CTNF 18/231,378 CTNF 94934 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claim 9 is withdrawn. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination.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. 07-30-05 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation(s) is: “ exhaust path forming member ” in claim 5. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “ exhaust path forming member ” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of an exhaust duct ( see Spec. at ¶ 0056, Fig. 6), and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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). Claim Objections In claim 1 line 1, “ provided with ” should be changed to “ comprising ” to comply with conventional U.S. practices. In claim 4 line 6, “ a cup of the another processor” should be changed to “ the cup of the another processor” because claim 1 already recites that each processor has a cup. Claim 8 recites “the second lifting mechanism comprises a second lifter configured to relatively move up and down relative to the first lifter outside the perimeter wall” at lines 6-7. The word “relatively” is redundant, because the claim already recites “relative.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 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 1 recites “left and right sides” at line 7-8 and at line 10. It’s unclear whether “left side” is singular or plural, and whether “right side” is singular or plural. Clarification is requested. As a suggestion, the language should be “a left side” and “a right side.” Claim 5 recites “left and right ends” at line 3 and line 4. It’s unclear whether “left end” is singular or plural, and whether “right end” is singular or plural. Clarification is requested. Claim 5 recites “a cup” and “a plurality of cups” (at lines 3-6). It’s unclear whether or not the cups recited in Claim 5 are the same as or different from the cups recited in Claim 1. Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, they are interpreted as the same cups, i.e., the cups recited in Claim 5 belong to the processors recited in Claim 1. Claim 6 recites: a first imager and a second imager configured to respectively image the first processing nozzle and the second processing nozzle in the each of the plurality of processors in mutually intersecting directions. It’s unclear whether “first imager” is singular or plural (i.e., whether or not each processor has a first imager). Similarly, it’s unclear whether “second imager” is singular or plural (i.e., whether or not each processor has a second imager). Clarification is requested. Claim 6 recites: a first imager and a second imager configured to respectively image the first processing nozzle and the second processing nozzle in the each of the plurality of processors in mutually intersecting directions . It’s unclear what this phrase means in the context of two nozzles . The specification discloses a first imager 38 having an optical axis L1 and a second imager 39 having an optical axis L2, wherein L1 and L2 intersect ( see Spec. at ¶ 0065, Fig. 2), but this intersection is described in the context of one nozzle ( see id. ). PNG media_image1.png 262 763 media_image1.png Greyscale If both first nozzle 75 and second nozzle 76 are in their standby positions, it’s unclear how the optical axis of first imager 38 and the optical axis of second imager 39 can mutually intersect ( see Scenario A below). If first nozzle 75 is at standby position and second nozzle 76 is at processing position, it’s unclear how the two optical axes can mutually intersect ( see Scenario B). If first nozzle 75 is at processing position and second nozzle 76 is at standby position, it’s unclear how the two optical axes can mutually intersect ( see Scenario C). PNG media_image2.png 381 1177 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 7 recites: “The liquid processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a first annular body and a second annular body…; and a first lifting mechanism and a second lifting mechanism….” It’s unclear whether these structures are for the entire liquid processing apparatus or for each processor. Clarification is requested. The specification discloses that each processor comprises a first annular body, a second annular body, a first lifting mechanism, and a second lifting mechanism ( see Spec. at ¶ 0027, Figs. 1, 3-5). For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: “The liquid processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of processors further comprising:…” Claim 7 recites “the substrate” on pg. 36 line 1. It’s unclear which substrate, out of the plurality of substrates, is considered “the” substrate. Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of processors comprises: a stage on which a substrate is placed,” i.e., there are multiple substrates in the liquid processing apparatus. Claim 7 recites “the stage” on pg. 36 line 2. It’s unclear which stage, out of the plurality of stages, is considered “the” stage. Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of processors comprises: a stage on which a substrate is placed,” i.e., there are multiple stages in the liquid processing apparatus. Claim 7 recites “the cup” on pg. 36 line 5-6. It’s unclear which cup, out of the plurality of cups, is considered “the” cup. Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of processors comprises: …a cup…,” i.e., there are multiple cups in the liquid processing apparatus. Claim 8 recites “The liquid processing apparatus of claim 7, further comprising: a perimeter wall that surrounds the first annular body and the second annular body in a plan view and has a notch formed in the perimeter wall…” at lines 1-3. It’s unclear whether the perimeter wall is for the entire liquid processing apparatus or for each processor. The specification discloses that each processor comprises a perimeter wall having a notch formed therein ( see Spec. at ¶ 0027, Figs. 1 & 5). For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: “The liquid processing apparatus of claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of processors further comprising:…” Claim 8 recites “the first lifting mechanism comprises a first lifter configured to relatively move up and down outside the perimeter wall” at line 4-5. It’s unclear what “relatively” means (i.e., relative to what?). Clarification is requested. Claim 8 recites “a first connector that connects the first lifter and the first annular body and a second connector that connects the second lifter and the second annular body are provided ” at lines 8-9. It’s unclear if the recited “first connector” and “second connector” are requisite structures of the liquid processing apparatus (i.e., does Applicant intend the word “provided” to have the same effect as “comprising”?). Clarification is requested. The specification discloses that each processor comprises a perimeter wall, a first annular body, a second annular body, a first lifting mechanism, and a second lifting mechanism ( see Spec. at ¶ 0027, Figs. 1, 3-5). Thus, for examination purpose, it’s interpreted that each of the plurality of processors comprises the recited “first connector” and “second connector.” The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein. Examiner’s Comments This Office Action does not contain any prior-art rejection for Claim 8, and (to date) the Examiner has not found any prior-art references that are relevant and material to the subject matter of Claim 8. But Claim 8 still contains major 35 USC 112(b) issues that need to be resolved. Once those 112(b) issues are resolved, the subject matter of Claim 8 should be a strong candidate for advancing prosecution. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by TAKIGUCHI et al. (US PGPUB 20130118533, hereinafter “TAKIGUCHI-533”) . Regarding Claim 1 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches a liquid processing apparatus ( see abstract, Figs. 1 & 8, ¶¶ 0057, 0074, claims 1-7) provided with a plurality of processors (modules 1, 2, 1’, 2’) arranged in a left-right direction ( see Figs. 1 & 8). TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches each processor (i.e., module) comprises: a stage (chuck 11) on which a substrate (wafer W) is placed ( see Figs. 1-4, ¶ 0058); a cup (liquid receiving part 16) surrounding the stage (chuck 11) and the substrate (wafer W) placed on the stage ( see Fig. 2, ¶ 0060); a first processing nozzle (nozzle 6, see Figs. 1-3, ¶ 0070) configured to supply a first processing liquid (e.g., cleaning liquid, see id. ) to the substrate; a second processing nozzle (nozzle 41, see Figs. 1-3, ¶¶ 0062-63) configured to supply a second processing liquid (e.g., developer, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0065) to the substrate; a first standby portion (nozzle bath 67, see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0072) where the first processing nozzle (nozzle 6) is allowed to stand by on a left side of the cup ( see id. ); a second standby portion (nozzle bath 47, see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0072) where the second processing nozzle (nozzle 41) is allowed to stand by on a right side of the cup ( see id. ); a first mover (nozzle transfer mechanism 63) configured to move the first processing nozzle (nozzle 6) between the first standby portion (nozzle bath 67) and a first processing position above the substrate ( see Figs. 1-2, 13, ¶¶ 0070, 0077); a second mover (nozzle transfer mechanism 43) configured to move the second processing nozzle (nozzle 41) between the second standby portion (nozzle bath 47) and a second processing position above the substrate ( see Figs. 1-2, 20, ¶¶ 0063, 0080); and a guide (guide member 44) shared by the first mover and the second mover ( see Figs. 1 & 3, ¶ 0063) such that each of the first mover (mechanism 63) and the second mover (mechanism 43) moves in the left-right direction (x-axis direction, see Figs. 1 & 8). Regarding Claim 2 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The phrase “ the first processing liquid and the second processing liquid are different types of processing liquids ” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural requirement. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is , not what a device does "). 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 id. Nonetheless, TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches that the first processing liquid and the second processing liquid are different types of processing liquids (as explained above, the former may be a cleaning liquid and the latter may be a developer). Regarding Claim 3 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches wherein, in each processor (i.e., module), the guide (guide member 44) is provided on a front side of the cup ( see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the first mover (mechanism 63) and the second mover (mechanism 43) move in the left-right direction (i.e., x-axis direction) on the front side with respect to the cup ( see annotated Fig. 1). PNG media_image3.png 584 893 media_image3.png Greyscale TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the liquid processing apparatus further comprises: a third processing nozzle (nozzle 5) configured to supply a third processing liquid to the substrate in one processor among the plurality of processors ( see Figs. 1-4, ¶ 0062); a third standby portion (nozzle bath 57) where the third processing nozzle (nozzle 5) is allowed to stand by ( see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0072), the third standby portion (nozzle bath 57) being provided on a side opposite to a side where the stage (chuck 11) is located with respect to the first standby portion (nozzle bath 67) or the second standby portion (nozzle bath 47) in the one processor ( see annotated Fig. 1 above; see also Figs. 3 & 8); and a third mover (nozzle mechanism 53) configured to move in the left-right direction (i.e., x-axis direction) on a front side of the cup of the one processor ( see annotated Fig. 1) and to move the third processing nozzle (nozzle 5) between the third standby portion and a third processing position above the substrate ( see Figs. 11 & 13, ¶¶ 0076-77). Regarding Claim 4 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 3. TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches wherein the third processing nozzle (nozzle 5) is shared by the one processor and another processor among the plurality of processors (shared by modules 1 and 2, or shared by modules 1’ and 2’, see Figs. 1 & 8); wherein the third standby portion (nozzle bath 57) is provided between the one processor and the another processor (between modules 1 and 2, or between modules 1’ and 2’, see Figs. 1 & 8); and wherein the third mover moves (nozzle mechanism 53) in the left-right direction (i.e., x-axis direction) between the front side of the cup of the one processor and a front side of a cup of the another processor ( see Figs. 1 & 8) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKIGUCHI-533 (as applied to Claim 1), in view of TAKIGUCHI et al. (US PGPUB 20180308719, hereinafter “TAKIGUCHI-719”) . Regarding Claim 5 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. TAKIGUCHI-533 does not explicitly teach: “ an exhaust path forming member configured to form an exhaust path extending from a rear side of a cup at one of left and right ends of a plurality of cups to a rear side of a cup at the other of the left and right ends in order to exhaust each of interiors of the plurality of cups, wherein a downstream side of the exhaust path is an exhaust path shared by the plurality of cups .” But these features are already known in the prior art. For example, TAKIGUCHI-719 teaches a liquid processing apparatus provided with a plurality of processors ( see Fig. 1, ¶ 0026), the liquid processing apparatus comprising: an exhaust path forming member ( see Fig. 6, exhaust ducts) configured to form an exhaust path (exhaust path 38) extending from a rear side of a cup at one of left and right ends of a plurality of cups ( see Fig. 6, ¶ 0041) to a rear side of a cup at the other of the left and right ends ( see id. ) in order to exhaust each of interiors of the plurality of cups ( see id. ), wherein a downstream side of the exhaust path is an exhaust path (exhaust path 30) shared by the plurality of cups ( see id. ). PNG media_image4.png 499 993 media_image4.png Greyscale Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify TAKIGUCHI-533 to incorporate an exhaust path forming member, with reasonable expectation of exhausting the interiors of the cups. It’s already known in the prior art for a liquid processing apparatus to comprise an exhaust path forming member configured to form an exhaust path extending from a rear side of a cup at one of left and right ends of a plurality of cups to a rear side of a cup at the other of the left and right ends in order to exhaust each of interiors of the plurality of cups, wherein a downstream side of the exhaust path is an exhaust path shared by the plurality of cups ( see TAKIGUCHI-719). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR , 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 i s re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TA KIGUCHI-533 (as applied to Claim 1), in view of SAKAMOTO et al. (Japanese Publication JP2012104732, as translated by Espacenet). Re garding Claim 6 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. TAKIGUCHI-533 does not explicitly teach: “ a first imager and a second imager configured to respectively image the first processing nozzle and the second processing nozzle in the each of the plurality of processors in mutually intersecting directions .” But these features are already known in the prior art. For example, SAKAMOTO teaches a liquid processing apparatus (apparatus 120) provided with a plurality of processors ( see Figs. 7-8). SAKAMOTO teaches a first imager (camera 50 or 51) and a second imager (camera 60) ( see Fig. 8, ¶ 0061), which are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “ respectively image the first processing nozzle and the second processing nozzle in the each of the plurality of processors in mutually intersecting directions .” SAKAMOTO teaches that the first imager (camera 50 or 51) and the second imager (camera 60) are configured to image a given nozzle positioned inside the cup of each processor ( see Fig. 8, ¶ 0061), wherein the imaging direction of the first imager and the imaging direction of the second imager are mutually intersecting directions ( see id. ). PNG media_image5.png 401 545 media_image5.png Greyscale SAKAMOTO teaches that the two imagers provide the benefit of allowing a given nozzle to be precisely positioned ( see ¶¶ 0009, 0012, 0052). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify TAKIGUCHI-533’s apparatus to incorporate a first imager and a second imager—wherein the two imagers point into the cup and their imaging directions mutually intersect—with reasonable expectation of precisely positioning a nozzle. First , given the benefit of allowing a given nozzle to be precisely positioned, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a first imager and a second imager into TAKIGUCHI-533’s apparatus. Second , it’s already known in the prior art for a liquid processing apparatus to comprise a first imager and a second imager, wherein the two imagers point into the cup and their imaging directions mutually intersect ( see SAKAMOTO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR , 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. In the resulting combination of TAKIGUCHI-533 and SAKAMOTO: the liquid processing apparatus would comprise a first imager and a second imager, wherein the two imagers point into the cup and their imaging directions mutually intersect; in other words, the two imagers are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “ respectively image the first processing nozzle and the second processing nozzle in the each of the plurality of processors in mutually intersecting directions .” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 i s re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TA KIGUCHI-533 (as applied to Claim 1), in view of UEDA et al. (US PGPUB 20210288172). Re garding Claim 7 , TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As explained above, TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches each processor comprises a cup (liquid receiving part 16). TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches a first annular body (inner cup 10B) and a second annular body (outer cup 10A), each of which surrounds the substrate placed on the stage in a plan view ( see Figs. 2-3). TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches the second annular body (outer cup 10A) overlaps the first annular body (inner cup 10B) from a space above the first annular body ( see Figs. 2-3). TAKIGUCHI-533 teaches a second lifting mechanism (elevating part 10C) configured to relatively raise and lower the second annular body (raise and lower the outer cup 10A, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0059) with respect to the cup (liquid receiving part 16). TAKIGUCHI-533 does not explicitly teach: “ a first lifting mechanism . . . configured to relatively raise and lower the first annular body . . . with respect to the cup ”; “ wherein the second lifting mechanism is raised and lowered together with the first annular body by the first lifting mechanism .” But these features are already known in the prior art. UEDA teaches a liquid processing apparatus ( see Fig. 4, ¶ 0067) comprising a cup (tub 80), a first annular body (guard 84 or 85), and a second annular body (guard 86); wherein each annular body surrounds the substrate placed on the stage in a plan view ( see Fig. 4, ¶ 0083), the second annular body (guard 86) overlaps the first annular body (guard 84 or 85) from a space above the first annular body ( see id. ). UEDA teaches a first lifting mechanism (guard elevation drive mechanism 87 or 88) and a second lifting mechanism (guard elevation drive mechanism 89) configured to relatively raise and lower the first annular body (guard 84 or 85) and the second annular body (guard 86), respectively, with respect to the cup ( see Fig. 4, ¶ 0083). UEDA teaches that the first lifting mechanism (mechanism 87 or 88) and the second lifting mechanism (mechanism 89) operate independently to raise and lower their respective annular body ( see ¶ 0083) in response to commands from a controller ( see id. ). This means that the second lifting mechanism (mechanism 89) is structurally fully capable of being raised and lowered together with the first annular body (guard 84 or 85) by the first lifting mechanism (mechanism 87 or 88). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify TAKIGUCHI-533 to incorporate a first lifting mechanism configured to relatively raise and lower the first annular body (inner cup 10B of TAKIGUCHI-533) with respect to the cup, with reasonable expectation of independently raising and lowering the first annular body. First, by providing each annular body with its own lifting mechanism, each annular body can be raised and lowered independently; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify TAKIGUCHI-533 to incorporate a first lifting mechanism for the first annular body (inner cup 10B). Second, it’s already known in the prior art for each annular body to have its own lifting mechanism ( see UEDA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR , 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. In the resulting combination of TAKIGUCHI-533 and UEDA: each annular body would have its own lifting mechanism, i.e., the first annular body (inner cup 10B of TAKIGUCHI-533) would have a first lifting mechanism configured to relatively raise and lower the first annular body with respect to the cup, and the second annular body (outer cup 10A of TAKIGUCHI-533) would have a second lifting mechanism configured to relatively raise and lower the second annular body with respect to the cup. Given the independence of each lifting mechanism, this means that the second lifting mechanism is structurally fully capable of being “ raised and lowered together with the first annular body by the first lifting mechanism .” A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is , not what a device does "). Relevant Prior Art The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: A lifting mechanism for each annular body: NAKAI et al. (US PGPUB 20170098553) teaches a first annular body 163 and a second annular body 161, each surrounds the substrate placed on the stage in a plan view ( see Fig. 1, ¶ 0050), wherein the second annular body 161 overlaps the first annular body 163 from a space above the first annular body 163 ( see Fig. 1). NAKAI also teaches a first lifting mechanism 164 configured to raise and lower the first annular body 163 ( see Fig. 1, ¶ 0050) and a second lifting mechanism 162 configured to raise and lower the second annular body 161 ( see id. ). NAKAMORI et al. (US Patent 6589338) teaches a first annular body 37 and a second annular body 36, each surrounds the substrate placed on the stage in a plan view ( see Figs. 2-4), wherein the second annular body 36 overlaps the first annular body 37 from a space above the first annular body 37 ( see Figs. 2-4). NAKAMORI teaches a first lifting mechanism 47 configured to raise and lower the first annular body 37 ( see Figs. 2-4, col. 7 lines 42-57) and a second lifting mechanism 153 configured to raise and lower the second annular body 36 ( see id. ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern. 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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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. /R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714 /KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 2 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 3 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 4 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 5 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 6 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 7 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 8 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 9 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 10 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 11 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 12 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 13 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 14 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 15 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 16 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 17 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 18 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/231,378 Page 19 Art Unit: 1714
Prosecution Insights