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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,857,437 to Fury.
In Reference to Claim 1
Fury discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a body (Fig. 1, 102) having a processing space configured to pressurize a drying process fluid at a supercritical pressure therein; a fluid supply unit (Fig. 1, 122) configured to supply the drying process fluid to the processing space; and a discharge unit (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) configured to discharge the drying process fluid from inside the processing space, wherein the discharge unit comprises: a discharge line (Fig. 1, 128) coupled to the body; and a sampling unit comprising a sampling line (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) branched from a rear end area of the discharge line and configured to extract a sampling fluid, and a detector (Fig. 1, 136) arranged in the sampling line and configured to analyze the sampling fluid.
In Reference to Claim 5
Fury discloses the sampling fluid (Fig. 1, 130) comprises the drying process fluid and an object to be detected, the detector is further configured to remove the drying process fluid (Fig. 1, the fluid is discharged after the separator 130) from the sampling fluid and detect the object to be detected.
In Reference to Claim 6
Fury discloses the detector is further configured to detect at least one of a component, concentration (Col. 3, Line 1-10), and number of particles of an object to be detected.
In Reference to Claim 7
Fury discloses the object to be detected comprises a volatile organic compound. (Col. 3, Line 1-10)
In Reference to Claim 8
Fury discloses the discharge sampling (Fig. 1, 136)
Fury does not teach the sampling amount.
One having an ordinary skill in the art, would have found that sampling amount as a matter of design choice depending on operation control requirement and the analyzer performance requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that sampling amount, presents a novel of unexpected result.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fury.
In Reference to Claim 2
Fury discloses a controller (Fig. 1, 108) configured to control whether the fluid supply unit (Fig. 1, 122, Fig. 1 shows a control communication between the controller and the pump 124) is operated and whether the discharge unit is operated, the controller being further configured to receive information about the sampling fluid (As showed in Fig. 1, a communication is available between the analyzer and the controller) from the detector to control an operation of each of the fluid supply unit and the discharge unit. (The office considers that the controller controls the operation of supply pump based on the analyzer feedback is obviously by controlling communication of Fury, since the controller is coupled to all pumps and analyzer)
Claims 3, 4, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fury in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0103043 to Choi.
In Reference to Claim 3
Fury discloses the controller (Fig. 1, 108) is further configured to stop supply of the drying process fluid when a concentration (Col. 3, Line 3) of an object to be detected by the detector is detected to be equal to or less than a set value.
Fury does not have a discharge valve
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
In Reference to Claim 4
Fury discloses the controller (Fig. 1, 108) is further configured to stop supply (Fig. 1, the supply pump 124 is controlled by the controller 108) of the drying process fluid
Fury does not have a discharge valve.
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
The combination of Fury and Choi as applied to Claim 4 does not teach the control comprising a set time. The Office considers that the set time is a function of the recited controller. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claims 9, 15 and 16
Fury discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a body (Fig. 1, 102) having a processing space in which a cleaning processing operation is performed; a support unit (Fig. 1, 104) configured to support a substrate inside the processing space; a fluid supply unit (Fig. 1, 124) configured to supply a drying process fluid to the processing space; a discharge unit (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) configured to discharge the drying process fluid inside the processing space; and a controller (Fig. 1, 108) configured to control whether the fluid supply unit is operated, wherein the discharge unit comprises: a discharge line (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) coupled to the body; and a sampling unit (Fig. 1, 136) comprising a sampling line branched from a rear end area of the discharge line and configured to extract a sampling fluid, and a detector (Fig. 1, 136) arranged in the sampling line and configured to analyze the sampling fluid, wherein the controller (Fig. 1, 124) is further configured to: control to supply (Fig. 1, 124) the drying process fluid to the processing space
Fury does not have a discharge valve
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387) and a discharge valve (Fig. 1, 1000) at the branch discharging line.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
In Reference to Claims 10 and 11
Fury discloses the controller (Fig. 1, 108) is further configured to receive information about the sampling fluid from the detector (Fig. 1, 136) to control an operation of each of the fluid supply unit (Fig. 1, 124)
Fury does not have a discharge valve
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
In Reference to Claim 12
Fury discloses the controller (Fig. 1, 108) is further configured to stop supply (Fig. 1, the supply pump 124 is controlled by the controller 108) of the drying process fluid
Fury does not have a discharge valve.
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
In Reference to Claim 13
Fury discloses the detector is further configured to detect at least one of a component, concentration (Col. 3, Line 1-10), and number of particles of an object to be detected.
In Reference to Claim 14
Fury discloses the sampling fluid (Fig. 1, 130) comprises the drying process fluid and an object to be detected, the detector is further configured to remove the drying process fluid (Fig. 1, the fluid is discharged after the separator 130) from the sampling fluid and detect the object to be detected.
In Reference to Claim 17
Fury discloses the drying process fluid inside the processing space comprises a supercritical fluid. (Col. 8, Line 28-40)
In Reference to Claim 18
Fury discloses a substrate processing method comprising: a pressure raising operation of supplying a drying process fluid into a processing space (Fig. 1, 102); an operation (Since Fury discloses a controller, obviously, the operation can be repeated) of repeating supply and discharge of the drying process fluid with respect to an inside of the processing space; a final discharge operation (Fig. 1, shows the inner space has a discharge unit) of discharging the drying process fluid from inside the processing space; and a sampling operation (Fig. 1, 130) of extracting and detecting a portion of the drying process fluid discharged by a sampling unit branched (As showed in Fig. 1, the sampling is branched from the discharging line) from a rear end area of a discharge line connected to the processing space, wherein the operation of repeating supply (Fig. 1, 124)and discharge the drying process fluid is ended and the final discharge operation is started based on information detected by the sampling unit.
Fury does not have a discharge valve
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387) and a discharge valve (Fig. 1, 1000) at the branch discharging line.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
Once the discharge valve is integrated, obviously, the discharge valve could be controlled by the controller 108 as other pumps or valves.
In Reference to Claims 19 and 20
Fury discloses the operation of repeating supply and discharge the drying process fluid is ended when a concentration of an object (Fury teaches the analyzer measures the concentration Col. 3, Lines 1-5) to be detected is detected to be equal to or less than a set value, or when a number of times the drying process fluid is supplied is equal to or greater than a set value.
Fury does not have a discharge valve
Choi teaches a controllable discharge valve (Fig. 1, 387) and a discharge valve (Fig. 1, 1000) at the branch discharging line.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Choi into the design of Fury. Doing so, would result in a discharge valve being incorporated into the design of Fury to control the discharging process. Both inventions of Fury and Choi are in the same field of endeavor, Choi provides an actively control the process to control the pressure in the cleaning chamber. So the process is improved.
The combination of Fury and Choi as applied to Claim 4 does not teach the control comprising a set time. The Office considers that the set time is a function of the recited controller. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/8/26