DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
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
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-22 are pending in the Amendment filed 05/06/2026.
The prior art rejections of record are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 9, and 15 (requiring “based on the real-time signals and the first and second data, determine target values”).
However, claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks” filed 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to amended claim 1, the step of “based on the real-time signals and the first and second data, determine target values” is not supported by the specification as to the “second data”. The second data, as recited in the claim, is “indicative of an effect of different chemicals in the wet processing tank on the etching rate”, where the “different chemicals” are defined in the specification as (emphasis added), “Controller 80 may have access to similar data indicative of the effect of parameters of different chemicals 20 (e.g., NaOH solution, KOH solution, etc.) on different process outcomes (e.g., speed of cleaning, quality of cleaning, etching rate, quality of etching, etc.).” The amended claim therefore contemplates using the effect of different chemicals than are present in the wet processing tank in order to determine target values for the chemicals that are in the wet processing tank. However, this interpretation is not supported by the description of the “stored data”, which recites “stored data (e.g., data indicative of the effect of the parameters on the process occurring in tank 10” [para. 0022] (emphasis added).
As far as the Examiner can ascertain, determining a target value based on the second data (i.e., the effects of different chemicals not in the tank) would only be beneficial if the process switched to a different chemical in order to effect the etching process. However, the specification does not support changing the chemicals in the wet processing tank to “different chemicals” (e.g., changing the etching process from NaOH solution to a KOH solution). In any case, the specification does not support determining target values of a chemical solution, NaOH for example, based on the etching effect of a different chemical (second data), KOH for example.
Rather than using both the first and second data together, it appears the second data is stored for use in other, different applications of etching processes: “Non-limiting examples of chemical 20 used in different applications include: various concentrations (e.g., 30%, 50%, etc.) of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), various concentrations of Potassium Hydroxide (KOH), various concentrations of Hydrogen Fluoride (HF); various concentrations of Sulfur [para. 0020]. For example, para. 0022 recites “thin glass panels may be etched in tank 10 using a 50% Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) solution”.
Additionally, the only other chemicals in the processing tank (other than the chemical 20) which could be interpreted as “different chemicals” are the reaction byproducts [para. 0018], but the specification does not support a memory storing data indicative of an effect of the byproducts in the wet processing tank on the etching rate.
Claims 2-7 and 19-22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is repeated here.
Claims 10-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is repeated here.
Claims 16-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights