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
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species a. a home port for a semiconductor manufacturing nozzle head, claims 1-13; or
Species b. a substrate treatment apparatus, comprising a substrate, support, a nozzle head, a home port configured to receive the nozzle head, claims 14-19; or
Species c. a home port for nozzles comprising…
…valves surrounding the first ends of the first flow passages together with inlets of the discharge flow passages and configured to form adjustment spaces between the valves and the first part of the body, the adjustment spaces allowing the supply flow passages and the first flow passages to communicate with each other outside the first part,
housing having an operating space formed to be partitioned from the adjustments spaces while surrounding the valves on opposites to the adjustment spaces….
The species are independent or distinct because they are directed to different structures having a different elements in different fields of search. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Bradley Edelman on September 5, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute species a, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 includes reference numeral “210” on a top and bottom portion. It is clear if this is the correct reference numeral. Clarification is requested.
Figs. 4-8 lack the reference numeral “240”. Including this reference numeral may improve clarity of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Paragraphs 4 and 26 of the printed publication include the phrase “and the like”. Paragraph 44 includes the phrase “like or similar”. Paragraph 83 uses the term “some”. The specification should be reviewed for proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. Any amendments to the specification must be accompanied by a statement that the amendmentment contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 (2 occurences) are objected to because of the following informalities:
A suggested revision is: “each of the valves”.
Claim 12 is rejected for the term “some”. Examiner is interpreting this term to mean “more than one”. Clarification is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressure adjusting members” in claim 6 and “gap adjusting members” in claim 8.
The “pressure adjusting member” is described in the specification paragraphs 10, 61-62, 64-67, 78-81, and 95. The “pressure adjusting member” is identified with reference numeral 243 in the drawings Figs. 3-4 and 6-8. The “pressure adjusting member” are configured to form a vacuum environment in the operating space or make a pressure of the operating space equal to or higher than that of the discharge space and including a vacuum line configured to form the vacuum environment in the operating space according to paragraph 10. The “pressure adjusting member” may include a vacuum line 243V and air supply line 243A or a plurality of vacuum lines or supply lines and may be referred to as pressure adjusting system or pressure controller according to paragraph 66. Fig. 3 depicts “the pressure adjusting member” located directed below the housing “241” of the controller “240” and above the lead-in passage 233.
The “gap adjusting member” is described in the specification paragraphs 49, 61-63, 69-75, 82-83, 85, and 95. The “gap adjusting member” is identified with reference numeral 245 in the drawings Figs. 3-4 and 6-8. The “gap adjusting member” is installed in the controller housing 241.The “gap adjusting member” may have a rod shape having screw threads formed on a circumferential surface thereof and have a handle at a first end exposed to the outside and a second opposite end thereof positioned in the operating space 241S has an extended cross-section ( to have a flat surface having a surface of the valve 235) according to paragraph 70.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,418,946 B1 to Marinaro et al (hereinafter Marinaro) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170128962 A1 to Kashiyama et al (hereinafter Kashiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Marinaro teaches a home port for a semiconductor manufacturing nozzle head (111-114), the home port comprising:
a body (space formed by walls on side of 120, 130, and 140 in Fig. 4) having a discharge space (140) configured to receive treatment liquid discharged from a plurality of nozzles; discharge flow passages (161-164) connected to be in communication with the discharge space (140) and penetrating through the body (space formed by walls on side of 140) so as to face the plurality of nozzles; and a cleaning liquid distribution system (170). (See Marinaro, Abstract, Fig. 4.)
Marinaro does not explicitly teach the cleaning liquid distribution system is formed to penetrate through the body, and is connected to transfer a cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages, wherein the cleaning liquid distribution system includes: supply flow passages connected to supply the cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages; and a lead-in passage connected to and which joins the supply flow passages, and connected to receive the cleaning liquid injected from the outside.
Kashiyama is directed to a nozzle standby device.
Kashiyama teaches the cleaning liquid distribution system (49) is formed to penetrate through the body, and is connected to transfer a cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages (43, 44) , wherein the cleaning liquid distribution system includes: supply flow passages (47b-c) connected to supply the cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages; and a lead-in passage (57) connected to and which joins the supply flow passages, and connected to receive the cleaning liquid injected from the outside. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 3, 5, and 10, Abstract, and paragraphs 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
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 the cleaning liquid distribution system is formed to penetrate through the body, and is connected to transfer a cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages, wherein the cleaning liquid distribution system includes: supply flow passages connected to supply the cleaning liquid to the discharge flow passages; and a lead-in passage connected to and which joins the supply flow passages, and connected to receive the cleaning liquid injected from the outside, because Kashiyama teaches this structure enables smooth draining and removal of the treating liquid dispensing nozzle and simpler construction for supply of cleaning liquid. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 1 -12, Abstract, and paragraphs 22-26, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
the discharge flow passages penetrate through the first part of the body so that inlets thereof are formed at an outer side of the first part of the body and outlets thereof are positioned to face the discharge space, and the cleaning liquid distribution system further includes valves covering the inlets of the discharge flow passages, the valves defining adjustment spaces between the valves and the first part of the body
Regarding claim 2, Marinaro teaches the body includes: a first part (120, 130, 140) positioned to receive the nozzles; and a second part (150) coupled to the first part below the first part to form the discharge space.
Regarding claim 3, Marinaro does not explicitly teach the discharge flow passages penetrate through the first part of the body so that inlets thereof are formed at an outer side of the first part of the body and outlets thereof are positioned to face the discharge space, and the cleaning liquid distribution system further includes valves covering the inlets of the discharge flow passages, the valves defining adjustment spaces between the valves and the first part of the body.
Kashiyama teaches the discharge flow passages (43-44) penetrate through the first part (upper part of 41) of the body so that inlets (portion of 47b-c connected to area hole 55) portion thereof are formed at an outer side of the first part of the body and outlets (44-45) thereof are positioned to face the discharge space (35) , and the cleaning liquid distribution system further includes valves (51, 53)covering the inlets of the discharge flow passages, the valves defining adjustment spaces between the valves and the first part of the body. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 3, 5, and 10, Abstract, and paragraphs 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
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 the discharge flow passages penetrate through the first part of the body so that inlets thereof are formed at an outer side of the first part of the body and outlets thereof are positioned to face the discharge space, and the cleaning liquid distribution system further includes valves covering the inlets of the discharge flow passages, the valves defining adjustment spaces between the valves and the first part of the body, because Kashiyama teaches this structure enables smooth draining and removal of the treating liquid dispensing nozzle and simpler construction for supply of cleaning liquid. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 1 -12, Abstract, and paragraphs 22-26, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
Regarding claim 4, Marinaro does not explicitly teach the valves are provided as diaphragms.
Kashiyama teaches diaphragm valve (95) may be used as a replacement for a valve. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 3, 5, and 10, 11A-B, Abstract, and paragraphs 42, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
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 the valves are provided as diaphragms, as an art recognized equivalent valve structure(See Kashiyama, Figs. 1 -12, Abstract, and paragraphs 22-26, 42, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
Regarding claim 5, Marinaro does not explicitly teach the supply flow passages each include a first flow passage penetrating through the first part of the body and having one end exposed to the outside of the first part of the body, and a second flow passage communicating with the first flow passage, penetrating through the second part of the body, and joining the lead-in passage, and wherein each valve covers the inlet of a respective discharge flow passage and one end of a respective first flow passage, such that the adjustment spaces allow the discharge flow passages and the first flow passages to communicate with each other outside the first part of the body.
Kashiyama teaches the supply flow passages (47b-c) each include a first flow passage penetrating through the first part of the body and having one end (portion of 47b-c facing 55) exposed to the outside of the first part of the body, and a second flow passage (49, 63) communicating with the first flow passage, penetrating through the second part (lower part of 41) of the body, and joining the lead-in passage (59), and wherein each valve (53) covers the inlet of a respective discharge flow passage and one end of a respective first flow passage, such that the adjustment spaces allow the discharge flow passages and the first flow passages to communicate with each other outside the first part of the body. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 3, 5, and 10, 11A-B, Abstract, and paragraphs 42, 52, 55, 57-64, 65-69, 70-75, 104-108, 111.)
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 the supply flow passages each include a first flow passage penetrating through the first part of the body and having one end exposed to the outside of the first part of the body, and a second flow passage communicating with the first flow passage, penetrating through the second part of the body, and joining the lead-in passage, and wherein each valve covers the inlet of a respective discharge flow passage and one end of a respective first flow passage, such that the adjustment spaces allow the discharge flow passages and the first flow passages to communicate with each other outside the first part of the body, because Kashiyama teaches this structure enables the solvent to be distributed more evenly. (See Kashiyama, Figs. 1 -12, Abstract, and paragraphs 22-26, 42, 52, 55, 57-64, 65-69, 70-75, 104-108, 111.)
Regarding claim 6, Marinaro does not explicitly teach each first flow passage faces a respective second flow passage, such that a straight line section is formed in a vertical direction.
Kashiyama teaches each first flow passage faces a respective second flow passage, such that a straight line section is formed in a vertical direction (See Kashiyama, Figs. 3, 5, and 10, 11A-B, Abstract, and paragraphs 42, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
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 each first flow passage faces a respective second flow passage, such that a straight line section is formed in a vertical direction, as an art recognized equivalent valve structure(See Kashiyama, Figs. 1 -12, Abstract, and paragraphs 22-26, 42, 52, 55, 57-75, 104-108, 111.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,418,946 B1 to Marinaro et al (hereinafter Marinaro) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170128962 A1 to Kashiyama et al (hereinafter Kashiyama) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,849,084 to Hayes et al (hereinafter Hayes).
Regarding claim 7, Marinaro does not explicitly teach a first O-ring surrounding a straight line section of each first flow passage between the first part of the body and the second part of the body.
Hayes directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Hayes teaches a first O-ring surrounding a straight line section of each first flow passage between the first part and the second part. (See Hayes, Figs. 1-6, Abstract, and col. 5, 18-28.)
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 first O-ring surrounding a straight line section of each first flow passage between the first part of the body and the second part of the body, because Hayes teaches this construction is a known way to provide sealing for parts in a substrate processing apparatus. (See Hayes, Figs. 1-6, Abstract, and col. 5, 18-28.)
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,418,946 B1 to Marinaro et al (hereinafter Marinaro) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170128962 A1 to Kashiyama et al (hereinafter Kashiyama) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200035518 A1 to Miyagi et al (hereinafter Miyagi).
Regarding claim 13, Marinaro does not explicitly teaches: the first part of the body is made of a metal, and an inner circumferential surface of the first part facing the discharge space is coated with a non-conductor material, and the second part of the body is made of a resin.
Miyagi directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Miyagi teaches the first part of a body is made with metal to reduce cost and the second part is coated with fluorine resin. (See Miyagi, Figs. 11-12, 19, 26-31, Abstract, and paragraphs 4, 5, 75, 113, 132, 145.)
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 the first part of the body is made of a metal, and an inner circumferential surface of the first part facing the discharge space is coated with a non-conductor material, because Miyagi teaches this construction reduces cost and increases durability by reducing corrosion. (See Miyagi, Figs. 11-12, 19, 26-31, Abstract, and paragraphs 4, 5, 75, 113, 132, 145.)
Regarding claim 13, Marinaro does not explicitly teaches: the second part of the body is made of a resin.
Miyagi teaches a second part is made of a resin. (See Miyagi, Figs. 11-12, 19, 26-31, Abstract, and paragraphs 4, 5, 75, 113, 132, 145.)
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 the second part of the body is made of a resin, because Miyagi teaches this resin may material can be made with the desired dielectric constant to suppress charged potential generating in splashing of liquid. (See Miyagi, Figs. 11-12, 19, 26-31, Abstract, and paragraphs 4, 5, 75, 113, 132, 145.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717