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 .
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites “each of the plurality of partition members has a shape that meanderingly extends in the second direction” where the Examiner is unclear what constitutes “meanderingly extends”. A review of the specification and plain meaning of “meanderingly” shows that Applicant appears to give an example in Figure 17 with a wavy shape but this contracts the plain meaning of “winding, indirect, or aimless”. For examination purposes, the term meanderingly will be interpreted as the plain meaning and including an array due to Figure 17 of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2011-0049986 (Yong hereinafter) in view of US 4209357 (Gorin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yong teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a baffle (Figure 1, baffle 200) comprising: a plate body that has a central axis extending in a first direction (Plate body made of 220 and 230 in Figures 1 and 2); an upper body on the plate body (Top surface of 220); wherein the plate body includes: a fine passage that connects a top surface of the plate body to a bottom surface of the plate body (Passages 231); and a coupling hole downwardly recessed from the top surface of the plate body (Hole 225 in Figure 3).
Yong is silent with respect to a plurality of partition members that extend in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the second direction being a horizontal direction; and wherein the plurality of partition members are spaced apart from each other in a third direction that intersects each of the first direction and the second direction, and wherein the plurality of partition members are lower than the coupling hole.
However, Gorin teaches baffle for fluid injection that discloses a plurality of partition members that extend in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the second direction being a horizontal direction (Figures 1-3 with posts 42 that have side faces that intersects the central axis of the plate body of Yong); and wherein the plurality of partition members are spaced apart from each other in a third direction that intersects each of the first direction and the second direction (The posts 42 of Gorin shows the side faces on each post acting as the partition members and each spaced in a gridded second and third directions which intersect the vertical central axis of the plate body of Yong), and wherein the plurality of partition members are lower than the coupling hole (Resultant combination of Yong and Gorin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower side of the plate body of Yong with the partition members of Gorin to increase the chamber volume.
Regarding claim 2, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose that the plurality of partition members are on the bottom surface of the plate body (Resultant combination of Yong and Gorin to place the partition members of Gorin on the bottom side of 230 of Yong).
Regarding claim 7, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose that the bottom surface of the plate body and a bottom surface of each of the plurality of partition members are on the same plane (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation allows for the upper portion of the partition members and the bottom face of the plate body to be on the same plane).
Regarding claim 8, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose that each of the plurality of partition members has a bar shape that extends lengthwise in the second direction, and wherein the plurality of partition members are parallel to each other (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation shows the partition members as bar shapes with extensions in the second direction outlined above as seen in Figures 2 and 3 of Gorin).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose that each of the plurality of partition members has a shape that meanderingly extends in the second direction (Figures 2 and 3 of Gorin as interpreted above in the 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 11, Yong teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a dry chamber housing that provides a drying space (Space ‘S” between 110 and 120 of Figure 1); and a substrate processing baffle in the dry chamber housing (Baffle 200), wherein the substrate processing baffle includes: a plate body (Plate body made of 220 and 230 in Figures 1 and 2); wherein the plate body includes: a fine passage exposed on a bottom surface of the plate body (Passages 231); and a coupling hole exposed on a top surface of the plate body (Coupling hole 225 in Figure 3).
Yong is silent with respect to a plurality of partition members combined with the plate body, the plurality of partition members extending in a horizontal direction; and wherein the plurality of partition members are below the coupling hole and spaced apart from each other.
However, Gorin teaches baffle for fluid injection that discloses a plurality of partition members that extend in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the second direction being a horizontal direction (Figures 1-3 with posts 42 that have side faces that intersects the central axis of the plate body of Yong); and wherein the plurality of partition members are lower than the coupling hole and spaced apart from each other (Resultant combination of Yong and Gorin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower side of the plate body of Yong with the partition members of Gorin to increase the chamber volume.
Regarding claim 12, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose that a fixing member that connects the dry chamber housing to the substrate processing baffle (Fixing member 260 as seen in Figure 3), wherein one end of the fixing member is connected to the dry chamber housing, and wherein another end of the fixing member is inserted into the coupling hole (Evident from Figure 3 of Yong).
Regarding claim 13, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Yong and Gorin would further disclose a depth of the coupling hole is less than a thickness of the plate body (Figure 3 of Yong with coupling hole 225 with counter sink), and wherein the coupling hole is not connected to the bottom surface of the plate body (225 of Yong is connect to 220 not 230).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2011-0049986 (Yong) in view of US 4209357 (Gorin) and further in view of US 2013/0145640 (Lee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 but are silent with respect to a dry chuck in the dry chamber housing and downwardly spaced apart from the substrate processing baffle.
However, Lee teaches a substrate treatment method and device that discloses a dry chuck in the dry chamber housing and downwardly spaced apart from the substrate processing baffle (Figure 1 shows the dry chuck 200 and the resultant combination would place this dry chuck beneath the baffle 200 of Yong).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate treatment device of Yong with the dry chuck of Lee to assist in drying and treating the substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Yong’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 but are silent with respect to a supercritical fluid supply that supplies the drying space with a supercritical fluid.
However, Lee teaches a substrate treatment method and device that discloses a supercritical fluid supply that supplies the drying space with a supercritical fluid (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid used in Yong with the supercritical of Lee to increase the drying efficiency of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites “the substrate processing baffle of wherein the plate body includes: a fine passage member that has a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure defining the fine passage; and a coupling member that defines the coupling hole, wherein the fine passage member has a circular shape when viewed in plan, and wherein the coupling member is in the fine passage member.” This limitation would require excessive modifications and hindsight rationale to recreate the claim language as present. Claims 4-6 are dependent from claim 3 and are also objected for being allowable.
Claim 10 recites “a ring-shaped support member combined with an edge of the bottom surface of the plate body, wherein each of the plurality of partition members is connected to the ring-shaped support member.” The further modification of the Yong reference as already modified by Gorin would not be obvious in the Examiner’s point of view. The Yong reference relies on a central mount to secure the plate body and the addition of a ring support would be redundant to the mounting structure of Yong. For at least this reason, dependent claim 10 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 15 recites “the plate body includes: a fine passage member that has a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure defining the fine passage; and a coupling member that defines the coupling hole, wherein the fine passage member has a circular shape when viewed in plan, wherein the coupling member isa plurality of coupling members, and wherein the plurality of coupling members are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction”. This limitation would require excessive modifications and hindsight rationale to recreate the claim language as present. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is objected to as allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 recites “wherein the plate body includes: a fine passage member that has a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure defining a fine passage; and a plurality of coupling members that provide a coupling hole, wherein the fine passage member has a circular shape when viewed in plan, wherein the plurality of coupling members are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction in the fine passage member, wherein the fine passage connects a top surface of the fine passage member to a bottom surface of the fine passage member”. This limitation would require excessive modifications and hindsight rationale to recreate the claim language as present. Therefore, independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18-20 are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights