DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/06/2026.
4. Claims 1 and 4-9 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
6. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
7. Claim 9 has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (US 2021/0181638) in view of Hirose (JP 2013148480).
Regarding claim 1:
Yamauchi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (resist coating apparatus) [fig 1-4 & 0019] comprising: a nozzle (discharge nozzle, 33a) that discharges a processing liquid (resist liquid) to a substrate (W) to be processed that is held by a substrate holding device (spin chuck, 11) [fig 1 & 0024]; a pipe (liquid supply pipe, 41) connected to the nozzle (33a) [fig 2-3 & 0027]; a protective pipe (gas pipe, 40) that surrounds an outer periphery of the pipe (41) [fig 2-3 & 0027]; a nozzle driver (drive mechanism, 32) that moves the nozzle (33a) [fig 2 & 0025]; a unit base (bottom wall, 10a) that is arranged below the substrate holding device 11) [fig 2 & 0023].
Yamauchi does not specifically disclose a leak sensor that is arranged below the unit base, wherein a groove into which a part of the pipe is fitted is formed in the unit base, a drawin hole that vertically penetrates the unit base and guides a leak liquid from the pipe to the leak sensor is formed in the groove, and the leak sensor detects the leak liquid from the pipe that has passed through the drain hole.
Hirose teaches a leak sensor (34) that is arranged below the unit base (21/23), wherein a groove (annular groove between 21 and 23) into which a part of the pipe (24) is fitted is formed in the unit base (21/23), a drain hole (hole through which leaked fluid A/B passes) that vertically penetrates the unit base (21/23) and guides a leak liquid from the pipe (24) to the leak sensor (34) is formed in the groove (annular groove between 21 and 23), and the leak sensor (34) detects the leak liquid from the pipe (24) that has passed through the drain hole (hole through which leaked fluid A/B passes) [fig 3 & 0025-0026, 0036].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the unit base of Yamauchi to have a groove and drain hole and a leak sensor arranged therebelow, as in Hirose, because such a structure directs leaked fluid to the leak sensor to detect small amounts of leakage at low cost without visual recognition from an operator [Hirose – 0032-0033].
Regarding claims 4-5:
Yamauchi does not specifically teach a vat that is arranged below the unit base and receives the leak liquid from the pipe that has passed through the drain hole, wherein the leak sensor is provided in the vat; and wherein the vat has a tapered shape, and the leak sensor is provided at a lowest position in a tapered portion of the vat.
Hirose teaches a vat (drain pan, 33) that is arranged below the unit base (21/23) and receives the leak liquid from the pipe (24) that has passed through the drain hole (hole through which leaked fluid A/B passes), wherein the leak sensor (34) is provided in the vat (33) [fig 3 & 0026]; and wherein the vat (33) has a tapered shape (gradually inclined downward), and the leak sensor (34) is provided at a lowest position in a tapered portion of the vat (most recessed portion, 38) [fig 3 & 0026].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Yamauchi to further comprise a vat having a tapered shape with the sensor provided at a lowest position in the tapered vat, as in Hirose, to direct leaks to the leak sensor [Hirose – 0026-0027].
Regarding claims 6-7:
Yamauchi teaches the protective pipe (40) has a bellows shape (bellows shape) [fig 2-4 & 0043]; and a holder (35) that holds a valley portion of the bellows of the protective pipe (40) [fig 2].
Although taught by the Yamauchi (i.e. 35 holds all portions of 40, whether directly or indirectly), the portion of the bellows held by the holder is an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to hold any portion of the bellows, since applicant has not disclosed that holding the valley portion of the bellows solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well holding another portion of the bellows 40 [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 9:
Yamauchi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (resist coating apparatus) [fig 1-4 & 0019] comprising: a nozzle (discharge nozzle, 33a) that discharges a processing liquid (resist liquid) to a substrate (W) to be processed [fig 1 & 0024]; a pipe (liquid supply pipe, 41) connected to the nozzle (33a) [fig 2-3 & 0027]; a protective pipe (gas pipe, 40) that has a bellows shape (formed in a bellows shape) and surrounds an outer periphery of the pipe (41) [fig 2-4 & 0027, 0043]; and a holder (35) that holds a valley portion between a mountain portion and another mountain portion of a bellows of the protective pipe (40) [fig 2]; a nozzle driver (drive mechanism, 32) that moves the nozzle (33a) [fig 2 & 0025].
Although taught by the Yamauchi (i.e. 35 holds all portions of 40, whether directly or indirectly), the portion of the bellows held by the holder is an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to hold any portion of the bellows, since applicant has not disclosed that holding the valley portion of the bellows solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well holding another portion of the bellows 40 [MPEP 2144.04].
Yamauchi does not specifically teach a leak sensor that detects a leak liquid from the pipe.
Hirose teaches a leak sensor (34) that detects a leak liquid from the pipe (24) [fig 3 & 0026, 0036].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Yamauchi to comprise a leak sensor, as in Hirose, to detect small amounts of leakage at low cost without visual recognition from an operator [Hirose – 0032-0033].
10. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (US 2021/0181638) in view of Hirose (JP 2013148480) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, and 9 above, and further in view of Higashijima et al (US 2017/0200624).
The limitations of claims 1, 4-7, and 9 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Yamauchi teaches a nozzle head (nozzle head, 33) to which the nozzle (33a) is attached and that is moved by the nozzle driver (32) [Yamauchi - fig 2 & 0027], wherein the protective pipe (40) surrounds an outer periphery of a plurality of the pipes (plurality of liquid supply pipes 41 may be encompassed in the gas pipe 40) [Yamauchi - fig 2-3 & 0045].
Modified Yamauchi does not specifically disclose the nozzle being a plurality of nozzles, wherein the plurality of pipes are respectively connected to the plurality of nozzles.
Higashijima teaches a plurality of nozzles (41 may be a plurality of nozzles), wherein the plurality of pipes (pipes from 70a-70d) are respectively connected to the plurality of nozzles (41 may be a plurality of nozzles corresponding to the processing liquids respectively) [fig 1 & 0056, 0058].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of pipes of modified Yamauchi to be respectively connected to a plurality of nozzles, as in Higashijima, to enable independent delivery of a plurality of processing liquids [Higashijima – 0058].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 6-7 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1 and 6-7 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hirose does not disclose “a nozzle that discharges a processing liquid to a substrate to be processed that is held by a substrate holding device; a pipe connected to the nozzle” because 32 of Hirose is a drain hose. Therefore, 32 is not equivalent to the claimed pipe.
In response, it is noted that applicant has misinterpreted the rejection of record. Nowhere does the rejection of record assert that 32 of Hirose is equivalent to the claimed pipe. 24 of Hirose is equivalent to the claimed pipe.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Yamauchi et al (US 2021/0181638) remedy anything lacking in Hirose as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wen (US 2014/0034238) teaches a drain hole that vertically penetrates the unit base is formed in the groove [fig 7]. Wei et al (CN 102129956A), Ma (CN 114121729A), and Zhu et al (CN 216902813) teach a leak sensor [fig 2, 5, and 1, respectively].
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights