DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/11/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 and 16-25 are pending.
Claims 21-25 are withdrawn.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, and 16-17 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation: “1/N times a pitch of the plurality of substrates” is regarded as indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. A PHOSITA would recognize that substrates can comprise a variety of shapes and sizes such that the pitch therebetween is not known (or would be variable). In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as not adding any further limitations beyond the liquid nozzles/gas outlets having a pitch.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US Patent 4,967,777) and Kim (US Pub. 2008/0017313), with Wang (US Pub. 2004/0231997) as an evidentiary reference for claim 20.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Takayama teaches an apparatus for wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates (Fig. 1, entirety), comprising: a processing tank (Fig. 1, tank #41) configured to contain a liquid chemical composition (Fig. 1, water #30) and support the plurality of substrates in the liquid chemical composition (Fig. 1, substrates #3); and a flow plate (Figs. 1 and 6, bubble generator #21) disposed in the liquid chemical composition in the processing tank (see Fig. 1) such that, when the plurality of substrates are supported in the liquid chemical composition, the flow plate is positioned below the plurality of substrates (see Fig. 1), and wherein the flow plate includes, a plurality of liquid nozzles configured to direct the liquid chemical composition towards the plurality of substrates (Figs. 1, 5, and 6, holes #22a for water #30); and a plurality of gas outlets configured to direct a gas towards the plurality of substrates (Figs. 1, 5, and 6, holes #26a for nitrogen gas #31).
Takayama does not appear to teach wherein the plurality of liquid nozzles and the plurality of gas outlets are arranged to form multiple concentric nested zones that can be independently controlled.
However, Kim teaches a plurality of concentric “nested” zones that can be independently controlled (Kim – [0046]-[0062] and Fig. 4B, zones #151-160 of #170 are “nested” concentrically).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayama apparatus to comprise the “nested” zones of Kim in order to perform uniform processing on a plurality of substrates (Kim – [0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Takayama teaches wherein the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the gas directed into the tank and the flow rate of the liquid chemical composition directed into the tank can be independently varied (Figs. 6-7, pipe #23 for #30 and pipe #25 for #31 are separate pipes with separate sources/valves, thus can be independently controlled).
Regarding claim 3, Takayama teaches wherein the plurality of liquid nozzles and the plurality of gas outlets are evenly spaced apart on the flow plate (see Figs. 1, 5, and 6, holes #22a and #26a appear evenly arranged/spaced).
Regarding claim 6, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
The modified Takayama apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function by virtue of the independent flow control of liquid and gas species (Takayama - Fig. 7, via valves #45 and #49, respectively), there appearing to be twice as many liquid holes as gas holes (Fig. 6, #22a and #26a, respectively), and mention that the gas pipes #26 are smaller (Col. 4, Lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 13, Takayama teaches wherein the plurality of liquid nozzles and the plurality of gas outlets are arranged in alternating linear arrays (see Fig. 6, #22a and #26a).
Regarding claim 14, Takayama teaches wherein each array of the alternating linear arrays extend in a length direction of the flow plate (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Takayama teaches wherein each zone includes one or more liquid nozzles and one or more gas outlets (Takayama – Fig. 6).
Takayama does not teach multiple concentric nested zones.
However, Kim teaches a plurality of concentric “nested” zones that can be independently controlled (Kim – [0046]-[0062] and Fig. 4B, zones #151-160 of #170 are “nested” concentrically).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayama apparatus to comprise the “nested” zones of Kim in order to perform uniform processing on a plurality of substrates (Kim – [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Takayama teaches wherein each zone includes only one of liquid nozzles or gas outlets (Takayama – Fig. 6).
However, Kim teaches a plurality of concentric “nested” zones that can be independently controlled (Kim – [0046]-[0062] and Fig. 4B, zones #151-160 of #170 are “nested” concentrically; [0055] describes where a zone can comprise only one port).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Takayama apparatus to comprise the “nested” zones of Kim in order to perform uniform processing on a plurality of substrates (Kim – [0066]).
Regarding claim 18, Takayama teaches wherein the plurality of liquid nozzles and the plurality of gas outlets are arranged on a top surface of the flow plate (see Figs. 1, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 19, Takayama teaches wherein the flow plate forms a base of the processing tank (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Takayama does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is an electroless copper plating apparatus (Takayama describes cleaning, etching, drying processes – C6, L28-40), although the Examiner respectfully submits the Takayama apparatus would inherently be capable of performing an electroless copper plating process.
