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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn
Claims 1-8, 11-12 and 20 are amended
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 2-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s arguments, filed 12-1-25, with respect to the function of the measurement sensor and control unit have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 2 and 20 has been withdrawn. The examiner agrees that the prior art does not teach or render obvious an operation measurement sensor configured to measure an operation of the nozzle driving cylinder, an air supply means configured to supply air to the control valve, and a control unit which is configured measure an operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder, the operation time being defined as a time interval between initiation and completion of the nozzle's movement by the nozzle driving unit, and control the operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder, as in the context of claim 20. Further, the abstract idea of “control the operation time of the nozzle” has been integrated into a particular non-obvious practical application of controlling the time to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder. As a result, the 101 and 103 rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn. Claim 2 recites similar limitations to claim 20 and is therefore found to include allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 20. Claims 3-12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and therefor contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 2.
The examiner called the attorney on 2-18-26 and emailed on 2-27-26 to discuss a possible examiners amendment based on the above discussed allowable subject matter. However, the attorney and examiner were unable to discuss the matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al US 2004/0002784 (US’784).
Regarding claim 1, US’784 teaches a substrate treatment apparatus comprising: a nozzle configured to discharge a chemical solution to a substrate (discharge port 25, para. 69-74, see fig. 3-4); a chemical solution dispenser configured to supply the chemical solution to the nozzle while supporting the nozzle (discharge nozzle arm 24 including pipe 23 for supplying a solution, see fig. 3-4, para 69-74); and a nozzle driving unit comprising a nozzle driving cylinder (cylinder 74) configured to move the nozzle (lower part of arm motor 72 is connected to movable part 73, The cylinder 74 is adapted to move the movable part 73 vertically, para. 73, see. Fig. 4), the nozzle driving unit being configured to adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder (the air flowing through the pipe 78 is adjusted to a predetermined speed, based on the speed of air measured by the detectors of the respective control valves 75a and 75b, control valves 75a and 75b control the cylinder to move up and down, para. 73-74).
US’784 does not teach to measure an operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder, the operation time being defined as a time interval between initiation and completion of the nozzle's movement by the nozzle driving unit; and control the operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder. However, the examiner notes that the steps of measuring and controlling based on the measured operation reads as the intended use of the apparatus and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicants’ specification describes measurement sensor 125 control unit 200 and control valve 135 as being the structure required for carrying out the measuring and controlling. Since claim 1 does not recited the sensor, control valve or control unit as structural elements, the measuring and controlling limitations only describe how the nozzle drive unit is used. As long as the nozzle driving unit of the prior art is capable of having a flow rate adjusted, it is capable of being adjusted for any reason. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the nozzle drive unit taught by the prior art and the nozzle drive unit claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use.
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of US’784 teaches the substrate treatment apparatus of claim 1. US’784 further teaches a chamber providing a substrate treatment space (spin processing unit, para. 55-59, see fig. 1); and a substrate support unit disposed at a lower portion of the substrate treatment space and configured to support the substrate (holding part holds the substrate, para. 66-67, see fig. 4).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 to include subject matter regarding measuring an operation time and controlling and air flow rate has changed the scope of claims 1 and 20. The 103 rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the teachings of US’784 still appear to read on the claimed invention therefore a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 102 as anticipated by US’784.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12-1-25, with respect to the function of the measurement sensor, control valve and control unit have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 2 and 20 has been withdrawn. The examiner agrees that the prior art does not teach or render obvious an operation measurement sensor configured to measure an operation of the nozzle driving cylinder, an air supply means configured to supply air to the control valve, and a control unit which is configured measure an operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder, the operation time being defined as a time interval between initiation and completion of the nozzle's movement by the nozzle driving unit, and control the operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder, as in the context of claim 20. Further, the abstract idea of “control the operation time of the nozzle” has been integrated into a particular non-obvious practical application of controlling the time to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder. As a result, the 101 and 103 rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12-1-24 regarding the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, US’784 does not teach to measure an operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder, the operation time being defined as a time interval between initiation and completion of the nozzle's movement by the nozzle driving unit; and control the operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder to be within a predetermined reference time range based on the measured operation time of the nozzle driving cylinder by adjusting an air flow rate of an air flow which is input to the nozzle driving cylinder. However, the examiner notes that the steps of measuring and controlling based on the measured operation reads as the intended use of the apparatus and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicants’ specification describes measurement sensor 125 control unit 200 and control valve 135 as being the structure required for carrying out the measuring and controlling. Since claim 1 does not recited the sensor, control valve or control unit as structural elements, the measuring and controlling limitations only describe how the nozzle drive unit is used. As long as the nozzle driving unit of the prior art is capable of having a flow rate adjusted, it is capable of being adjusted for any reason. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the nozzle drive unit taught by the prior art and the nozzle drive unit claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use. Claim 2 recites the required structure for performing the functional limitations and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter, as discussed above.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights