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 .
Status
The amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending. In the amendment filed 04/28/2026, claim 1 was amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 24 of claim 1, the text should read “wherein the lower cup”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with the instant specification (see second paragraph of p2), the rotation driver(s) is/are interpreted as a motor(s).
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:
“exhaust mechanism” in claim 8-9 (note “mechanism” is a generic placeholder and “exhaust” and/or “configured to exhaust the fixed cup” is the functional limitation) for which no corresponding structure has been identified.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated above, the term “exhaust mechanism” in claim 8 invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). No corresponding structure was identified because the specification merely refers to “exhaust mechanism 38” without clarifying the structure of the exhaust mechanism and the drawings merely show a box labeled “exhaust mechanism” (see Fig 2 inter alia) and therefore cannot be relied upon to show the structure of the exhaust mechanism. Note that the amended claim limitations of claim 8 explain a structure to which the exhaust mechanism is connected and provide additional details about the functions the structure is configured to perform but this is not sufficient to replace the need to identify the corresponding structure(s) to perform the recited functions. Because there is not corresponding structure disclosed, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP 2181 IV. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claim will be examined over the prior art using an interpretation as explained in the rejection of claim 8 over 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim 9 is included for its dependence from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 8-11 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.
Claim 8 limitation “exhaust mechanism” invokes 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. No corresponding structure was identified because the specification merely refers to “exhaust mechanism 38” without clarifying the structure of the exhaust mechanism and the drawings merely show a box labeled “exhaust mechanism” (see Fig 2 inter alia) and therefore cannot be relied upon to show the structure of the exhaust mechanism. Note that the amended claim limitations of claim 8 explain a structure to which the exhaust mechanism is connected and provide additional details about the functions the structure is configured to perform but this is not sufficient to replace the need to identify the corresponding structure(s) to perform the recited functions. 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.
For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, any prior art structure that performs an exhausting (i.e. pumping) function will be interpreted as meeting the claimed “exhaust mechanism” or being a functional equivalent thereof.
Claim 9 is included for its dependence from claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 was amended to recite that the rotating mechanism includes a motor. Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Claim 10 recites the rotating mechanism includes a “common rotation driver”. Consistent with the instant specification, the common rotation driver is a motor (see paragraph 2 of p12 of the specification). It is unclear if applicant is intending to claim a different structure such as an additional motor or driver or if applicant merely missed amending claim 10 to reflect the amendment to claim 1. Because there is no support for the driver being a different structure because the only support for the inclusion of a motor in the rotating mechanism is as a driver (see citation above), the instant claim is interpreted inclusive of the interpretation that the common rotation driver is the same as the motor and claim 10 should have been amended to reflect the change to claim 1. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 10 to recite “the motor configured to rotate the substrate holder by applying…” in line 3 and “output from the motor as the cup driving force to the lower cup” in line 6. Alternatively applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite in line 2 “the rotating mechanism further includes”, delete lines 3-4, and amend line 6 to recite “output from the motor as the cup driving force to the lower cup”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 was amended to recite that the rotating mechanism includes a motor. Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Claim 11 recites the rotating mechanism includes a “first rotation driver” and a “second rotation driver”. Consistent with the instant specification, the rotation drivers are a motor (see paragraph 2 of p12 of the specification). It is unclear if applicant is intending to claim a different structure such as an additional motor or driver or if applicant merely missed amending claim 11 to reflect the amendment to claim 1. Because there is no support for the drivers being a different structure because the only support for the inclusion of a motor in the rotating mechanism is as a driver (see citation above), the instant claim is interpreted inclusive of the interpretation that the first rotation driver is the same as the motor and the second rotation driver is a motor and claim 11 should have been amended to reflect the change to claim 1. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 11 to reflect that the motor includes a first motor configured to rotate the substrate holder and a second motor configured to rotate the lower cup.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoda (prev. presented US 5,688,322), in view of Nakai (prev. presented US 2016/0329220).
Regarding claim 1, Motoda teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 1-2), comprising: a substrate holder (spin chuck 6 Fig 2 and col 5, ln 1-15) configured to hold a substrate (substrate S in Fig 2 and col 5, ln 1-15) and provided rotatably about an axis of rotation extending in a vertical direction (col 5, ln 1-15); a processing liquid discharge nozzle (nozzle 36 Fig 2, col 5, ln 34-40) configured to process the substrate by supplying a processing liquid to the substrate held by the substrate holder (col 5, ln 34-40); a rotating cup (2 Fig 2, col 4, ln 65 to col 5, ln 5, col 5 ln 40-67) configured to form a collection space for collecting liquid droplets of the processing liquid scattered from the substrate by surrounding an outer periphery of the rotating substrate and provided rotatably about the axis of rotation (col 4, ln 65 to col 5, ln 5, col 5 ln 40-67); a fixed cup (50 Fig 2, col 5, ln 57-65) configured to form a discharge space for discharging the liquid droplets collected by the rotating cup by being fixedly arranged to surround the rotating cup(col 5, ln 57-65); and a rotating mechanism including a motor (spin motor 24, pulleys 22 and 30,driving belts 20 and 28, follower pulleys 18 and 26, and spline shaft 16 Fig 2 and col 5, ln 40-50) configured to rotate the substrate holder and the rotating cup (col 5, ln 40-67), wherein the rotating cup includes a lower cup (portion 2C,2D Fig 2) to be rotated about the axis of rotation by receiving a cup driving force applied from the motor (col 5, ln 40-67) and an upper cup (vertical sidewall portion of 2 above 2D having holes 52A and 52B Fig 2, col 5, ln 58 to col 6 ln 15) configured to collect the liquid droplets scattered through the collection space while rotating about the axis of rotation integrally with the lower cup by being coupled to the lower cup (col 5, ln 58 to col 6 ln 15), and the upper cup includes: allowing communication between the collection space and the discharge space by being located above the lower cup (lower part is located above 2D in Fig 2) and forming a gap between the lower cup and the first coupling part (a gap is present vertically and with holes 52B); and an inclined part provided obliquely upward of a peripheral edge part of the substrate from where the upper cup connects to the lower cup (upper portion of vertical portion of 2,which is inclined and has hole 52A), the inclined part collecting the liquid droplets by an inclined surface facing the collection space (col 5, ln 60 to col 6 ln 10). Motoda fails to teach the coupling part connecting the upper cup to the lower cup of the rotating cup because Motoda teaches a unibody structure. Regarding the coupling part connecting the upper cup to the lower cup of the rotating cup, in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses including cups for collecting liquid discharged from the substrate (abstract, Fig 1), Nakai teaches a first coupling part (second engagement part 226 Fig 1 [0069]) as part of the upper cup (22, 225 Fig 1) located above the lower cup (311 Fig 1) forming a gap between the lower cup and the first coupling part (Fig 1). The upper cup of Nakai (22, 225 Fig 1) includes an inclined part (Fig 1) provided obliquely upward of a peripheral edge part of the substrate from the first coupling part (Fig 1), the inclined part collecting the liquid droplets by an inclined surface facing the collection space [0081-0082]. Nakai teaches the lower cup (311 Fig 1) has a second coupling part (314 Fig 1) facing the first coupling part and configured to be engageable with the first coupling part (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cup arrangement of Motoda to include the first coupling part and second coupling part as taught by Nakai because Nakai teaches this arrangement allows the upper cup to be rotated with the lower cup or not rotated [0070] and because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (upper and lower cup and coupling arrangement of Nakai) for another (upper and lower cup and coupling arrangement of Motoda) to achieve predictable results (rotation of the upper cup with the lower cup and collection of liquid scattered from the substrate). Regarding that the second coupling part is engageable with the first coupling part at a position lower than the substrate held by the substrate holder, in Nakai, the engageable position may be the lowermost portion of the first coupling part (226 Fig 1) which is lower than the substrate. Further, the specific length of each of the first and second coupling parts and their specific engagement point represents a mere rearrangement of parts to adjust where the coupling parts engage. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). This also represents routine optimization of the sizes of each part. Further, Motoda teaches the substrate holder is moveable along the vertical axis (col 4, ln 65 to col 5, ln 10) such that in the combination the position of the substrate may be raised to be above the engagement portion (i.e. the combination is capable of being operated in the manner described).
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The gap as demonstrated by Nakai extends in a horizontal direction (Fig 1, 9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The upper cup of the combination (cup 22, 225 Fig 1of Nakai) is engageable with and disengagable from the lower cup (Nakai Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 above. Nakai as part of teaching the upper cup further teaches a cup elevator (23 Fig 2) configured to move up and down the upper cup between a cup coupled position where the upper cup is coupled to the lower cup by being engaged with the lower cup and a cup retracted position where the upper cup is retracted upward from the lower cup (Fig 1, 2 [0060]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the cup elevator of Nakai because Nakai teaches this enables raising and lowering the upper cup to separate it from the lower cup [0060].
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1. Nakai as applied in the combination teaches the lower cup (311 Fig 1) includes a second coupling part (314 Fig 1) facing the first coupling part (Fig 1), one of the first and second coupling parts is provided with a plurality of engaging pins (second coupling part 314 of Fig 1 which is referred to in Nakai as “first engagement part” [0068-0069]) and the other is provided with a plurality of recesses (first coupling part 226 of Nakai which is the “second engagement part” of Nakai, see [0069] which discloses recesses), the plurality of engaging pins being insertable into and withdrawable from the plurality of recesses [0069], and the upper and lower cups are engaged with each other by inserting each of the plurality of engaging pins into the corresponding one of the plurality of recesses [0069-0070]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the second coupling part and the engagement arrangement as claimed because Nakai teaches this arrangement allows for the coupling of the upper and lower cups during processing [0069-0070].
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The upper cup of each of Motoda and Nakai is capable of being used with a substrate that is larger such that an upper end of the inclined part covers a peripheral edge part of the substrate with the upper cup coupled to the lower cup. Further Nakai (Fig 1) demonstrates this arrangement.
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Motoda teaches an exhaust portion (mechanism) (97 Fig 2 and col 4, ln 59-65) configured to exhaust the fixed cup (col 4, ln 59-65), the exhaust portion being connected to an exhaust part (58 and unnumbered wall portion connected to 50A Fig 2) of the fixed cup (Fig 2) and configured to evacuate gas components from the exhaust part so as to adjust pressure in the discharge space (col 4, ln 59-65). Motoda further teaches an exhaust controller (95 Fig 2 and col 4, ln 50-60) configured to control the exhaust mechanism to promote movements of the liquid droplets from the collection space into the discharge space by way of the gap by adjusting a pressure in the discharge space (taught as controlling the discharge unit which will affect the pressure col 4, ln 50-60). Nakai further teaches an exhaust controller (controller 10) configured to control the exhaust mechanism (inclusive of the exhaust port 461) to promote movements of the liquid droplets from the collection space into the discharge space by way of the gap by adjusting a pressure in the discharge space [0151], [0164], [0202]. Therefore it additionally would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motoda to include the exhaust controller of Nakai to control the pressure in the discharge space because Nakai teaches this allows for improved control of the discharge [0151], [0164], [0202].
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Motoda teaches the fixed cup includes a liquid receiving part (45 Fig 5-7) configured to receive the processing liquid (col 6, ln 1-25), an exhaust part (exhaust passage 58 Fig 5-7 and col 6, ln 35-45) connected to the exhaust mechanism (Fig 2) to exhaust gas components flowing by way of the liquid receiving part (Fig 5-7 and col 6, ln 1-45), a partition wall (60C and 60D Fig 7, col 7, ln 5-15) configured to partition between the liquid receiving part and the exhaust part (col 7, ln 5-15) and a gas guiding part (55 Fig 5-7) configured to form a flow passage for the gas components having a labyrinth structure by covering the partition wall from above (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1. Motoda teaches a motor as a common rotation driver (24 Fig 2 and col 5, ln 40-50) configured to rotate the substrate holder by applying a rotational driving force (col 5, ln 40-50); and a power transmitter (26, 28, and/or 30 Fig 2 and col 5, ln 40-50) configured to transmit a part of the rotational driving force output from the common rotation driver as the cup driving force to the lower cup (col 5, ln 40-50).
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. As indicated in the rejection of claim 10 above, Motoda teaches one motor as a rotational driver to drive the cup and the substrate holder. It is noted that driving pulleys 22 and 30 are separate and may each be considered a rotation driver. If applicant amends to recited two motors, it is noted that claim 11 represents a mere duplication of parts of the spin motor 24 of Motoda such that one spin motor is provided for each of the cup and the substrate support. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Such an arrangement is an obvious modification that allows for individual speed control of each rotational structure and allows for additional processing modes in which it may be desirable to have one of the two structures stationary or rotating at a different speed. This increases the number of processes that may be performed on the same apparatus and therefore the market value of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoda in view of Nakai as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sakamoto (prev. presented US 5,626,675).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. The combination as applied to claim 5 fails to teach an upper magnet attached to the first coupling part; and a lower magnet attached to the second coupling part, wherein: an attraction force is generated between the upper and lower magnets by bringing the upper and lower magnets into contact or proximity in the vertical direction when the upper and lower cups are engaged with each other. In the same field of endeavor of an upper portion (23 Fig 9) engaging with a lower rotating cup (22 Fig 9) to rotate therewith, Sakamoto teaches that magnets (57 Fig 9) may be used to bring the structures into contact in the vertical direction (col 7, ln 5-10) as an additional and/or alternative embodiment to a protrusion and recess (Fig 6-7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motoda in view of Nakai to include magnets for magnetic attraction between the first and second coupling parts because Sakamoto demonstrates magnets are a functional alternative (see Fig 9 and 6-7). Regarding specifically magnets in each coupling part, Sakamoto appears to rely on a material to which the magnet is attracted which may be considered a magnet and further a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized that the magnetic attraction may be obtained by magnets positioned in each structure.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,431,369 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the “exhaust mechanism”, the response (see reply p1 – note applicant did not number the pages and therefore the page numbers are being used as the pages of the “remarks/arguments” section of the reply) argues that structure is present and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know of a mechanism that can be used for the exhaust function. The cited portions were reviewed and do not provide specific structure of the exhaust mechanism. Applicant is kindly requested to specifically cite the structures recited that applicant believes are the exhaust mechanism if such details were present in the specification as originally filed. Examiner notes that the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the corresponding structure be disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive. As explained above, the recitation of additional functions and structure to which the exhaust mechanism is connected is insufficient to provide the structure of the exhaust mechanism. Therefore the interpretation and corresponding rejections for lack of sufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure were maintained.
Regarding the amended limitations of claim 1, the rejection has been updated to reflect the amendments. Examiner notes that while the annotated drawings in the reply p3 are appreciated, the drawings were too small and not clearly labeled in a manner that makes them readable in the filed response. However, examiner notes that the coupling position is adjustable, may be defined as the lower portion of the upper coupling part, and the substrate is moveable as explained above. Therefore while examiner does not agree with applicant’s arguments (reply p3-4) that the art combination does not already teach the claimed configuration (i.e. based on a broader use of the engaging position or a higher positioning of the substrate in Motoda), it is noted that the positioning change is an obvious modification. Applicant has provided no evidence that the positioning provides an unexpected improvement or any improvement. Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvements (reply p3) appear to rely on additional features which are not claimed (i.e. positioned further away and having an entire height lower than the substrate). Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,376,862 teaches magnetic coupling from inner and outer magnetic circles (Fig 3). US 2007/0289527 teaches a coupling structure for which the height is lower than the substrate (Fig 4 and 5, see 39)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights