DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 in the application remain pending. Claims 1-5 & 10 were amended. Claims 11-20 were cancelled.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
4. Drawing objections in the 12/10/2025 Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections
5. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 1-10 are withdrawn per amendments of claims 1-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR10-2018-0120291 A) hereinafter Kim in view of Ku (KR10-2007-0029325 A) hereinafter Ku (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Kim & Ku are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “to spray cleaning liquid to remove contaminants accumulated in the exhaust line… cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of spraying cleaning liquid to remove contaminants accumulated in the exhaust line and suctioning and removing cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising:
a processing vessel (520) disposed in a process chamber (510) and including a processing space (see fig 4, space in vicinity of W) in which a substrate (W) is accommodated ([0049]-[0051]; [0058]; [0065]; [0071]; fig 4; clm 1);
a liquid supply line (550) configured to process the substrate (W) by supplying processing liquid to the substrate (W) in the processing space (see fig 4, space in vicinity of W) ([0049]-[0050]; [0061]; fig 4);
an exhaust line (580) connected to the processing vessel (520) and configured to exhaust gas in the processing space (see fig 4, space in vicinity of W) ([0049]; [0064]-[0065]; fig 4-7);
a spraying portion (590) disposed on the exhaust line (580) and configured to spray cleaning liquid to remove contaminants accumulated in the exhaust line (580) ([0049]; [0064]-[0065]; [0067]-[0069]; [0071]; fig 4-7), however Kim does not disclose
a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line (580) and including a suction portion therein to suction cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line (580) by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to outside, wherein an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line.
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) including a suction portion (186) therein capable of suctioning cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line and including a suction portion therein to suction cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including a suction portion therein capable of suctioning cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) branching the washing liquid discharge line from the exhaust line and wherein (placement) an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “through which gaseous contaminants are exhausted”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of exhausting gaseous contaminants, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), wherein the exhaust line (580) includes a plurality of first exhaust pipes (582) connected to a bottom (see fig 4) of the processing vessel (520), a plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) having one ends (see fig 5) connected to the corresponding first exhaust pipes (582), respectively, and other ends coupled to each other (see fig 5-6), and a third exhaust pipe (588) connected to a coupling point of the other ends (see fig 5-6) of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) and through which gaseous contaminants are exhausted ([0049]; [0064]-[0067]; fig 4-7), however Kim does not disclose wherein an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is connected to a coupling point of the other ends (see fig 5-6) of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584).
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is connected to a coupling point of the other ends of the plurality of second exhaust pipes would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “sprays cleaning liquid toward the other ends”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of spraying cleaning liquid toward the other ends, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), wherein the spraying portion (590) is disposed on one end (see fig 5-7) of one of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) and sprays cleaning liquid toward another end (see fig 5-7) of the one of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) in the one of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) ([0049]; [0064]-[0069]; [0071]; fig 4-7).
As regards to claim 4, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), wherein a liquid storage groove (see fig 5-7, section connecting 584 & 588) configured to be recessed is disposed on a bottom surface corresponding to the coupling point of the other ends (see fig 5-7) of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) ([0049]; [0064]-[0069]; [0071]; fig 4-7), however Kim does not disclose the inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line extends into one of the plurality of second exhaust pipes (584) and is disposed above the liquid storage groove.
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line extends into one of the plurality of second exhaust pipes and is disposed above the liquid storage groove would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of exhausting atmospheric gas in the process chamber, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 5, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising one end connected to the exhaust line (580) and another end communicating with the process chamber (510) and configured to exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber (510) ([0049]; [0064]-[0065]; fig 4-7), however Kim does not disclose a process gas exhaust line (580) having one end connected to the exhaust line (580) and another end communicating with the process chamber (510) and configured to exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber (510).
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), a process gas exhaust line (184) having one end connected to the exhaust line (182) and configured to exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber (110). (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a process gas exhaust line having one end connected to the exhaust line and configured to exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a process gas exhaust line having one end connected to the exhaust line and configured to exhaust atmospheric gas in the process chamber for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) having one end connected to the exhaust line and another end communicating with the process chamber would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “to discharge processing liquid used for processing the substrate”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of discharging processing liquid used for processing the substrate, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 6, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), further comprising a processing liquid discharge line (529) configured to discharge processing liquid used for processing the substrate (W) in the processing space (see fig 4, space in vicinity of W) to the outside of the process chamber (510) ([0056]; [0058]; [0065]; [0071]; fig 4), however Kim does not disclose wherein the processing liquid discharge line (529) and the washing liquid discharge line are connected to each other.
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) wherein the processing liquid discharge line and the washing liquid discharge line are connected to each other would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As regards to claim 7, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), however Kim does not disclose wherein the suction portion includes a vacuum ejector.
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) including a suction portion (186) therein, wherein the suction portion (186) includes a vacuum ejector (high molecular vacuum pump) (pg 8, ln 1-33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a suction portion therein, wherein the suction portion includes a vacuum ejector in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including a suction portion therein, wherein the suction portion includes a vacuum ejector for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “to spray cleaning liquid”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of spraying cleaning liquid, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 8, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), wherein the spraying portion (590) includes a cleaning liquid spraying nozzle (see fig 5-7) configured to spray cleaning liquid ([0049]; [0064]-[0065]; [0067]-[0069]; [0071]; fig 4-7).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “spraying the cleaning liquid”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Kim in view of Ku since Kim in view of Ku meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of spraying cleaning liquid, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 9, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), wherein the spraying portion (590) is disposed such that a direction of spraying the cleaning liquid from the exhaust line (580) is adjustable to have a predetermined angle (during assembly via threaded nozzles, shown to be perpendicular to initial exhaust direction) toward an exhaust direction ([0049]; [0064]-[0065]; [0067]-[0069]; [0071]; fig 4-7).
As regards to claim 10, Kim discloses an apparatus (fig 1-8; clm 1), however Kim does not disclose a pressure measuring device configured to measure pressure of gas in the exhaust line (580).
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a pressure measuring device (188) configured to measure pressure of gas in the exhaust line (182) (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a pressure measuring device configured to measure pressure of gas in the exhaust line in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a pressure measuring device configured to measure pressure of gas in the exhaust line for measuring the flow rate of the gas within the exhaust pipe for measuring the discharge pressure of the process by-product discharged into an exhaust pipe, transmitting the measured data to a microcomputer, wherein the microcomputer is to read out the data and controls the operation of the opening and the suction member of the valve (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 43; fig 1).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Claim 1 is amended to add the limitation that "an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line". In the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that "Kim does not disclose a washing liquid discharge line". Accordingly, Kim cannot disclose, teach or suggest that "an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line" as recited in claim 1. Ku does not cure Kim's failure of teaching or suggesting the limitation of claim 1 that "an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line". The Office Action indicates that "Ku discloses ... a washing liquid discharge line (182)". FIG. 1 of Ku fails to disclose, teach or suggest that the inlet end of the exhaust pipe 182 of Ku is "positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line". Therefore, Ku fails to make up the deficiency of Kim with respect to the limitation of claim 1 that "an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line". Therfore, Kim and Ku, individually or in combination, do not disclose, teach or suggest that "an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line" as recited in claim 1.
(b) For at least the foregoing reasons, the Applicant submits that claim 1 is not obvious over Kim in view of Ku, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-10 are not obvious over Kim in view of Ku at least by way of their dependencies from claim 1, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the §103 rejections of claims 2-10.
8. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, Kim does not disclose a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line (580) and including a suction portion therein to suction cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line (580) by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to outside, wherein an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line.
Ku discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig 1-8; clm 1), comprising a washing liquid discharge line (182) including a suction portion (186) therein capable of suctioning cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a washing liquid discharge line branched from the exhaust line and including a suction portion therein to suction cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside in the apparatus of Kim, because Ku teaches the use of a washing liquid discharge line including a suction portion therein capable of suctioning cleaning liquid waste including contaminants removed from the exhaust line by the cleaning liquid and to discharge the cleaning liquid waste to the outside for discharging the process by-products remaining in the treatment chamber and the residual process by-products within the exhaust line to the outside (pg 7, ln 37-pg 8, ln 33), wherein (placement) branching the washing liquid discharge line from the exhaust line and wherein (placement) an inlet end of the washing liquid discharge line is positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the exhaust line would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2-10 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717