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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 14, and 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2006/0112979) in view of Ewase et al (US 2006/0272676).
Kim teaches an apparatus.
As to claims 1, 14, 21:
The apparatus comprises:
A wafer holder (spin chuck, at least [0042] and [0048])
Two nozzles 10 and 20 (at least Figures 2, 4 and the related description);
A controller (at least [0056]).
The apparatus is disclosed for removal edge bead material of the wafer.
Thus, Kim teaches an apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation of the camera disposed as claimed and the controller that determined tap width of the layer at the edge region of the wafer.
However, such was known from Ewase et al.
See at least Figures 1, 7-10 and the related description.
Ewase et al teach that it was known to provide camera 50 disposed as claimed and control processing of the wafers by a controller 60 based on the images of the camera 50.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide a camera and measuring abilities of the device of Ewase et al in the apparatus of Kim to automate functioning of the apparatus and better control the referenced functioning.
As to claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 22, 23:
Kim teaches nozzles positioned as claimed (at least Figures 2, 4, and the related description).
As to claims 4-6, 8, 19-20, 24-25:
Kim does not specifically tech third and fourth nozzles.
However, it has been held that 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)
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the recited third and fourth nozzles.
As to claim 5:
Kim teaches a mechanism to adjust angles of the disclosed nozzles (at least [0056]).
As to claim 6, 18-20, 25:
Kim teaches the angles of the nozzles as a result effective variable depending from the wafers to be processed (at least [0056]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made to find an optimum angles for the nozzles by routine experimentation depending from the specific wafers to be processed.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2006/0112979) in view of Ewase et al (US 2006/0272676), as applied to claims 1 and 14 and further in view of Nam et al (US 6,983,755).
Modified Kim, as applied above, teaches an apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation of the flow regulators.
However, Nam et al teach that it was known that the flow is a result effective variable in processing waver edges and teach flow regulators to control the flow from the nozzles (at least Figures 2, 4, 6 and the related description).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide flow regulators as suggested by Nam et al in the device of Kim in order to more precisely control processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants amended the claims and allege that the claims are allowable.
This is not persuasive for the reasons provided in the rejections above.
The amended claims have been examined and are subject of the rejections provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to wafer processing apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711