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 .
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 5 and 18 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.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “a roughness value of 0.4 to 5.” The limitation is indefinite, because there are no units. Examiner considers the limitation necessarily met with any surface roughness, since units can be chosen to fit the values to the roughness.
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) 1-7 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ishida et al. (US 2016/0336170) in view of Hohenwarter et al. (WO 2022/084160).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 19, Ishida et al. (US’170) teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a substrate support structure 30 including a spin head, the substrate support structure configured to support a substrate, and rotate the substrate (Figs. 2, 5; [0003,0024,0032,0053]); at least one treating liquid recovery container (recovery cup 50) configured to recover at least one substrate treating liquid [0051]; and a discharging device including a first nozzle and a second nozzle (Abstract), the first nozzle configured to discharge (i.e. capable of discharging) a chemical (e.g. isopropyl alcohol, or IPA) onto the substrate, and the second nozzle configured to discharge (i.e. capable of discharging) deionized water onto the substrate (Abstract; [0056]).
US’170 fails to teach wherein the first nozzle includes a surface pattern configured to provide roughness on an inner surface of the first nozzle. Hohenwarter et al. (WO’160) is analogous art in the field of spin coating and, like US’170, teaches a substrate support structure that spins and a nozzle (Fig. 1; Abstract). Additionally, WO’160 suggests that an internal surface, including the entire internal surface, of the nozzle have a surface roughness of less than or equal to 0.5 micron, including less than or equal to 0.4 micron (p. 16, lines 4-11) and suggests that such a nozzle is capable of dispensing water and/ or isopropyl alcohol to a spinning substrate and is adequately hydrophilic to prevent drips when supply liquid is stopped (p. 1, lines 14-21; p. 7, lines 20-26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus of US’170 with a first nozzle with roughness on an inner surface of the first nozzle (i.e. a surface pattern of roughness), because WO’160 suggests that a nozzle, capable of dispensing IPA onto a spinning substrate, have an internal surface with roughness.
Regarding Claim 3, WO’160 teaches that the entire internal surface of the dispensing nozzle 15 can have a surface roughness (p. 16, lines 9-11), which would have been expected to include an end portion adjacent to a discharge port (tip 16) (Fig. 5; p. 16, lines 23-29).
Regarding Claim 4, WO’160 teaches that the entire internal surface of the dispensing nozzle 15 can have a surface roughness (p. 16, lines 9-11), which would have been expected to include an inner surface of the discharge port (tip 16) (Fig. 5; p. 16, lines 23-29).
Regarding Claim 5, WO’160 teaches a surface roughness of less than or equal to 0.5 micron, including less than or equal to 0.4 micron, including less than or equal to 0.3 micron, or less than 0.2 micron (p. 16, lines 4-11). Applicant includes no units, and the values in WO’160 can be considered to include 0.4-0.5 (in microns) and 2-5 (in decimicrons). Thus, WO’160 either teaches the claimed range or suggests a substantially overlapping range.
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination of US’170 in view of WO’160 fails to teach projections (i.e. roughened areas) with a constant shape or non-constant shape. However, modifications of shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. Moreover, the constant or non-constant geometrical characteristics of a roughened area is obvious to achieve by a choice among obvious machining techniques, including filing, which would be expected to achieve roughness with projections/recesses of non-constant shape, and embossing, which would be expected to achieve roughness with constant shape.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites a method of making components of the claimed apparatus and does not further recite structural features of the claimed apparatus. Because Claim 12 is directed to an apparatus, and not to a method, the recited method and steps are not given significant patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 13, US’170 fails to teach wherein the first or second nozzle includes a surface pattern configured to provide roughness on an inner surface of the first nozzle. WO’160 suggests that an internal surface, including the entire internal surface, of the nozzle have a surface roughness of less than or equal to 0.5 micron, including less than or equal to 0.4 micron (p. 16, lines 4-11) and suggests that such a nozzle is capable of dispensing water and/ or isopropyl alcohol to a spinning substrate and is adequately hydrophilic to prevent drips when supply liquid is stopped (p. 1, lines 14-21; p. 7, lines 20-26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus of US’170 with a first nozzle and a second nozzle with a roughness on an inner surface of the first nozzle (i.e. a surface pattern of roughness), because WO’160 suggests that a nozzle, capable of dispensing IPA or deionized water onto a spinning substrate, have an internal surface with roughness.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of US’170 in view of WO’160 fails to teach that the first nozzle has a roughness value greater than that of the second surface pattern on the inner surface of the second nozzle. However, WO’160 teaches a range of possible roughness values and suggests that a chemical to be sprayed can be IPA or deionized water (p. 16, lines 4-11; p. 1, lines 18-21). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to choose a different roughness for each nozzle within the ranges taught by WO’160, whether as a mere design choice or as a result of routine optimization for the particular chemical being dispensed.
Regarding Claims 15-16, the claimed “chemical” (also IPA, Claim 16) is an aspect of an intended use, not given significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, capable of performing the recited intended use. US’170 and WO’160 both teach IPA, which has a surface tension lower than that of water.
Regarding Claim 17, US’170 teaches that the substrate treating apparatus is capable of drying or permitting the substrate to dry using a chemical [0032,0056,0116-0119] (suppressing drying also suggests drying).
Regarding Claims 18-20, US’170 teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a discharging device including a first nozzle and a second nozzle (Abstract), the discharging device configured to provide (i.e. capable of providing) a substrate treating liquid (e.g. isopropyl alcohol, or IPA) onto a substrate through the first nozzle and the second nozzle, the first nozzle configured to discharge (i.e. capable of discharging) a chemical (e.g. isopropyl alcohol, or IPA) onto the substrate, and the second nozzle configured to discharge (i.e. capable of discharging) deionized water onto the substrate (Abstract; [0056]).
US’170 fails to teach wherein the first nozzle includes a surface pattern configured to provide roughness on an inner surface of an end portion of the first nozzle, adjacent to a discharge portion or on a surface of the discharge port. WO’160 is analogous art in the field of spin coating and, like US’170, teaches a substrate support structure that spins and a nozzle (Fig. 1; Abstract). Additionally, WO’160 teaches that the entire internal surface of the dispensing nozzle 15 can have a surface roughness (p. 16, lines 9-11), which would have been expected to include an end portion adjacent to a discharge port (tip 16) and an inner surface of the discharge port (tip 16) (Fig. 5; p. 16, lines 23-29). WO’160 suggests a surface roughness of less than or equal to 0.5 micron, including less than or equal to 0.4 micron (p. 16, lines 4-11) and suggests that such a nozzle is capable of dispensing water and/ or isopropyl alcohol to a spinning substrate and is adequately hydrophilic to prevent drips when supply liquid is stopped (p. 1, lines 14-21; p. 7, lines 20-26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the substrate treating apparatus of US’170 with a first nozzle with roughness on an inner surface of an end portion of the first nozzle adjacent to a discharge first nozzle (i.e. a surface pattern of roughness) and or on a surface of the discharge port, because WO’160 suggests that a nozzle, capable of dispensing IPA onto a spinning substrate, have an entire internal surface with roughness.
Moreover, WO’160 teaches a surface roughness of less than or equal to 0.5 micron, including less than or equal to 0.4 micron, including less than or equal to 0.3 micron, or less than 0.2 micron (p. 16, lines 4-11). Applicant includes no units, and the values in WO’160 can be considered to include 0.4-0.5 (in microns) and 2-5 (in decimicrons). Thus, WO’160 either teaches the claimed range or suggests a substantially overlapping range.
Regarding Claim 20, WO’160 teaches that the entire internal surface of the dispensing nozzle 15 can have a surface roughness (p. 16, lines 9-11), which would have been expected to include an end portion adjacent to a discharge port (tip 16) (Fig. 5; p. 16, lines 23-29) and an inner surface of the discharge port (tip 16) (Fig. 5; p. 16, lines 23-29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach or to fairly suggest:
a surface pattern including a plurality of projections that have a constant shape, wherein each of the projections includes a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface (Claim 8)
or wherein each of the projections includes a vertical surface and an inclined surface (Claim 11).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712