DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/168508 filed February 13, 2023. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 18, 2026.
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: the “nozzle pulse output unit” and “nozzle movement control unit” in claims 5 and 6.
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. A review of the specification indicates that a position detector (43) corresponds to the nozzle pulse output unit, and an operation controller (51) corresponds to the nozzle movement control unit (par. 129). However, the “position detector” is similarly a 112(f) limitation and has no corresponding structure shown or disclosed in the specification. Similarly, the “operation controller” has no corresponding structure shown or disclosed in the specification, beyond being a vague “function block” of the control unit (par. 64), which is an abstract and not physical structure.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 depend from either claims 3 or 4, which state that “the target component is the nozzle”, claim 1 defining “at least target components” from which all of the claims depend. However, claims 7-8 and 10-11 further recite either “the target component is the chucks” or “the target component is the guard” which is indefinite for two reasons- first, they depend from claims 3 or 4 which already defines “the target component” as the nozzle, and therefore one component cannot possibly be two separate structures. And second, claim 1 recites “at least target components” while claims 3-4, 7-8 and 10-11 all attempt to narrow down “the target component”, which creates an antecedent basis problem, as claim 1 recites multiple target components while these dependent claims treat it as a singular target component. For the purposes of examination, claims 3-4, 7-8 and 10-11 will all be understood as stating that at least one of the target components is the nozzle/chucks/guard. Claims 9 and 12 depend from claims 7 and 11 respectively.
Similarly to the above, claim 13 recites “performs the matching to the target component” which is unclear again because claim 1 recites “target components”, and as such it is not clear which component is being referred to by claim 13. For the purposes of examination it will be understood as referring to any of the “target components” of claim 1.
Claim limitations “nozzle pulse output unit” and “nozzle movement control unit” in claims 5-6 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed above, these units are said to correspond to other abstract and non-structural elements, specifically a position detector and an operation controller, respectively. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuma et al. (US 2018/0053319) in view of Seeger (US 2020/0225278).
Regarding claim 1: Kakuma et al. discloses a substrate processing unit for performing a predetermined wet process such as cleaning or etching on a substrate (W) (par. 34) having a controller (80) including a memory (82) which stores pattern and coordinate information of elements such as a nozzle (43) (par. 69) by using a camera (72) which captures a real-time image of the nozzle (43) and other components such as chuck pins (114) and a splash guard (20) (par. 36, 50, figures 3, 5), where the controller (80) includes an image processor (86) which performs a pattern matching processing to match the two-dimensional image data to the pattern and coordinate information stored in the memory (82) (par. 45, 69-70, figures 5-7), where the controller (80) has another circuit which is configured to determine if the position deviation of the nozzle (43) for example is within an allowable range or if it exceeds the range, which would constitute an abnormality, based on the pattern matching done by the image processor (86) (par. 58, 86, figure 4).
Kakuma et al. teaches that the memory (82) contains reference matching data which includes pattern information and coordinate information, which could suggest a 3D design information about the nozzle, but Kakuma et al. does fail to explicitly disclose that is the type of data contained in the memory and used to compare to the real-time image data. However, Seeger discloses a similar wafer processing apparatus which uses a camera (32, 42) to detect anomalies in the substrate (10) secured to a chuck (41) by comparing the image from the camera (32, 42) to either a reference image or a CAD design reference, which is 3D design information (par. 32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 3D CAD information as the reference data to compare to the real time image data as taught by Seeger for the apparatus of Kakuma et al. because Seeger teaches that using reference image data and using reference CAD data are functionally equivalent for determining abnormalities in a wafer processing system (par. 32) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 2: Kakuma et al. and Seeger disclose the above combination where the reference information regarding the nozzle (43) is designed to have a certain tolerance range where the position of the nozzle (43) is acceptable, and where it is considered unacceptable outside of the allowable range (pars. 69, 86, figure 4).
Regarding claims 3-4: Kakuma et al. discloses that the apparatus further includes a spin chuck (11) which supports the substrate (W) in a horizontal orientation and spins the substrate (W) via a spin base (111) (par. 35), the above nozzle (43) which ejects a processing fluid to the substrate (W) attached to a revolving shaft (41) driven by an arm driver (83) which is a nozzle moving mechanism that moves the end of the nozzle (43) between an end position and a substrate (W) position (par. 40, figures 2-3), where the nozzle (43) is one component being analyzed by the camera (72) and the image processor (86) is timed to perform the matching process while the nozzle (43) is near the substrate (W) position (par. 67, figure 4).
Regarding claim 11: Kakuma et al. discloses a splash guard (20) provided around the spin chuck (11) laterally to guard it, the guard (20) able to move upward and downward by way of an up-down mechanism between a lower position and a treatment position where a fluid receiver (22) section of the guard (20) receives processing fluid flowing down from the inner guards (21) (par. 38, figures 3 and 5). Kakuma et al. discloses that the camera (72) captures the guard (20) within the image (I1) but does not explicitly disclose that the matching process is done in relation to the guard itself (par. 50).
However, Kakuma et al. further states that the nozzle is not the only object which can serve as the positioning object and therefore the subject for the matching process, and that various other objects with predetermined positions can be those positioning objects (par. 135-140), which includes the objects featured in the image captured (I1) which includes the guard (20) as well as the chuck pins (114) (see figure 5). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the guard as the matching object because Kakuma et al. teaches that various other imaged objects can do so (par. 135-140) and because choosing from a finite number of solutions- and there are only a finite number of objects in the image (I1) having predetermined positions- is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). Similarly, choosing to perform the matching process at either the lower position or the treatment position is an obvious choice because it is between a finite number of solutions (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 12: Kakuma et al. discloses that the image processor (86) can set the reference data, which corresponds to the normal design information, regarding the positioning object in a state where there is no positional displacement, i.e. the origin position, and Kakuma et al. only states once that this is done prior to processing (par. 69). Further, the limitations in claim 12 are all functional limitations that amount to the intended use of the apparatus, and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. 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 and 2115. In the instant case, the image processor (86) and controller (80) of Kakuma et al. and Seeger are capable of performing the process steps listed in the claim.
Regarding claim 13: Kakuma et al. discloses that the imaging process can be performed multiple times for multiple target nozzles, where the matching and therefore abnormality detection is also performed each time (par. 67). Further, the limitations in claim 13 are all functional limitations that amount to the intended use of the apparatus, and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. 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 and 2115. In the instant case, the image processor (86) and controller (80) of Kakuma et al. and Seeger are capable of performing the process steps listed in the claim.
Regarding claim 14: Kakuma et al. discloses that the overall apparatus includes a plurality of such treatment apparatuses (1A-1D), at least four (par. 32, figure 1).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuma et al. and Seeger as applied to claims 1-4 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Yoshihara et al. (US 2015/0243542)
Regarding claim 7: Kakuma et al. and Seeger disclose the above combination in which the spin chuck (11) has a plurality of chuck pins (114) at its peripheral edge with a face for supporting the peripheral edge of the substrate (W) which have a drive that allows them change between a release state in which the substrate (W) is not contacted and a pressing state in which it is (Kakuma et al. pars. 36-37). Kakuma et al. further discloses that the camera (72) captures the chuck pins (114) within the image (I1) but does not explicitly disclose that the matching process is done in relation to the chuck pins (114) themselves (par. 50, figure 5).
However, Kakuma et al. further states that the nozzle is not the only object which can serve as the positioning object and therefore the subject for the matching process, and that various other objects with predetermined positions can be those positioning objects (par. 135-140), which includes the objects featured in the image captured (I1) which includes the chuck pins (114) (see figure 5). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chuck pins (114) as the matching object because Kakuma et al. teaches that various other imaged objects can do so (par. 135-140) and because choosing from a finite number of solutions- and there are only a finite number of objects in the image (I1) having predetermined positions- is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). Kakuma et al. states that the matching process is done when the target moves (figure 4), such that it would naturally do the same when the chuck pins (114) move from the pressing state to the released state, and vice versa.
Kakuma et al. fails to explicitly disclose the chuck pins have a back face supporting portion and a periphery edge supporting portion erected outside of a rotation center of the back face supporting portion, or that the drive which changes from the pressed to released state operates by rotating the chucks. However, Yoshihara et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus having similar chuck pins (19) which include a base portion (21) for supporting the underside of the substrate (W) and a gripping portion (22) which is a peripheral edge supporting portion offset from the central axis of the base portion (21), the pins (19) being movable between a closed position and an open position by rotating the pins (19) (pars. 361, 449-450, figures 23-24, 35A-35B). 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 chuck pin like that of Yoshihara et al. for the apparatus of Kakuma et al. because Yoshihara et al. shows that it is functionally equivalent for moving between a gripping position and a released position (pars. 361, 449-450, figures 23-24, 35A-35B) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 9: Kakuma et al. discloses that the image processor (86) can set the reference data, which corresponds to the normal design information, regarding the positioning object in a state where there is no positional displacement, i.e. the origin position, and Kakuma et al. only states once that this is done prior to processing (par. 69). Further, the limitations in claim 9 are all functional limitations that amount to the intended use of the apparatus, and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. 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 and 2115. In the instant case, the image processor (86) and controller (80) of Kakuma et al. and Seeger are capable of performing the process steps listed in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 5 and 6 are drawn to the apparatus of claims 1 and 3, or claims 1, 2 and 4, which is a substrate treatment apparatus having a camera which sends data to a processing circuit to match sensed image data with a stored three-dimensional design data about target components, as well as a detecting circuit that detects anomalies based on the results of the matching process, with claims 3 and 4 adding a spin chuck, nozzle, and nozzle moving mechanism where the nozzle is a target of the matching, claims 5 and 6 adding the requirements of a nozzle pulse output unit that outputs a signal pulse when the nozzle is moved by controlling a nozzle movement unit to control the nozzle in accordance with these pulses, where the processing circuit performs the matching only once when the nozzle moving mechanism sets the nozzle to be at the origin position and correlates the image sensed with the design information at the pulse which occurs at the origin position, with the detecting circuit setting the normal information of the nozzle in accordance with the correlation and pulse at the ejecting position, i.e. when the nozzle is not at the origin.
The closest prior art, Kakuma et al., Seeger and Yoshihara et al. do not teach or suggest such a nozzle pulse mechanism tied into the use of the matching and imaging process and the movement of the nozzle itself. Claims 8 and 10 depend from claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okita et al. (JP 2020034344, translation attached) discloses a device similar to that of Kakuma et al. where the peripheral chuck pins are specifically imaged in such a way that they are used as reference points for the location of the camera. Sano et al. (US 2015/0262848) is a similar substrate processing apparatus which uses a camera and controller to determine abnormalities with the dispensing nozzle and dispensed liquid.
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
Prosecution Insights