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 Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) Status
Claim 12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the IDSs filed 01/31/2024, 08/30/2024, and 08/26/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/31/2024 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Specification
The lengthy specification (38 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to recite process steps. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “a state of a distance between an interfering object and the functional component.” It is unclear how “a state of a distance” differs from just the distance between the object and the component. Is “state of a distance” meant to include that the distance is increasing, decreasing, etc.? The specification provides no clarity. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim are impossible to determine.
Claims 2-11 are similarly rejected because they incorporate this indefinite subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
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 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Haas et al. (US 6,788,991 B2).
Claim 1
De Hass et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus configured to process a substrate comprising: a functional component (600) constituting a part of the substrate processing apparatus; a nozzle (channel, 602), provided on a surface of the functional component, allowing a gas to pass therethrough; a nozzle flow path (conduit 606) which is connected to the nozzle of the functional component and through which the gas flows; a flow rate sensor (400, see also 5:66 and claims 46 & 54) configured to measure a flow rate of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path. See Figs. 4, 6-7, and claims 1, 10, 46 & 54).
De Haas additionally teaches: measuring a flow rate of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path to determine the orientation (i.e., relative proximity of one portion of a substrate (200) — the interfering object — and substrate holder (600) – the functional component). Referring to Fig. 6B, if the substrate (200) is misaligned, there will be greater flow on one side (illustrated by the two arrows) than on another side (illustrated by one arrow) because one side of the substrate (200) is closer to the substrate holder (600) than another side. This reads on the claimed “making a determination upon a state of a distance between the interfering object [here, the substrate, 200] and the functional component [here, substrate holder, 600] based on a measurement result obtained by the flow rate sensor.”
Claim 11
De Haas teaches that the nozzle includes multiple nozzles (plurality of channels, 602) and the multiple nozzles are respectively provided at different regions on the surface of the functional component, and a controller (402) makes the determination based on the common flow rate sensor connected to the multiple nozzles [see claims 46 % 54].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Haas et al. (US 6,788,991 B2).
Claims 2-4
De Haas teaches that “any suitable . . . flow rate measurement devices” can be used to make the determination based on the values of a “reference space” (i.e., the substrate holder (600) with or without substrate (200) present [9:66-10:14].
De Haas does not explicitly state that the measurement value of the flow rate sensor is less than a threshold. Nevertheless, based on the teaching of De Haas, this would have been obvious. Since the substrate’s settling into the holder block flow rate through the nozzles, a lower flow rate would indicate the presence of a substrate, and a flow rate between this minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate when no wafer is present, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the determination, based on comparison, of the proximity of the substrate to the holder. Thus, a flow rate below that of maximum no-substrate-present value, allows for determination of the proximity of the substrate to the holder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a comparison in order to determine whether a substrate (1) is present and (2) whether it is seated in the holder properly; which is the point of De Haas’s invention.
Claims 5-7 & 10
De Haas does not specifically teach the use of time series data as a means of comparison or to create a model for such comparison. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correlate a flow rate state to a given period of time to arrive at a steady state indication or model for a well-seated substrate in the holder, or, in the alternative (because it is just the inverse operation) when no substrate is present.
Claims 8-9
De Haas does not explicitly teach the use of mechanical learning through an autoencoder or any other device. Nevertheless, mechanical learning by means of an automated device would have been an obvious expedient to automate the collection of data for comparison.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim13- of U.S. Patent No. 12,610,783 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim(s) anticipate the instant claim(s).
18/427,992
(instant claims)
US 12,610,783 B2
(patented claims)
Claim 1 A state determination method of determining a state of a substrate processing apparatus configured to process a substrate,
wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises a functional component constituting a part of the substrate processing apparatus; a nozzle, provided on a surface of the functional component, allowing a gas to pass therethrough; a nozzle flow path which
is connected to the nozzle of the functional component and through which the gas flows; and a flow rate sensor configured to measure a flow rate of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path, and
wherein the state determination method comprises:
measuring a flow rate of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path; and
making a determination upon a state of a distance between an interfering object and the functional component based on a measurement result obtained by the flow rate sensor.
Claim 13 A state determination method of a substrate transfer apparatus which transfers a substrate, the substrate transfer apparatus comprising: one substrate holder configured to be able to adsorb and hold the substrate via an adsorption port; a nozzle provided on a surface of the one substrate holder and configured to allow gas to pass therethrough; an adsorption flow path connected to the adsorption port and configured to allow gas to flow therethrough at an adsorption time; and a nozzle flow path connected to the nozzle and configured to allow the gas to flow therethrough, the adsorption flow path of at least one of the one substrate holder and another substrate holder and the nozzle flow path being connected to a common gas suction mechanism,
the state determination method comprising:
measuring, using a pressure sensor, a pressure of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path;
measuring, using a flow rate sensor, a flow rate of the gas flowing through the nozzle flow path, wherein the pressure sensor is separate from the flow rate sensor; and
making a determination on a state of a distance between an interferer and the substrate holder based on a measurement result of the pressure and a measurement result of the flow rate.
“A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is . . . anticipated by . . . the reference claim(s).” MPEP § 804(II)(B). In the above table, the Primary Examiner construes the claims as required under MPEP § 804(II)(B)(1). The patented “substrate transferring apparatus” anticipates the claimed “substrate processing apparatus,” the patented “substrate holder” anticipates the claimed “functional component” and the patented “interferer” is equivalent to the claimed “interfering object.” Because the patented method cannot be practiced without also practicing the method of the co-pending claims, US 783 claim 13 anticipates co-pending claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
18 September 2026
Prosecution Insights