In support of this assertion of inherency, the Examiner cites Wang (US Pub. 2004/0231997) as evidence that a similar apparatus can be used for electroless copper plating of a plurality of immersed substrates (Wang par. [0052] and Fig. 2).
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US Patent 4,967,777) and Kim (US Pub. 2008/0017313), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Christenson (US Pub. 2003/0188765).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, and 16-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Takayama does not teach wherein a discharge opening of each liquid nozzle of the plurality of liquid nozzles have a diameter between about 0.05 inches to 0.1 inches (Examiner’s note: 0.05-0.1 in. corresponds to 1.27-2.54 mm).
However, Christenson teaches a liquid nozzle diameter of 1-3 mm (Christenson – [0043] and Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the liquid nozzle diameter of Takayama to the claimed range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Christenson), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, wherein a pitch of the plurality of liquid nozzles is between about 0.05 - 1 inch in a length direction of the substrate. (Examiner’s note: 0.05-1 in. corresponds to 1.27-25.4 mm).
However, Christenson teaches a liquid nozzle pitch of 3-10 mm (Christenson – [0043] and Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the liquid nozzle pitch of Takayama to the claimed range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Christenson), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Takayama does not teach wherein the pitch of the plurality of liquid nozzles in a width direction of the flow plate and the pitch of the plurality of liquid nozzles in the length direction of the flow plate are the same.
However, Christenson teaches this limitation (Christenson – [0043] and Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the liquid nozzle pitch of Takayama to the same range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Christenson), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US Patent 4,967,777), Kim (US Pub. 2008/0017313), and Christenson (US Pub. 2003/0188765), as applied to claims 4 and 9-10 above, further in view of Kin (US Pub. 2005/0101144).
The limitations of claims 4 and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Takayama does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Examiner’s note: 0.02-0.06 in. corresponds to 0.508-1.52 mm).
However, Kin teaches wherein a discharge opening of each gas outlet of the plurality of gas outlets have a diameter between about 0.02 inches to 0.06 inches (Kin – [0025]: between 0.05-3mm)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the diameter of the gas outlets of Takayama to the claimed range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Kin), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US Patent 4,967,777) and Kim (US Pub. 2008/0017313), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, and 16-20 above, further in view of Takahashi (US Pub. 2020/0098597).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, and 16-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Takayama does not appear to teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein a number of liquid nozzles in the plurality of liquid nozzles is same as the number of gas outlets in the plurality of gas outlets (Takahashi – Fig. 21A, fluid supply tubes #132a/134a have same number of holes as gas supply tubes #158a/158b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the number of liquid and gas holes of Takayama as a simple substitution (setting the ~3:1 ratio of Takayama to 1:1 as in Takahashi) to obtain predictable results (Takahashi – [0240]-[0247] details the operation of the device which is substantially similar to Takayama). SEE MPEP 2143.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US Patent 4,967,777), Kim (US Pub. 2008/0017313), and Christenson (US Pub. 2003/0188765), as applied to claims 4 and 9-10 above, further in view of Bassett (US Pub. 2021/0384049).
The limitations of claims 4 and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Takayama does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Examiner’s note: 0.05-1 in. corresponds to 1.27-25.4 mm).
However, Bassett teaches wherein the pitch of the plurality of gas outlets is between about 0.05 - 1 inch in the length direction of the flow plate (Bassett – [0025]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the pitch of the gas outlets of modified Takayama to the claimed range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Bassett), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, modified Takayama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bassett teaches wherein the pitch of the plurality of gas outlets in the width direction of the flow plate and the pitch of the plurality of gas outlets in the length direction of the flow plate are the same (Bassett – [0025] and Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the pitch of the gas outlets of modified Takayama to the claimed range since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (Bassett), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Claims 2 and 7 have been amended to correct minor informalities and claim 15 is cancelled, thus all objections are withdrawn.
Claim 9 has been amended to remove indefinite claim language, thus the §112(b) rejections of claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §112(b) rejection of claim 8 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Particularly, the basis of the rejection is not that the “1/N times” is indefinite due to variability, but that the “pitch of the plurality of substrates” renders the claim indefinite due to lacking clear metes and bounds as would be understood by a PHOSITA (due to variability). The Examiner respectfully submits that the breadth of the claim is not a concern, but rather the indefinite nature of the boundaries of the claim as a whole necessitates the §112(b) rejection. As such, the §112(b) rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. All §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully submits that Kim remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights