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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing mechanism” in Claim 3. The term “processing mechanism” is vague and has no inherent structure associated with it, making a generic placeholder. The modifier “processing” is completely generic and could describe almost any structure at all. The “processing mechanism” is interpreted to be a liquid source container, supply line, and nozzle to the substrate on the spinner.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “being supported by upper end parts of the plurality of base support members in a posture with a mounting surface finished to allow the substrate processing part to be mounted thereon, facing vertically upward at a separation position away upward from the bottom wall.” It is unclear if “in a posture with a mounting surface finished to allow the substrate processing part to be mounted thereon, facing vertically upward at a separation position away upward from the bottom wall” actually requires the substrate processing part be mounted on the mounting surface since the claim only states “to be mounted.” Further, the “mounting surface” is not clearly associated with the base member or base support members and the structural connection imparted by “in a posture with” is not clear. Since the base member supporting the substrate processing part above the bottom surface is central to the invention, Examiner assumes this specifies something to the effect of: “a base member having rigidity higher than that of the bottom walland supported by upper end parts of the plurality of base support members, the base member having supporting the substrate processing part in a raised position spaced verticallyabove the bottom wall.” Examiner has interpreted Claim 1 as such.
Claim 3 recites “the substrate processing part has: a substrate holder attached to the base member in a posture with a lower end part separated upward from the bottom wall and provided to be rotatable about an axis of rotation extending in a vertical direction while holding the substrate to be substantially horizontal by an upper end part; …” Again, the “in a posture” language is unclear. Further, “a lower end part” is not connected to anything but would appear to be integrally connected to the substrate holder so as to rotably mounted the substrate processing part in the base member. This appears to recite a substrate holder having an upper part and a lower part; the lower part being mounted within the base member for rotation and the upper part configured to support and rotate the substrate.
Claim 4 recites the first holding portion is “configured to hold the motor while being hung from a lower surface of the base member.” Likewise “second holding portion is configured to hold the substrate hold while being hung from the lower surface of the base member.” This is unclear. Does the motor and/or substrate holder actually need hang from the base member or not? Applicant should positively recite the structure and not just imply base member is configured to have a structure hang from it without making it clear if the hanging structure is actually required. Applicant should clearly recite the motor and substrate holder are hung from the first and second hold portions respectively. Because if they are only configured to be hung, but need not actually be, it creates confusion and unclarity about the structure of the device, and how this piece could be placed, but need not be. Presumably to operate, these devices must actually be in place on the base plate at two distinct locations, and this is how the claim is interpreted.
The current language appears to be a literal translation from a foreign filing and Applicant should make an effort to re-write the claims to clearly recite the structure in a manner more consistent with US practice.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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.
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) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11111665 (wherein all textual citations are to English translations provided by the Applicant) in view of JP2007273510 (wherein all textual citations are to English translations provided by the Applicant).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, JPH11111665 teaches a substrate processing apparatus (See paragraph [0001]), comprising:
a chamber configured to surround an internal space by a bottom wall, a sidewall standing from a periphery of the bottom wall, and a ceiling wall covering an upper end part of the sidewall (See Fig. 1 paragraph [0017], teaching a treatment tank [30] bounded on both sides, top and bottom as claimed, and thus being a chamber);
a substrate processing part [10] configured to perform predetermined substrate processing on a substrate by supplying a chemical liquid as a processing liquid onto the substrate while rotating the substrate in a horizontal posture about an axis of rotation extending in a vertical direction (See Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0017]-[0021], teaching a rotating mechanism [10] with an axis of rotation shown to extend vertically and which spreads a chemical liquid implicitly supplied by the system to the wafer [1] to be rotated);
a plurality of base support members [31] standing vertically upward from the bottom wall; and a base member supported by upper end parts of the plurality of base support members and having a mounting surface supporting the substrate processing at a separation position away upward from the bottom wall (See paragraph [0018] and Fig. 1 clearly showing the plurality of mounts [31] supporting a horizontal plate that supports rotating mechanism [10] above the bottom wall of chamber [30], thus making the horizontal plate a base member and its upper surface a mounting surface; Examiner submits the portions [31] below the horizontal plate are base support members, the upper ends of which directly supports the horizontal plate as is clearly recited).
JPH11111665 teaches a standard spin wet processing apparatus wherein the horizonal plate supports the rotating mechanism therein and wherein chemical liquid flows into pockets [40],[50] and down ducts [41],[51] towards the bottom wall of chamber [30] and collected (See Figs. 2(b) and 3(b) paragraphs [0021]-[0024] and [0030]-[0031], and note ducts [41],[51] , which are illustrated as passing vertically below the connection point of the rotating mechanism [10], i.e. below the horizontal base plate, and collected in a “gas-liquid separation box,” which is in the chamber [30] and thus above the bottom wall, and thus is configured as the collecting member in Claim 6), but is silent as to the materials or rigidity of the horizontal plate and the bottom wall. However, in similar wet spin processing devices, it is well known the frame supporting the rotating device, i.e. horizontal plate in JPH11111665, must be rigid and it typically metal, and further, that wet processing liquids are corrosive to metal and thus housing components of such system are typically made of chemically resistant resins (See paragraphs [0005]-[0009]). Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to manufacture the horizontal plate from a rigid metal and the bottom wall from a less rigid plastic. Doing so would have predictably provided adequate rigid support for the rotation mechanism such is known to be desirable while ensuring the bottom wall is corrosion resistant to the chemical liquids that may pool there during spin processing.
Regarding Claim 3, JPH11111665 teaches the rotating mechanism as being support by a lower part within the horizontal plate and having an upper part [11] for supporting the substrate [1] and having a drive unit [12] for rotation (See paragraphs [0017]-[0018] and Fig. 1, and not any rotation drive unit is implicitly a motor with some power transmitter to power said motor, and at the very least, this would have been obvious in describing a drive unit to power rotation). Note is clear from the disclosure some procession mechanism supply liquid to the substrate [1] must be present to supply the chemical liquid to the system, and at the very least this would have been obvious to do so.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: When having a motor and power transmitter as claimed to rotate a vertically suspended rotating mechanism for spinning a wafer in a wet processing device, there is no motivation to separately suspend the motor and power transmitter at separate locations under the base member supported base member and connect the rotation shaft of the motor to the power transmitter via an endless belt around respective pulleys.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suimoto et al. (US 5,591,264) teaches a base member supported by the upper end of a plurality of base support members in a chamber in a wet spin processing device; Kitahara et al. (US 2010/0129546) teaches a base member supporting a substrate processing part, wherein the base member is supported by the upper end of a plurality of base support members in a wet spin processing device; Vermuru et al. (WO 2019/186578) teaches a rotation device for holding substrate supported within a base member supported on top of a plurality of base supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746