out in a predetermined direction (page 13, figure 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a cup movement mechanism as taught by Nakajima et al. for the cup (40) of Sano et al. because Nakajima et al. teaches that liquid processing cups need to be removed periodically and doing so without such a mechanism can be difficult and time consuming (pages 2-3). Regarding claim 10: Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to explicitly disclose a drainpipe at a height lower than the exhaust duct. However, Nakajima et al. discloses a similar processing apparatus having both an exhaust port (25) for removing gasses and a drain pipe (52) for removing liquid waste connected to a drain port (26), the entry to the drain pipe (52) being at a height lower than that of the exhaust port (25), along with a liquid receiving mechanism (36) which prevents liquid from being accidentally discharged from the drain port (26) while moving (page 2, page 12, figures 1, 3-5 and 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drain and liquid receiving mechanism as taught by Nakajima et al. for the cup of Sano et al. because Nakajima et al. teaches that the drain allows for the easy removal of excess liquid and that the liquid receiving mechanism helps prevent liquid from spilling while removing the cup (page 2, 12). Regarding claim 11: Sano et al., Noda et al. and Nakajima et al. disclose the above combination including the liquid receiving mechanism (36) which has a lower portion which covers the bottom outlet of the drain port (26) such that it is a lid, as well as an upper extending flange portion which can be considered a handle that is continuous with the lid, and Nakajima et al. further teaches that the liquid receiving mechanism (36) is moved when replacing the cup (2) and is prevented from interfering when reinserting the drain port (26) back into the drain pipe (52), such that the liquid receiving mechanism needs to be slid to and from the retracted position during the replacement process (page 12, figure 8). While Nakajima et al. fails to explicitly disclose that this is done automatically via a stopper rotating the mechanism (36) via the handle, nonetheless it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate this sliding process either by linear motion or rotary motion because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because choosing from a finite number of solutions (linear vs rotary motion) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sano et al. and Noda et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 15-17 above, and further in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2017/0236729) on claims 4-5 and 12 are maintained. The rejections are restated below. Regarding claim 4: Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to explicitly disclose a standby bus provided in a standby section for any of the nozzles. However, Kawabuchi et al. discloses a similar liquid processing apparatus in which all of the nozzles (411-414) are provided with their own standby bus (251, 252) in order to suppress any moisture containing atmosphere from entering the nozzles when they are not being used (par. 151). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a standby bus as taught by Kawabuchi et al. for the nozzles of Sano et al. because Kawabuchi et al. teaches that this prevents moisture from entering the nozzles (pars. 146-151). In the above combination, the camera provided on the nozzle arm (32, 62, 67) would also naturally acquire information on the position of that nozzle when it is in the standby bus. Regarding claim 5: Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to explicitly disclose a standby bus provided in a standby section for any of the nozzles. However, Kawabuchi et al. discloses a similar liquid processing apparatus in which all of the nozzles (411-414) are provided with their own standby bus (251, 252) in order to suppress any moisture containing atmosphere from entering the nozzles when they are not being used (par. 151). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a standby bus as taught by Kawabuchi et al. for the nozzles of Sano et al. because Kawabuchi et al. teaches that this prevents moisture from entering the nozzles (pars. 146-151). In the above combination, the any of the nozzle arms (32, 62, 67) can have attached cameras such that one of the nozzles (30, 60, 65) and its corresponding camera can be considered a removal liquid nozzle and a bus camera which faces the bus rather than the cup while the nozzle (30, 60, 65) is inserted into the standby bus (see Sano et al. figure 2). Regarding claim 12: Sano et al. discloses an illumination part (71) arranged inside the chamber (10) which provides light to all of the cameras (par. 117). While Sano et al., Noda et al. and Kawabuchi et al. do not explicitly discuss where the illuminator (71) would be relative to the nozzle (30, 60, 65) cameras which correspond to the claimed bus camera, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try either putting it on the same side of the bus camera as the bus or the opposite side of the bus camera as the bus because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al., Noda et al. and Kawabuchi et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12 and 15-17 above, and further in view of Hosokawa (JP 3414176, translation filed January 15, 2026 used for citation purposes) on claims 3, 10 and 11 are maintained. The rejections are restated below. Regarding claims 6-7: Sano et al., Noda et al. and Kawabuchi et al. disclose the above combination having a number of standby buses for the various nozzles (30, 60, 65), but fail to explicitly discuss any of the material which the buses are formed of. However, Hosokawa discloses a similar processing apparatus having a standby pot (4) which is the same as a bus, where the pot (4) includes a solvent reservoir (9) and part of the surface of the pot (4) is formed of a quartz window (11), which is partially reflective (pages 2-3, figures 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pot with a solvent and a quartz window as taught by Hosokawa rather than the buses of Kawabuchi et al. because Hosokawa teaches that the solvent helps prevent crystallization of the material dispensed by the nozzles and the window allows easy and quick recognition of the solvent level in the pot (pages 2-3). While Hosokawa does not explicitly state that the rest of the surface is black, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to color the surface outside of the quartz window (11) black because aesthetic design choices are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04). The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sano et al. and Noda et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 15-17 above, and further in view of further in view of Kawabuchi et al. and Ye et al. (US 2021/0238374) on claim 9 is maintained. The rejection is restated below. Regarding claim 9: Sano et al. discloses three different nozzles, two of which can be considered a processing liquid nozzle and a coating liquid nozzle, the processing liquid being a solvent like water or DHF which can help a photoresist liquid, which can be considered the coating liquid, spread on the surface (par. 87). Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to explicitly disclose putting two of those nozzles on the same nozzle arm, however Kawabuchi et al. discloses a similar processing apparatus having a single nozzle arm (43) holding a plurality of nozzles (411, 414) (par. 69, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a single nozzle arm for multiple nozzles as taught by Kawabuchi et al. for at least two of the nozzles of Sano et al. because Kawabuchi et al. shows that this is a well-known functionally equivalent arrangement for similar liquid processing and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). Sano et al. and Noda et al. teach that the cameras used have wide-angle lenses capable of viewing all the corresponding nozzles (Noda et al. par. 78) but none of Sano et al., Noda et al. or Kawabuchi et al. explicitly discloses a camera that uses a liquid lens. However, Ye et al. discloses a similar camera and imaging system which uses a liquid lens, teaching that they can offer substantial advantages for applications that need to focus and view different sized items at different locations (par. 74). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liquid lens camera like that of Ye et al. for the nozzle camera of Sano et al. because Ye et al. teaches that liquid lenses produced by their invention can offer substantial advantages for applications that need to focus and view different sized items at different locations (par. 74) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that because Sano et al. only teaches monitoring an image from the camera and Noda et al. is only focused on monitoring if the liquid is appropriately discharged, neither teaches using multiple camera views from different optical axes to perform three-dimensional, high-precision centering . In response: Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 was amended solely to add the requirement of the two cameras having different optical axes, which is clearly the case in the combination outlined above and demonstrated in the annotated figure 3 of Sano et al., recreated below. Applicant appears to be trying to argue that Sano et al. and Noda et al. do not disclose using the cameras together to obtain a 3D profile of the nozzle location, however, first of all, this limitation is not present in any of the claims, and second this is strictly a functional limitation which would not impart any patentability to these apparatus claims. Finally, Sano et al. does explicitly disclose using multiple cameras to get a more precise location of a nozzle, in the event that a nozzle is obstructed by a moving element (par. 116), which does suggest the same function that Applicant is claiming the prior art does not teach. Applicant has not addressed this portion of Sano et al. in the arguments, only a broad argument that Sano et al. and Noda et al. fail to disclose or suggest using two cameras with different optical axes, which is clearly incorrect. PNG media_image1.png 534 768 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /S.A.K/ Stephen Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717 5/29/2026 /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 2 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 3 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 4 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 5 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 6 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 8 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 9 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 10 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 11 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/105,993 Page 12 Art Unit: 1717
Prosecution Insights