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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 11/25/2025. Claims 1-2 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN202010475185) in view of Yamanaka (US PGPUB No. 2018/0050436), hereinafter referred to as Okamoto and Yamanaka, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Okamoto discloses a processing apparatus [Okamoto, fig 1, 10] for processing a workpiece in a first processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 13, 101 is the processing chamber and fig 1, A1 showing the first of at least three], comprising:
a chuck table for holding the workpiece thereon [Okamoto, fig 1, 20];
a processing chamber cover [Okamoto, figs 12-13, 102] having a first side plate [Okamoto, fig 13, 104a] with a first delivery port defined therein [Okamoto, figs 13, 103] to allow the chuck table that is holding the workpiece to be delivered therethrough into and out of the first processing chamber [Okamoto, figs 13, 103 allows for delivery of 2 within 103];
a first processing unit for processing the workpiece delivered into the first processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 12, 40A] with a first processing tool [Okamoto, fig 13, 4]; and
a pedestal positioned in the first delivery port when the workpiece is processed in the first processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 2, 30],
wherein the processing chamber cover [Okamoto, fig 13, 102] includes a first transverse member [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B] extending from a lower edge of the first side plate [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B extends from a lower edge of 104a] in a region above the first delivery port [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B is above 103] and in a direction outwardly of the first processing chamber [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B extends outwards from 104a and 102a], whereby the first transverse member defines an enlarged gap between a lower surface of the first transverse member and an upper surface of the pedestal which inhibits processing water from being scattered out of the first processing chamber [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B extends outward and creates a gap and is capable of inhibiting processing water from being scattered out of 101].
Okamoto does not explicitly disclose a first processing water supply unit for supplying first processing water to at least one of the workpiece or the first processing tool when the workpiece is processed in the first processing chamber.
Yamanaka teaches a processing apparatus for processing a workpiece in a first processing chamber [Yamanaka, fig 1, 1], comprising:
a chuck table for holding the workpiece thereon [Yamanaka, fig 1, 300];
a first processing unit for processing the workpiece delivered into the first processing chamber with a first processing tool [Yamanaka, fig 1, 4 which has tool 44]; and
a processing water supply unit [Yamanaka, fig 1, 9] for supplying first processing water to at least one of the workpiece or the first processing tool when the workpiece is processed in the first processing chamber [Yamanaka, figs 1 and 2, 9 and 91 supply water through 4 in channel 90 to the wafer W].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the processing water supply unit through the processing units as taught by Yamanaka to the first processing unit of Okamoto such that the processing unit of Okamoto has the supply through the first processing unit, as taught by Yamanaka, because this processing water source allows for the slurry to be supplied to the processing tool in order to process the wafer as required by the apparatus of Okamoto and allows for an efficient use of space to supply the processing water as evidenced by supplying through the processing tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Okamoto (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN202010475185) teaches further the processing apparatus for processing the workpiece in a second processing chamber in addition to the first processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 1, A2 or A3, which are substantially identical to A1, and thus have at least a second chamber 101 in addition to the first chamber 101 to A1], further comprising:
a second processing unit for processing the workpiece delivered into the second processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 12, 40B] with a second processing tool [Okamoto, fig 13, 4]; and
wherein the processing chamber cover [Okamoto, fig 13, 102] has a second side plate [Okamoto, fig 13, 104a] with a second delivery port defined therein [Okamoto, figs 13, 103] to allow the chuck table that is holding the workpiece to be delivered therethrough [Okamoto, figs 13, 103 allows for delivery of 2 within 103] from the first processing chamber into the second processing chamber or from the second processing chamber into the first processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 1, showing the rotation of A1 to A2 or from A3 to A2],
the pedestal is positioned in the second delivery port when the workpiece is processed in the second processing chamber [Okamoto, fig 2, 30], and
the processing chamber cover [Okamoto, fig 13, 102] includes a second transverse member [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B, being identical to the first chamber] extending from a lower edge of the second side plate [Okamoto, see annotated fig 13, item B extends from a lower edge of 104a].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the processing chamber cover includes a second transverse member extending from a lower edge of the second side plate in a region above the second delivery port and in a direction both inwardly of the first processing chamber and inwardly of the second processing chamber (emphasis added)” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the prior art Hayakawa does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1, respectfully the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Hayakawa reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights